England and Wales 1871 Census



Sources of data         Gender                          Ages                           Relationships

Residences                 Place of Birth             Occupations             Summary

Data for analysis of the 1871 census was obtained from several on line sources, which were then compared and combined to obtain a final data set. This process preceeds the anaylsis below:


Sources and number of Pullum results returned for each
UK Census on Line (UK)  66
Find my Past (FMP)  53
Ancestry (A)  68
Family Search (FS)  51
My own family tree (T)
Expected to find 80 (alive at the time, unmarried females born Pullum etc.) Some found had been mis-transcribed

Combining and comparing all these sources gave a total of 126 different individuals


In results from all sources  27
All but on Find My Past 1
All but on Family Search  1
All but UK Census on-line  15
All but UK Census on-line and my tree  2
Ancestry & my tree only  17
Find my Past & Family Search only  7
 Ancestry only 7
UK Census on-line only 37
My tree / database only 12
Total number of different individuals 126

Individuals were included in the analysis unless:
* after examining the original, it was clear the name had been mis-transcribed
* after examining the original and doing further research, it was possible to establish that the name had been mis-recorded in 1871.
A total of 43 Individuals  were excluded for these reasons.

Exclusions and their Reasons

Family Search
Although I have no access to view the originals on this site, all of the records on Family Search had also been found on one of the their sites where I had access, so I was able to view the originals via those sites.

Find My Past
Find My Past had 7 records not also on Ancestry or my tree i.e. specific to their search.
One was NOT excluded. This was Joseph Pullum could be one that is on my tree but I had lost track of after he went in to an orphanage in 1851, however his age is 4 years younger, his place of birth near but not exactly the same. This record is for a lodger so there are no family members to check.
The other 6 were excluded. They were one family and although the 1871 original is probably Pullum, all other records found for them are Pulham.

All the results found on Ancestry were on my tree and so had already been identified as Pullum except for 9 individuals.
One of these was not excluded. A man who was a servant (so no family members to link with other records to check) and the original record was possibly Pullum, although possibly Pullam.The other 8 were excluded and these were:
2 couples (and a married daughter) that had been mistranscribed (confirmed on other records too); a “grandfather of wife” was misrecorded as Pullum, so should have been Pulham (proved with tree construction); a “mother” mis recorded as Pullum and should have been Pullam and a woman born Pullum but married in 1850, so had the surname Price in 1871.

UK Census on-line
found 37 records that were not found on other searches.
Those excluded were 8 households consisting of 29 individuals were found on other sites and the originals viewed. These were mis transciptions and not Pullums.
Records for 8 individuals could not be found elsewhere and so could not be checked and these were NOT excluded. (Of note is that the ages given for 2 were too young for the occupations recorded, so the dates of births were probably wrong.)

Total number of different individuals found on all searches   126
FMP excluded                6
Ancestry excluded        8
UK Census on-line      29
Therefore total number excluded   43

Total analysed therefore ( 126 – 43 ) = 83




Age range was 2 days to 71 years.
The majority were under 20 years old.




A relationship was established between 73 individuals
and these were in 19 households.
For the remaining 10, no relationship could be established mainly because of a lack of details.
Those related were descended from 3 sons of Joseph Pullum and Marie Pullum nee Le Franc.

Regarding the 10 where no relationship was established:
For 5 individuals, the household could be surmised if the area was unique etc
It seems these 5 were in 4 households.


The 23 households consisted of 12 families, 3 couples and 8 individuals.



The county of residence only was known for:
All 5 where the relationship and households were unknown (all in London). They were 3 individuals (2 households) where the relationship was unknown but the households was surmised.

The county was known for 83 individuals / 23 households.
These were in 4 different counties.1871-res-county-indiv1871-res-county-house

The region was known for 75 individuals / 21 households
These were in 11 Different regions1871-res-region-indiv1871-res-region-house

1871-residences-table(At this time, parts of Middlesex, Kent, and Surrey  formed the “metropolitan” area and was the census county of London)

London and surrounding area household residences map
(click map to enlarge)

The relationships and households with the addresses (and a few notes) are shown on this TREE

1871-tree(click picture to enlarge)

 Place of Birth

95% were born in England
One of those born in Ireland was a wife, for the others there was a lack of information.
The one born in New York was of English parents who travelled to the USA 2 years before her birth but returned to the UK soon after.


75% were born in Middlesex1871-birth-county

18% in were born in Shoreditch1871-birth-area



Of the 83:
34 had no occupation (of which 2 were from UK Census on-line so the original was not seen).
23 were 14 and under.
However there were 5 children of 14 and under with occupations recorded (the original for 3 was not viewed).
12 children were recorded as scholars (6 dittoed).
9 with no occupations were wives, there were 12 wives altogether (perhaps more but those original records not seen).  So 3 wives had occupations.


Of the 37 with an occupation recorded:

22 were in the manufacturing or retail industry:
2 Artificial florists & 7 artificial flower makers (6 dittoed). The youngest was aged 11, and there were only 2 with this occupation on the previous census.
10 were in the clothing trade – Infant shoe maker, assistant shoemaker (assistant to his father), Brace maker, 3 Milliners (one dittoed), Clothes dealer (known to be a pugilist at the time), Salesman (clothier), Traveller (other records show him to be in the clothing trade) and a Traveller (other records show him to be a wholesale milliner / laceman).
the other 3 in this group were a cage maker, Coconut matting weaver and a stationer (own account).
7 were in Service:
3 Domestic servants, a General servant, a farm servant, one just recorded as servant and a laundress.
4 had physical jobs:
Labourer, porter, Railway St???  (illegible but appointed as a railway porter the previous year) and an Engine fitter.
2 miscellaneous occupations were:
A messenger and a watchman.
2 were entertainments:
A comedian (known to be a successful minstrel by this time) and a vocalist (his wife).



126 individuals with the surname Pullum were found from 5 sources
43 individuals on further research found not to be Pullum

73 (19 households) individuals had a common ancestor [Joseph Pullum (1757 – 1846)] or had married into the family.
For the other 10 consisted no relationship could be established but half of them were probably in 4 households.
Giving 78 individuals in 23 households and 5 undetermined

54% were male, 45% female and there was 1% unknown.

The age range was 2 days to 71 years
The majority (57%) were under 20, a smaller second peak was in the 26 – 30 age group.

There seemed to 23 households consisting of 12 families, 3 couples and 8 individuals.

28% were living in Shoreditch
with 61% living in this and other areas of Middlesex, (metropolitan) London.

95% were born in England
with 18% being born in Shoreditch
and a total of 75% of individuals were born in Middlesex, London.

“Outliers” were mainly wives (not born Pullum) but also included a daughter who was born in New York after her parents went there two years before her birth and returned to the UK soom after as well as a servant and others for whom a relationship or confirmation that they were Pullum on other records could not be established.

41% had no occupation recorded (included wives)
A further 14% were scholars
60% were in manufacturing or retail
With 41% of these being artificial florist /flower makers

A tree for the 73 with a common ancestor has been constructed.
Trees for the remaining 10 have been started.


 Last updated 26.11.16