is not due to the comparatively greater number of births in the.
towns, as this advantage is counterbalanced by the greater mortality,
but to the influx of persons seeking employment, students,
etc., to the towns. Moreover, the towns are frequently enlarged
at the expense of the country, as the suburbs aré incorporated in
them a circumstance, however, which here, where it is a question
of the natural growth-percentage of the town population as compared
with the rural population, cannot he taken into consideration.
In order to illustrate the increase of these two groups since
1825, a table is given below of their relative growth during the
period from one census to another, the distinction between country
and town that was held in 1890 being taken as the basis of the
calculation.
Periods
The
Kingdom
Rural
Districts Towns
1825—1835 . . . . . . 1 .2 9% 1.28 % 1.28 % - -
1835—1845 .......................... 1.06 »- { 0.93 , » - 1.99 »
1845—1855 . . . . 1.15 1 0.99- » 2.22 »
1855—1865 . . . . . 1.34 Ü 1.02 » 3.11 »
1865—1875 . . . . . . 0.64 ». 0.27 » 2.29 »
1875—1890 . . . . . . 0.66 » - 0.33 » 1.86 »
Thus the influx to the towns seems- to have reached its relative
zenith in the period from 1855 to 1865, when the increase
was very considerable, but subsequently fell off a little, partly on
account of emigration to America from the towns, and partly as
a consequence of less moving-in from the rural districts. Since
1890, however, migrating to the towns'has taken a fresh start.
The Norwegian towns have grown during the present century
at a greater rate than those of Sweden and Denmark. The frequent
emigration during the early eighties, already referred.to,
reversed the conditions for a time; but during the nineties, the
Norwegian, town population, owing principally to the exceedingly
rapid growth of the capital, has increased more rapidly than that
of the neighbouring countries. With regard to the growth of the
several larger towns, the following remarks are to be made:
Kristiania, the capital and largest town of the country, possesses
a singularly favourable situation in the south-eastern comer
of the country. In 1801, on its present area, the town numbered
12,423 inhabitants, while , its population, on the 1st Jan. 1899, was
221,255. This gives an annual increase of 3 per cent. From
1855 to 1865, the population rose on an average 4.60 per 1 cent,
and from 1891 to 1898, 4.90 per cent per annum. On the other
hand, the increase during the years 1880—1885 was only 1.70 per
cent per annum.
Bergen increased slowly up to 1855 during the years
1801' 1845 only 0.60 per cent annually —, but afterwards more
rapidly. In 1801, the population numbered 18,127, and in 1891,
53,684, but is now more than 68,000, which gives an annual percentage
of growth for the years from 1801 to 1897 of 1.30 per cent.
Trondhjem, the largest town in northern Norway, has had a
slow, but fairly even growth, namely 1.10 per cent from 1801 to
1845, and 1.20 per cent from 1845 to 1885. From the last-named
year, when the town numbered 23,753 inhabitants, until 1st Jan. 1897,
when the number was 33,033, partly in consequence of an incorporation
of suburbs in 1893 (4097 inhabitants), the annual increase
was 3 per cent.
The growth of the rural population has varied considerably
at different times in the various districts, in several of which, on
account of the continual emigration during the last few decades,
there has been an actual decrease from one census to another.
If the population be grouped according to the natural character
of the inhabited districts, it will be found that during the course
of the present century, the coast population shows the most rapid
increase, the inland fjord districts somewhat less, while the lowland,
and still more the mountain population has increased much more-
slowly. The emigration that has been going on of late years
from the last two has even in some places causedfa decrease in
the actual number.
After having now discussed the question of the growth of the
population in Norway under various heads, we pass on to subject
the increase itself to a closer analysis. The movement of the
population in a country depends, as we know, not only on the number
of births and deaths, but also on immigration and emigration.
If we leave migration out of the question, we have the so-called
natural growth of the population, which thus, if we consider
humanity as a whole, is the only foundation for the increase of
the population. In a country where migration is trifling, the actual
growth of the population is identical with its natural growth.