CENSUS census. Synchronous enumerations of the population, though suggested on several occasions by eminent men of science, were •generally discouraged, probably on the grounds set forth by St Simon, who held that “these impious operations have always irritated the Creator and brought down His heavy hand upon those who ordained them.” At all events, although prescribed by the French Convention in 1791 and byits successor in 1793, the census, as we now understand it, is the offspring of the 19th century. France and England led the way in 1801 ; most of the German states were enumerated in 1816, and shortly afterwards Scandinavia improved on modern lines its already existing system. The United States of America incorporated the periodical census into their Constitution in 1787 ; but the first enumeration, in 1790, was substantially little more than an experiment. Leaving out of consideration the Turkish dominions, the census at stated intervals has now become the practice of all European States. Kussia, the last to adopt it, completed its first enumeration in 1897, the operations embracing a population of 129 millions in two continents. The efforts of statisticians of all countries have been for some time directed towards the establishment of uniformity in the results derivable from the census, and by international conferences a considerable degree of success has been attained. As regards the primary facts to be ascertained, comparison is now very generally possible ; and information as to sex, age, civil condition, birthplace, and certain infirmities is becoming of more value at each period. In each country, moreover, special information has to be acquired at the census on topics of local importance which are not equally susceptible of international comparison. For example, many if not most of the European schedules provide columns for one or more of such subjects as mother-tongue, nationality, illiteracy, religious denomination, military service ; and in Russia, for the recognized social grades; and in France, for the number of children in each family. Occupation, again, is recorded at nearly all enumerations, though not invariably upon a uniform system nor enjoying so much confidence as to accuracy as the rest. There are, finally, diffenences of practice as regards the mode of obtaining the record, whether by official agency or on the responsibility of the householder, and in some countries the figure of the actual, in others of the legal, population is the object in view. On the whole, the practical value of periodical enumeration has now been recognized throughout the civilized world, although, for financial or political reasons, the census has not yet become a universal institution. From the following table it will be seen that the great lacunae in this branch of statistics are to be found in the Far East, on the one hand, and amongst the tropical states of the Old and Hew Worlds on the other :— Population (in thousands). Percentage Continent. Enumerated Enumerated. 1 Estimated. (1901). Europe 98-4 387,308 6,314 Asia . 323,569 37-0 550,713 Africa 19,741 144,578 12-3 America 135,118 92-8 10,543 Oceania 4,771 84-5 881 Total
870,507
713,029
55-0
(j. A. B.) United States.—The United States census of 1870 probably marked the lowest ebb of census work in the United States. Its accuracy was generally denied by competent scholars both in and out of the census office. This unfortunate result was due partly to the unsatisfactory character of the law imposing the local work upon officials already burdened with other duties and not subject to the control of the census office, and partly to the disturbed condition of the Southern states immediately after the Civil War. The serious errors were errors of omission, were probably confined to the Southern states, and were especially frequent among the negroes. Since 1870 the development of census work in the United States has been steady and rapid. The law, which had been prepared for the census of 1870 by a committee of the House of Kepresentatives with much care, skill, and ability, but which had failed of enactment at the last moment in the Senate, furnished a basis for greatly improved legislation in 1879, under which the tenth census was taken. By this law the census office for the first time was allowed to call into existence and to control an adequate local staff of supervisors and enumerators. The scope of the work was
635
so extended as to make the twenty-two quarto volumes of the tenth census almost an encyclopsedia, not only of the population, but also of the products and resources of the United States. Probably no other census in the world has ever covered so wide a range of subjects, and perhaps none except that of India and the eleventh American census has extended through so many volumes. The topics usually contained in a census suffered from the great addition of other and less pertinent matter, and the reputation of the work was unfavourably affected by the length of time required to prepare and publish the volumes (the last ones not appearing until near the end of the decade), the original underestimate of the cost of the work, which made frequent supplementary appropriations necessary, the resignation of the superintendent, Francis A. Walker, in 1882, and the disability and death of his successor, Charles W. Seaton. The eleventh census was taken under a law almost identical with that of the tenth, and extended through twenty-five large volumes, presenting a work almost as encyclopaedic, but much more distinctively statistical. The popular opinion of a census, at least in the United States, depends largely upon the degree to which its figures for the population of the country, of states, and especially of cities, meet or fail to meet the expectations of the interested public. Judged by this standard, the census of 1890 was less favourably received than that of 1880. The enumerated population of the country in 1880 was larger than had been anticipated; and in the face of these figures it was difficult for local complaints, even where they were made, to find hearing and acceptance. But according to the eleventh census the decennial rate of growth of population fell suddenly from over 30 per cent., which the figures had shown between 1870 and 1880, and in every preceding decade of the century except that of the Civil War, to less than 25 per cent., in spite of an immigration nearly double that of any preceding decade. For this change no adequate explanation was offered by the census office. Hence the protests of those who believed that the figures for population were too small swelled into a general chorus of dissatisfaction. But the census was probably more correct than the critics. Most of the motives influencing popular estimates of population in the United States tend to exaggeration. The convention which drafted the Constitution of the United States attempted to secure a balance of interests by apportioning both representatives in Congress and direct taxes according to population. A passage in The Federalist suggests the motives of the convention as follows :— As the accuracy of the census to be obtained by Congress will necessarily depend in a considerable degree on the disposition if not co-operation of the states, it is of great importance that the states should feel as little bias as possible to swell or reduce the amount of their numbers. Were their share of representation alone to be governed by this rule, they would have an interest in exaggerating their inhabitants. Were the rule to decide their share of taxation alone, a contrary temptation would prevail. By extending the rule to both objects the states will have opposite interests, which will control and balance each other, and produce a requisite impartiality. With the disappearance of direct taxation as a source of federal revenue, the motive mentioned for understating the population disappeared. On the other hand, the desire for many representatives in Congress has been reinforced by the more influential feelings of local pride and of rivalry with other cities of somewhat similar size. Hence a complaint that the population is overstated is seldom heard, and hence, also, popular charges of an undercount afford little evidence that the population was really larger than stated by the census. After the detailed tabulation had been completed, it
