Geralyn, Did you find that the census follows the same order as the Valuations? I worked on transcribing some later valuations for an area in Dublin and was able to go down the lines looking at the 1901 census to compare who was in the house. Have you found the census to follow the same pattern as the valuations as far as the order they are listed? Just curious. Chris

Most of my Irish valuation research has been in somewhat rural areas or in villages and smaller towns in the counties of Limerick, Laois and Tipperary - not in densely populated areas like Dublin. So I can't say much about the order of houses in census records compared to the order in valuation records for a large city like Dublin. I would guess that in a city, there is really only one way to walk (down the street), no matter why (census or valuation). But I have found in rural areas that the order in valuation records does not always match the order in census records exactly. The order is often in rough agreement in both sets, but not necessarily. Also, in rural areas there were many parcels of land that did not have inhabited houses in 1901 and 1911, but were just "land" or "bog" so do not appear in census records. And there were so many changes recorded in some townlands in the period from 1901 to 1911 and later that it is hard to say exactly what the order is in a particular year, like 1901 or 1911! The new valuation book might start out in the proper order (1, 2, 3, etc.). But after all the crossings out and renumbering and other changes were recorded, the numbering of the lots might be all out of order (3, 1, 10, etc.) by the time that book was cancelled and a new one begun. There are often notes like "house down", "added to lot 10", etc. These notes can help you follow the changes, but it can be very messy and confusing research (especially using black and white microfilm, since the changes were color-coded in the originals). [We are talking here about revisions of valuation records aka "cancelled books" - the valuation (tax) records that continue after the more familiar Griffith's Valuation. Many of these later valuation records are available on microfilm (black and white) from the Family History Library. Some continue as late as the 1930s to 1950s.] I have also found there was often a time lag in updating valuation information. The censuses were current information and reflected exactly who was living in a house on given dates in 1901 and 1911. But corresponding valuation information was sometime not updated until a few years after changes had occurred. I recall one case where I expected to find a particular family in a certain townland in the 1901 census because valuation records for that property showed that someone else took over the property from them a few years later (1906 or so). But they were not there in 1901 - the family who took over later was there already. I eventually found the family I was looking for: they had already emigrated in the 1890s and were in the 1900 US census. So clearly, they were not in Ireland in 1901! But valuation records for the property were not updated until several years later, which made it look like "my" family should have been there in 1901. You might argue that perhaps they continued to pay taxes on that property for 10 years after they had left and after someone else was living there, but somehow I don't think so... I have noticed the same thing happened when people died, and a spouse or child of the deceased took over the property: the change to a new occupier was sometimes not noted in valuation records until several years later. Sometimes when property changed hands, a parcel of land was broken apart into smaller holdings or consolidated with other holdings into larger lots. These new lot(s) would then be renumbered. So lot 3 in a particular townland in one valuation book might not be lot 3 in the valuation book from an earlier or later year - you have to follow the lot description and size as well as the occupier's name. This renumbering of lots might mean that the lots with inhabited houses (which would appear in census records) could appear in a different order from year to year even within valuation records. Re: Nick Reddan's comment about land reform and tenant purchase of land... I don't have my usual references handy at the moment, but there were several Land Purchase Acts passed over time, each having different terms for the seller and the buyer. In a lot of the rural areas in Limerick and north Cork that I look at, much of the change in ownership (former tenants becoming owners "In Fee LAP", as is written in valuation records - by Land Act Purchase) took place after 1901. Much of it took place even later - after 1911. I have some references in my files to purchases (LAP) as late as the 1920s. In my research, I haven't see many small tenants purchasing until after 1903. I seem to recall that particularly advantageous terms for payment by the purchaser were offered under some of these later Land Acts. I have seen only a few changes in land tenure take place under the acts before 1901. One in particular that I recall researching was a somewhat substantial farmer buying 50+ acres under one of the earlier acts (1880s). I have noticed that many parcels within a small geographical area have the same "In Fee LAP" date in valuation revision records. I think this is probably because a large landholder in the area finally sold his property, and after all the necessary government procedures, the land was divided up into new lots which then passed into the hands of all the new owners at about the same time. For a brief overview of the Land Acts, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Land_Acts . Geralyn Wood Barry On 6/13/2012 1:02 PM, Christina Hunt wrote: > Geralyn, > Did you find that the census follows the same order as the Valuations? I worked on transcribing some later valuations for an area in Dublin and was able to go down the lines looking at the 1901 census to compare who was in the house. > Have you found the census to follow the same pattern as the valuations as far as the order they are listed? > > Just curious. > Chris > >