Chapter 38

Population

Until the national census began in 1801 reliable population figures are impossible to ascertain. We know that there were some 160 names in Cockermouth in 1215, and that the population rose during the 12th, 13th and 15th centuries, with declines in the mid-14th and 16th centuries. [1] Fluctuations were caused by economic factors, by outbreaks of plague, etc.

In 1641 Cockermouth had 256 adult males, from which we can estimate a population of just under a thousand. There were 235 houses in the town in 1714, but an estimate of the population cannot be made from this figure as houses frequently held more than one family, as in 1801 when 690 families lived in 417 houses. [2] By 1785 the population had risen to 2652 in 663 families.

From 1801 figures are more definite:

1801- 2865 1851- 5775 1901- 5355 1951- 5203

 The doubling of population in the first half of last century followed a national trend. Recent figures show greater growth in Cockermouth than in Cumberland:

1951 – population 5203

1956 – population 5310 increase of 2.1% – the County increased by 1.2%

1961 – population 5810 increase of 9.4% – the County increased by 2.2%

1966 – population 6140 increase of 5.7% – the County increased by 1.5%

1971 – population 6350 increase of 3.4% – the County increased by 2.2%

2003 – population 8270 increase of 30.2%

The change in the Rural District around Cockermouth has been very drastic, 19,530 in 1950 falling by almost half to 10,866 in 1962, partly because of boundary changes. [3]

The drift from the area is no new development. Over 100,000 people left the county in the period 1841-91, partly offset by Irish immigrants, and in 1877 the press commented that over 100 born and bred in Cockermouth left every year to work elsewhere. [4]

The registers of Cockermouth began in 1632, those of Lorton in 1538, Brigham 1563 and Embleton 1625. At times entries included a man’s trade or his status – bachelor, gentleman, yeoman, etc., and are thus a useful source of information, and fairly reliable conclusions may also be drawn from the figures for baptisms, etc.

The following figures [5] give some idea of the growth in population

1636-46 – 414 baptisms – 121 marriages – 272 burials

1781-91 – 685 baptisms – 175 marriages – 663 burials

1842 – 143 baptisms – 32 marriages – 128 burials

Added to these must be an estimate of the number of dissenters who did not use the church and in doing so account must be taken of the dates of dissenting movements. Quakerism, for example, would affect the second and third lines above but not the first. It is estimated that about 1800 there were 30 Quaker families in the town and some 120 other dissenting families, so that the register figures are about 25% too low. [6]

The average number of baptisms for the period 1783 to 1802 was 69 per year, which, applying the correcting factor of 25%, gives a birth rate of about 30 per 1000. The sex ratio was 106 males to every 100 females. This may be compared with the 1968 figure for Cockermouth of 16.6 (ratio 104 to 100) and for Cumberland of 15.1, the lowest ever recorded for the county. [7]

Illegitimate births appear to have always been high in Cumberland. Over the years 1842 to 1872 they hovered round 11%, while the figure for England fell from 6.7% in 1842 to 5.9% in 1872. There was then a drop for the ten years 1879-89, about 8% for the county compared with about 5% for the country, [8] but this trend did not continue. Even in earlier times there was little difficulty in ascertaining illegitimacy figures, as illustrated by a register of deaths entry of 27th March 1800

‘James, a bastard of old Murgatroyd’s, 1 year.”

 

The reason for the county’s high rate cannot have been farm service, for Devon with similar arrangements had a very low rate. Nor did the system of indoor service appear to be the cause, for Norfolk with no living-in custom had a high illegitimacy rate. Mixed working in houses and fields may have been an important factor. Figures dropped when the railways opened and people left hiring fairs earlier to catch the last trains. [9]

Turning from birth to death, in spite of the conditions at the time of the Cockermouth Improvement Bill and in spite of outbreaks of typhoid, etc., we seem to have fared well compared with other parts of the country. Mannix and Whellan supported their comment of 1847 that

• “Although this town is in a low situation, and at the confluence of two rivers, it is, nevertheless, exceedingly healthy, as is evident from the bills of mortality” [10]

with the fact that of the 114 districts into which the country was divided for record purposes the lowest mortality rates were in Anglesey, Cockermouth and the Isle of Wight. [11]

Nevertheless infant deaths were very high by present standards. In the early years of the 18th century one in four died before the age of two, some years being abnormally high, e.g. 61 infants in 1731 compared with 96 adults and 48 in 1736 compared with 82, [12] probably reflecting epidemics. In the years 1874-5-6 26.1% of the total deaths in the district of the Cockermouth Union Rural Sanitary Authority were of children under one year old, compared with 24% for England and Wales for the period 1861-70. In the same periods 41.9% died under five compared with the national 41.1%. On the other hand, having survived childhood some people lived reasonably long lives – in 1811, 1 in 10 of those dying and 1 in 62 of the population were over 90. [13]

In the late 1700s and early 1800s it was usual to give the cause of death in the register entry and these throw some light on life at the time. In the middle 20 years of the 18th century, for example, ‘poverty’ was a very frequent cause, but as the mills were built and industry developed in the later years of the century this entry almost disappeared, for more work meant more food.

The causes of death in 1770 have been researched [14] and compared with 1970, as in the following table:

Degenerative Diseases (Chronic heart, lung and kidney disease, etc.) was stated as the cause of death in 43% of deaths in 1770 and 63% of deaths in 1970

Disease due to infections was stated as the cause of death in 39% of deaths in 1770 and 4% of deaths in 1970

Malignant Disease was not stated as the cause of any death in 1770 but as the cause of death in 18% of deaths in 1970

Accidental Death was stated as the cause of death in 2% of deaths in 1770 and 4% of deaths in 1970

 

Malignant diseases were not recognised as such at the earlier date and many who died from this cause would be placed in other categories. In 1770 the maternal mortality rate was about 10 per 1000 births, compared with the figure for today of between 0.1 and 0.2. [15]

Overall the death rate has been more than halved in two hundred years. The rate for the period 1784-1802 was 27.2 per 1000. In 1970 it was 12.6 for Cockermouth and 12.4 for the county.

The most dreaded killer was plague in its various forms. Black Death is estimated to have killed 1Yz of the country’s 4 million people in 1349. Of these 2,500 were in Kendal [16] and, with plague so near, it is unlikely that Cockermouth escaped. A few years later, in 1361, there was an outbreak in the Carlisle area which was probably the Black Death and plague ravaged Cumberland in 1598. [18] There would almost certainly be other epidemics of which we have no record.

The outbreak about which we really have some knowledge is that which broke out in Cockermouth in 1647, although it is not known whether it was bubonic plague, spotted fever or enteric. 191 of the population of about 2,000 died in that year of what Rev. Robert Rickerby called “the visitation”.

The burial figures for this period are [19]

1640 38 burials

1641 36 burials

1642 20 burials

1643 20 burials

1644 20 burials

1645 23 burials

1646 26 burials

1647 191 burials from plague, 8 from other causes

 

The entries read

“The Visitation began in Cockermouth July 3rd. 1647 whereof and in wch tyme these dyed:

 (1) Isabell ye wife of Xtopher Fletcher was buried July 3rd. day.

(2) Thomas Bolton July 6th. day.

(3) Katherine ye wife of Vaile July 11th. day.

(4) Michael Bunt(e)inge July 18th. day.”

 

For the remaining 187 there are no dates, just names and relationships, such as

Numbers 81-87 Frances Benson, Lucy his wife, Margarett Willm.Biggrigge, Jane Benson their servants.

Numbers 163-168 John Dalton, Agnes his wife, Henry, Willm., Isabell and Anne his children.

 

Three or four deaths in a family were common and seven families were completely wiped out. The pressure of events at times prevented the keeping ofproper records. The Rev. R. Rickerby wrote

• “By reason of the Sickness and the Seige diverse baptisms were neglected to be registered in due course but as many as gave in their children’s names are set down ….”

 

It is difficult for us to realise the atmosphere in the town in a time of plague. Defoe described the conditions in London during an outbreak and the weeping and depression in Cockermouth would be similar. Life in the town would be more or less at a standstill. The dead would be collected and buried uncoffined in a pit. When produce had to be bought from outside the town it and the money would be exchanged on open land, the coins being placed in water by the purchasers to be picked up by the sellers. There are traditions that the burial place was somewhere on the river bank or in a field at Round Close Hill. [20]

Askew records an outbreak in 1659 when 197 died in four months, but this may be a confusion of the 1647 outbreak with the date in the carving on the lintel of God’s Providence House. There were later epidemics ,in the town in 1731 and 1736-7.

Three or four hundred years ago there was no one name characteristic of the town, as in some of the villages [22] but from the town’s registers Davies-Shiel has extracted some interesting figures. In 1634 and 1635 there were no new names recorded, but there were 38 in 1636 and 18 or 19 in each of the following three years. By the 1660s they had fallen to 1 or 2 a year. These new entrants often came from far afield – Cornwall, East Anglia, London, the Midlands, etc. The numbers would presumably be greater than those given, for a name would only appear in the register for a birth, marriage or death and not all newcomers would immediately appear for one of these reasons. This influx coincides with the development of mining activities in the surrounding area.

Surnames were often associated with the place of residence of a family. The Bassenthwaites of Bassenthwaite became extinct in Edward II’s reign, the Dovenbys of Dovenby in Henry Ill’s. The Hughthwaites of Hughthwaite and the Tallentires of Tallentire had died out by 1500. The Eaglesfields of Eaglesfield had gone by about the mid-16th century, the elder of the heiresses marrying Humphrey Senhouse of Nether hall. [23]