When it comes to a census it’s all about the numbers, however the 1921 population poll – which is now available online – reveals these numbers may have been wrong in coastal towns across Britain, especially Southend.

The census of 101 years ago shows a staggering 50 per cent swell in population figures in Southend compared to the previous 1911 census.

This was one of the largest increases in the entire country. The census calculated the town was home to 106,000 people in 1921, up from just 62,713 residents in 1911.

Indeed the town had been bolstered by growing numbers of residents settling down in Southend, but all was not what it seemed.

Historians studying the 1921 census believe the numbers were most likely significantly wrong. The issue was that in 1921 the census was taken in June where usually they were taking in March or April.

Censuses were normally taken in the spring as the months of March and April were considered to be the most ‘typical’ of the normal flow of life.

People were at work, children in school and the harvest has not started. In short, most people were likely to be at home going about their normal, daily routines.

However, in 1921 due to the threat of a general strike the census had to be postponed, meaning it wasn’t taken until June- on an unusually warm and summery Sunday evening.

READ MORE >>> Essex mum who caught Covid-19 while pregnant leaves hospital after year-long stay

This sunshine had meant record numbers of people had grabbed the opportunity to escape to seaside resorts such as Southend, Blackpool and Margate for the weekend.

When the census takers arrived many holidaymakers and tourists were written up as ‘visitors’, but included in the census figures for each town nevertheless.

Not surprisingly all three seaside resorts recorded huge swells in their census figures.

It is impossible to know how many of the visitors were there for the weekend or were staying longer as more permanent residents, as that information wasn’t included in the census.

The census enumerators used the term ‘visitor’ in the ‘Relationship to Head of Household’ category as a designator for anyone who was not normally resident there, but its not always certain they were on holiday.

Although we can never be 100 per cent sure about the accuracy of the figures in 1921, the 1931 census, by comparison – taken on the date of April 26 – shows the population of Southend had risen to 126,100- a much slower increase.

Today the population of the city is recorded as 180,700.

The census records do indeed show many ‘visitors’ in Southend in the 1921 census.

In East Avenue, Southend, Harold Betts and his wife Doris lived with five of their own family members and two boarders but in addition had two ‘visitors’. Charles Michael Price was registered as a visitor in their home. Michael was 36 and had been born in London. Florence Mary Rurch was also registered as a visitor. She was 38 and had also been born in London.

The same goes for general labourer Arthur Lorrell of Coleman Street, Southend. He and his wife Lydia had three female visitors registered to their home including two women from Russia.

Single Agnes Gracey, 49, was the head of her household at her home in Cobham Road, Westcliff. She lived with her two nieces, a servant, a cook and two ‘visitors’ from London. Today, a century later, the house operates as a residential home.

The year 1921 was an exciting one for Southend. Visitors to the town back then would have come across ‘Happy Harry’ preaching the gospel on his soapbox, witnessed a right royal welcome granted to King George V who came to Southend to race his yacht “Britannia” in the first Southend Yachting Week and seen the Victory Sports Ground open. The Kursaal also reopened following the war.

Historically the job of a census enumerator, as they were known in the past, has not been an easy one. In 1891 a Southend census taker gave his account of what it was like to do the job, in return for payment of one guinea.

He was given one of the poorest parts of the borough to work in, where he found many of the residents less than pleased to answer his questions about who lived in their home, their sexes, ages and occupations.

“By bitter experience I have discovered that never was money earned by harder work or by greater tribulation of spirit!”he wrote in his account.

“A third of them took fright at first sight of me, thinking that the paper I proffered was a county court summons.”

The enumerator told of being ‘sworn at like a trooper’, threatened with violence and the most common problem of all – a surprising number of people not knowing their own ages.

“Many people did not know when they were born,” he recounted.

“It is astonishing how little people of the lower classes do not know about themselves. I could not get any idea of where they were born while in some cases asking them their age was as bad as asking them to work out a proposition in algebra.”

Another problem the census taker came up against was the number of unmarried couples living under the same roof who wanted their surnames to be put down as the same to make things ‘look respectable.”

The enumerator had to point out that it was illegal to falsify information and this could cost the couples a £5 fine. Another problem was with ‘old maids’ who wanted to appear younger and with young girls who wanted their ages to be increased in order to get a job in service.