Charlton & Newbottle History Society -1911 Census
On 15th January 2010 the History Society met to analyse the 1911 Census which is now available on line. Four groups worked their way through the census returns, looking at occupations, the size of households, the size of the houses and the age structure of the population. The society had done a similar study comparing 1861, 1891 and the results of the millennium survey, in 1998.

Population: the total for Charlton and Newbottle went down from 527 to 407 between 1861 and 1911, which is typical of most rural communities, whose populations tended to peak at 1851 and get smaller thereafter. The average size of Charlton households was 4.83 persons in 1861, and 2.28 in 1998, so as might be expected, it had gone down to 4.03 in 1911. Mobility had increased in 1911, with more inhabitants who had not been born in the village or within 5 miles.
Housing: given the very large numbers of people living in very small houses (typically 1 down, 2 up), many of which have now been pulled down or amalgamated, we were surprised to find that the average number of rooms was 4.53 in 1911. Even when Charlton Lodge (24), Newbottle Manor (23) and The Cottage (11) were taken out, the average was still 4.03, as there were plenty of bigger houses with between 5 – 10 rooms.
Occupation and social mix: the great contrast between 1861 and 1911 is the change in occupations because of the three big gentry houses, none of which were present in 1861. (Newbottle Manor was a tenanted farm-house, Charlton Lodge had not been enlarged into the big Victorian house we see now, and the Cottage was a couple of separate small farmhouses.) In 1861 15% (10) of female occupations were ‘in service’ as domestic servants, and 47% were lacemakers and spinsters (meaning they spun thread rather than being unmarried). In 1911 76% (31) of females were ‘in service’, as domestic servants, and lace-making had disappeared. It is thought that in all censuses women’s occupations were under-recorded: many wives have no occupation listed, though they were probably working in some way or another. In1861 60.6% (86) of all males were working on the land; among whom the largest group were ‘Ag labs’ (Agricultural labourers), 47.9% of the total. In 1911 54% (78) of all males were working on the land; 19% (28) were ‘in service’, as domestic servants, grooms, gardeners and chauffeurs.
Age structure: in 1861 50% of the population was under 20, with the largest cohort 0 – 10 years (29%). In 1911 41% was under 20 years. By contrast, in 1998 the largest cohort was 51 – 60, (19%) with only 13% under 10.

Surnames: we looked at the stability of the population, as shown by the number of families who remained in the parish through this period. In 1861 there were 56 different surnames in the parish (in a population of 527) which had increased to 70 in 1911 (in a population of 407). Of these 26 names appeared in all three censuses, and the table shows the most frequent family names:

Paul Hayter, Deborah Hayter & Diana Sheasby January 2010