LONDON'S POPULATION.

Press, Volume LII, Issue 15489, 17 January 1916, Page 3

LONDON'S POPULATION.

CITY NO LONGER THE WORLD'S METROPOLIS... CTROIT A CORRESFOKDINT.) LONDON, December 4. • London, war-vexed and worried, has just had another nasty jolt. The of the world" has discovered that it isn't' such anj longer, but must yield this proud distinction to New York, which is bigger by about a quarter of a million people. Nor are matters improved, as Londoners have fondly imagined, by comparing the population- of Greater London with that of Greater New York, for there again the American metropolis beats the older city to the tune of over 132,000. It is four wholo years now since ■ the last census of London was taken, but the saddening ot&cjal figures have only just been made public. These figures reveal, among other things, the astonishing fact that a gigantic blunder was made previously in estimating the population. The census revealed that there were actually only some 4£ millions within the County .of London • (which means London proper), but the London County Council and other local authorities had been estimating that the population -was 390,000 moro ; and accordingly all statistics as to births and deaths have been inaccurate. The exact number of people in the County of London, according to these 1911 figures, is 4,521,358, whereas New York City, in 1910, numbered 4,766,883. Counting in "extra-Lon-don," as it is termed (that is, London outside the county), the population of thc_erstwhile metropolis of the world is 7,251,358, whereas that of Greater New \_ork, including the Westchester and New Jersey suburbs, was, at the last census, 7.383,871. Considering, however, that the latter count was made in 1914, three years later than London's most recent enumeration, the probability is that the biggest cities of the Old and the New World are now just about neck to neck. Next in order comes Paris, with 2,816,986, and then Chicago -with 2,185,283, Tokio, with 2,168,151, and Berlin, 2,064,153. To study the growth of London as r©r vealed by the new figures, is interesting. In 1801, Greater London contained only 1,114,644 1 persons, the present number thus, indicating an ' increase of iiol per cent. The popula,tion of ''extra-London" (London outside the county) increased very slowly up to 1851, and then went ahead with corresponding rapidity. In each of the three decades, 1861-71, 1871-81, and 1881-91, it added 50 per cent, or over. Between 1801-1851 it doubled; it nearly doubled again between 1871 and 1891, and almost did the trick again between 1891 and 1911.

In a hundred years, many of tho London districts have come into being, but it is quito curious to find that Westminster, which had 160,000 inhabitants in 1801, and afterwards increased, has now gone back to that population. It speedily roso during tho last century, and hps almost as rapidly declined, the drop in population being explained by conversion of dwellings into business places. All central London districts are declining i n population and j developing into business centres. ! Women preponderate in the census ; returns. * In London there are 1127 'of them to every 1000 men, though in "extra-London" the proportion is [slightly higher, namely, 1132. In 1 Hampitead there are as many as 1606 women to 1000 men. The tendency is for families to decrease, the average per family now being 4.17 persons. The ! fluctuations are surprising, varying from 4.66 in Stepney and 4.49 j n Poplar to 3.11 m Holborn and 3.71 i n Marylebone. In "extra-London" families are slightly larger, averaging 4.43 persons per family. ' There are 573,265 inhabited houses in London and 494,557 in "extra-London.-' Roughly. 75 per cent, of the people live in ordinary dwelling-houses. 10 per cent, in flats, and 7 per cent, in shops. > It seems that "Cockneys" obey the advice of 'W eller to beware of widows, for it is revealed that whilst widowed persons number 75.000 males, the females number 200.000. which, as the Council observed, is "an exceptionally great excess." /