CENSUS RETURNS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXIII, Issue 7645, 24 May 1886, Page 3 (Supplement)

CENSUS RETURNS.

. » POPULATION OF AUCKLAND AND SUBURBS 02,000. The returns for the City of Auckland comprised within the borough boundaries were completed late on May 20, and Mr. John King, the enumerator, was enabled to send off the results by wire to the Registrar-General. Tho work in this district has this year been dill-cult and heavy, and this has somewhat delayed the completion of tho returns. Mr. King has had in his charge tho largest district in the colony, aud has worked with much care and assiduity, lie has been ably assisted by his stall of office assistants and sub-enumerators. Mr. King has etill to complete the returns for Rodney, Waiteniata, Franklin North, and Franklin South. COMPARISON WITH OTHER CITIES. The returns of the population of Auckland have caused general surprise in Auckland, as it was not believed, even by the most sanguine colonist, that either the city or the immediate suburbs would exhibit such enormous growth in the brief space of live years as the figures show. Taking the suburbs close to the city, the population has grown from 11,723 to 20,41»5. or just about double, whilst that within the city proper has risen from 25,070 to 37,200, the two together showing an increase from a total of 37,303 in 1&S1, to 00,016 in ISS6. There can be no shadow of doubt or question about the aboveinentioned figures, as the boundaries and areas for tho two periods, in 1881 and ISBO, are the same for the aggregates given, and to-day only the near suburbs are counted, exclusive of Onehunga, Weat Tamaki, Mount Wellington, &c. But to the total abovementioned may reasonably bo added Northcoto and Birkenhead, newlysettled suburbs, peopled by persons in business or connected with those in the city proper, and analogous to the suburbs counted by Dunedin in her returns. This makes our total population over 62,000 souls, exclusive of tho places mentioned already as having been excluded. For purposes of comparison we keep to this limited area, as some of our Southern contemporaries have lately been endeavouring to explain away our progress and prosperity, on the ground that it lias been brought about by fictitious causes, and therefore can only be ot a temporary character. The figures published however, will at once open their eyes to the fact that the progress is of a very substantial character, and that there is nothing fictitious about the matter, especially when it is remembored that the census was taken here when everyone was complaining of depressed times, and after shipments of "unemployed" builders aud artisans had left lor Sydney and other places men who are now beginning to find tS«ir way back again to Auckland. The . progress wo believe to be of the most permanent and satisfactory character, and the natural increase alone of our population will in tho future maintain the city in the leading position it has once again obtained. Comparing Auckland with other towns in New Zealand, and taking the population within a radius of two and a half or three miles, including Northcote, but excluding all distant suburbs and Onehunga, we liud the population to be in round numbers :— Auckland .. .. .. .. 62.000 Duncdln .. .. .. .. 4by.:es Christchurch .. .. ... .. 39,000 Wellington .. .. .. .. 27,0u0 The other towns in the colony, do not come near the above figures, although Napier has made wonderful progress, and has now a population of SSBO persons. Indeed, throughout tho North Island, so far as tho figures are known at present, there has been real and sound progress and growth, whilst in tho South there has been a serious check to tho increase of population, but only, we believe, of a temporary nature. We can find no record of progress in the southern hemisphere, of late years, equal to that made by Auckland from ISSI to ISB6. The suburbau districts have doubled their population, but taking the city and suburbs together we find that the increase represents (12 per cent. A similar percentage was not reached in Melbourne and suburbs during the ten years between IS7I and 18S1, although the metropolitan population formed a larger proportion of the total population in Victoria than it did in any other of the Australasian colonies. That is to say, Auckland progressed in five years by 62 per cent., and Melbourne in ten years by 37 per cent. Sydney, however, in ten years increased her population by 64 per cent., which is a long way below the record of Auckland, although it is in advance of Melbourne. f It is almost impossible to make a fair comparison of the population of each of the principal cities in the several colonies, because the most reliable authority, Mr. Hayter, has taken a ten-mile radius in the case of Melbourne, Sydney, and Adelaide as the basis for his returns of " city" populations, which we think embraces an excessive area, but we have do other figures to rely upon beyond those published in his year book, la the matter of the population o

Adelaide, even Mr. Hayter is unreliable, and Contradicts his own figures without a note of explanation, or any apparent reason. We therefore prefer to give the estimates of population as we have been able to calculate them, leaving Melbourne and Sydney to their ten-mile radius, but limiting the area of Adelaide to that of Auckland, Dunedin, Brisbane, and other towns. Acting upon this estimate we make the population to.be at follows in round numbers :— 1. Melbourne ~ 322.690 2. Sydney .. .. «• - 207,193 3. Auckland 62,000 4. Adelaide ■• 60 >°° 0 6. Brisbane „ .. .. ~ *°. 00l) 6. Hobirt 30,000 7. Perth 7,000 Tho above are now the principal cities in the seven colonies of Australasia. In the matter of the population of Adelaide wo have excluded all the distant suburbs such as Port Adelaide (seven and a-balf miles from the city), Glenelg, &c, &c. Even then we are at a loss to know the real population. For instance, Mr. Hayter in his yearly books for 1882 3 and 1883 4 gave the total population of the city, by the census of 1881, as 67,954 ; but in his latest work, published in December last, lie gives tho population for the same year, for the same city, as 103,861, and estimates the population at present at 1*23,538! But in his former volumes he distinctly status that the 67.954 people are, according to the census of 18S1, "the number of inhabitants living in the suburbs as well as those resident within the corporate limits." This we take to mean within the great ten-mile circle. But upon reference to Gordon and Gotah's handbook for ISS6 (page 113), it is there stated that the population of Adelaide at the census of 1881, exclusive of she suburbs, was 35.479, and it is added "the population within a ten-mile radius of the post office is believed to approximate 80,000." It is generally believed that there tias been no great increase in Adelaide lately, as the excess of departure!! over arrivals was recently given in a Melbourne paper as 10,000 persons within two years. Where, then, docs Mr. Hayter obtain his sudden jump of population from 67,054 to an estimate of 123,538 souls ? Turning to another autnority, VVhitaker'a Almanac, we find the population of Adelaide in 1881 stated at 37,892, and the near suburbs as 10,087, making a total of nearly 45,000. We have therefore placed Auckland third in the list of cities iu Oceana, although explanations by Mr. Hayter may possibly alter the relative positions of Adelaide and Auckland. We do not know what the population of Auckland is outsido the three-mile radius, and within the ten-mile circle, but it is not near the estimate formed of Adelaide by the recent figures quoted by Mr. Hayter. AUCKLAND CITY. The following table shows the population of the different districts of the city, the totals by the census of 1831, with, the numerical and centesimal increase :—

In regard to City East, which shows a slight decrease, we have to explain that this arises from the removal of dwelling houses in Emily Place to allow of the cutting down of the street, and to the erection in some parts of warehouses (where nobody resides) for dwelling-houses. The other districts all show large increases, the largest being Ponaonby, which shows an increase of nearly 100 per cent. The population of Ponsonby by the census of IS7B, was 2704. Grafton is the next, owing to the large amount of building that has taken place about the top of tho Grafton Road and Kyber Pass Road. The returns from the wharf and shipping give a total of 4000, but we understand that as regards this item some checking and revision has yet to be done. The abovo table comprehends the city proper, and we now give a table showing the population of tho suburbs lying close around the city. As might have been expected, the largest increases to the population of the distriot have been in these places. The old city .yards, indeed, did not admit of any vast growth in population, as they were before pretty well covorcd with buildings. THE SUBURBS. The following are the populations of the suburban districts:—

Kawtiu .... 27 12 39 64 Totals .. ..13,200 12,572 25,792 12,468 In regard to the above table, certain explanations have to be made. The Mount Eden district in the last census included the district of Epsom, so that the 605 persons now in Epsom must be taken account of in any comparison. At laßt census Devonport included Birkenhead, Northcote, and the Lake; while Newmarket at last census included Remuera, The largest proportional increase'is in Newton. It was at last census a highway district, but is now a borough, but tho boundaries are presisely the same. The great increase is due to the fact that the Surrey Hills estate, which was in ISSI quite unoccupied, has now on it considerable population. Mount Albert has risen from 1540 to 1414, an increase of considerably over 100 per cent. This was only to be expected from the large amount of building which has taken place in that district. Even Parnell, which was supposed to be quite stagnant, shows an iuorease of 1143. Tho population of the suburban districts given in the above total has, it will be seen, increased from 12,46s to 25,792, or rather * more than doubled.

§ <£ l CO co f- irt !■« o> 3 2 I -a • 00 to yt [ D f a loo b« O 1 L C5 g a 1 rH <N O g* ■*+ CO j3~ I "OS •S 5 o § , co s s g s 2 00 W i S>_ o> K i- * *- p rH CO N £ M I I *"? - I o -* •* OO CO Ci I o * I i. :i n O -*i co i *» r m Q® 1 * O r "l •=> ,f l 1 © J [l H»-< ira to »0 •« OO ri" I «s I (M »-J - I (35 o» h to h loolo J* >7* I era 9L> C5 CO »-H lO I O O I O O Sim. 1 CO (M O CR iO *1 _ 1 °l O> 1 °"i Er' r** ttT s n V (N ' I CO V I i-" S I co I co 9 *rt O 00 tO b- CO r-< A <-> i— o i- '.- co ' • r * c O so co o cj rH » » I » 9 O) CO Cl" V W »-f t»4 o co CO po -* CO © *-? cooociioooi f a I . c« ■*» o o a> (M O i ■ u* S5 CO* CO cf co N 1-1 I - - - - - : . ; to .5 d ;i .a .t :s : : S : 5 ® w d •« , ™ * 3 « „ s • a ! y oSaxjos- a _ < £ * W § £ J *2 •*• -bi?J?22« .3 £ « I? ■- o S •> •=! H 5 5 5 £ i; M o o o a> « o ?

Male Famala Total Totl1 tauiaia. lgg(j lg8l Parnell Borough .. 2,332 2,343 675 3.532 Mount Eden .. 1,584 1,564 3,133 2,119 l>ivonport .. .. 1,2»2 1,348 2,630 1,923 Newmarket.. .. 933 891 1,824 1,099 Newton Borough .. 821 892 1,813 204 Remuora... .. 85S 925 1,783 — Aichhlll ... .. 807 701 1,028 1,011 Eden Terrace .. 781 739 1,623 54" Mount Albert .. 741 673 1,414 CIO One-Troj llill .. 377 302 059 — Epsom .. .. 299 306 C05 — i'oint Chevalier ... 323 196 519 307 Mount lloskill .. *234 201 435 3J6 liirkouhead and NortUeote .. .. 518 462 1,010 — Lake.. .. _ 230 210 410 — Kaukapak&pa .. 241 160 : 404 311 Waikoniiti 189 138 ! 327 175 Wailieko Island .. £3 63 1*6 192 Motutajju .... 7 3 10 8