An interesting item from a local Oxford Newspaper: From Jackson's Oxford Journal, Saturday 12 June 1841 ---- THE CENSUS --- The general census was taken on Monday last, and the enumerators, to whom the duty was entrusted, must have had no easy task, for, in addition to the trouble consequent upon it, they had to contend with the fears and prejudices of many who conjured up all kinds of evils as likely to arise from this enquiry. Some who imagined so rigid an investigation as to age and number of individuals, under each roof, must contemplate an addition to the Assessed Taxes, took the precaution of sending a few of their inmates out to sleep; while others, entertaining a more charitable view of the matter, not only very kindly supplied all the information desired but a great deal more than the Registrar either required or expected! As it was compulsory to furnish the names of all who slept or abode in a house the previous night, it had an amusing effect, especially with the “fair and frail ones”, some of whom, we understand, were under the necessity of noting down names that were not meant for “open day or vulgar gaze”! The increase of the population in this place [Oxford] will be very considerable, for the number of inhabitants, huddled together in the largest and humblest parishes, is incredible. As proof of this we have only to mention that in one of the lodging houses alone, in St.Thomas's, there were no less than 27 strangers sojourning there. The 1841 enumerators pages, transcript and full index for Oxfordshire and North Berkshire will shortly be published on CD by Oxfordshire Family History Society. Besides the above there is a facsimile of the instruction to enumerators. I can send a copy as an attachment to anybody who would like it. Hugh Kearsey

>His name was Reuben, his wife was Rosa and his daughter was Ruth and they had been transcribed as Robert, Rebecca and Rachel. < That should have read ENUMERATED AS!! Vastly different. Jeanne Bunting

I can think of no likely explanation for my grandfather and his family being mis-named in the 1901 census other than deception on his mother-in-laws part! His name was Reuben, his wife was Rosa and his daughter was Ruth and they had been transcribed as Robert, Rebecca and Rachel. Why am I so certain they are my missing grandparents and family? The surname is Attersley - very uncommon; the ages and places of birth match; they were living with Rosa's mother (Sarah Dewitt, again not that common); there were three other grandchildren with different names living there too, all of whom I could place; finally, the address was the one from which Rosa was married and where Ruth was born. Can anyone think of another explanation? Oh, and Sarah had been a school teacher - or so it said on her marriage certificate which she signed with an 'X'!! Jeanne Bunting

Hi Kay, As I understand it, census return sheets are as rare as hens teeth - I have a copy of one found in the 1851 Southern Warwickshire census by Gordon Beavington - who kindly gave me permission to put it on the web You can see a scan of the back part (data page) on http://www.hunimex.com/warwick/census/1851_return.html with the front (address and instructions) on http://www.hunimex.com/warwick/census/1851_inst.html If anyone can supply me with any additional examples, I would be very grateful - any county will do. The instructions make it clear that the forms were left at the house, and were to be filled in with information relevant to the census night (in 1851 it was 30 March), with the form being collected on 31st March. I believe that the collector was supposed to check that the data was complete when he collected it, if not, was to fill in the data from verbal information. The census books were completed by the enumerator transcribing each return form, thus are already at least secondary data !! There are examples of instructions to the enumerator on my website too Happy Hunting Pickard Trepess Nagykanizsa, Hungary ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kay DONALD CLARK" <grannykay@tiscali.co.uk> > Do we actually know that forms were left at the household for the occupier > to complete? > > I was led to believe at my family history class that the earlier censuses or > censi (?) were completed "on the doorstep" by the enumerator himself. He > "interviewed" each household. > > Do any examples of completed or blank self-fill forms exist? > > Kay

On Sun, 3 Apr 2005 19:16:34 +0100, Jim Halsey wrote: >Hello, >If returns were generally filled in by the householder/neighbour/child >and not by the enumerator, can some kind lister please explain to me >why all the filmed enumeration returns for EDs that I have viewed over >35 years of searching are written, for each separate ED, in the same >hand? Because what you are looking at are not the actual schedules filled in by the Householder, but the returns made out from the schedules by the Enumerator, so of course they are all in the same writing. Cheers, Tom <tomp@st.net.au> Tom Perrett Proud to be member of Melbourne DPS, first port of call re Victorian research - http://home.vicnet.net.au/~dpsoc

----- Original Message ----- From: "Kay DONALD CLARK" <grannykay@tiscali.co.uk> To: <SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 9:17 AM Subject: [SoG] Early Census Returns > Do we actually know that forms were left at the household for the occupier > to complete? Yes, the enumerators instructions were to leave the forms to be filled in by the head of household. I have seen the diary of an enumerator where he describes riding over the Westmorland fells in the snow to deliver the forms to remote households in 1851, to say nothing of the three days he spent copying them into his book. > I was led to believe at my family history class that the earlier censuses or > censi (?) were completed "on the doorstep" by the enumerator himself. He > "interviewed" each household. I suggest that you join another class :-) Seriously, some households would have had the form filled in by the enumerator. In practical terms, in the cities some enumeration districts had over 2,000 households in them - how long would it take to enumerate that on the doorstep, allowing for people not being at home when he called and all the hastle of finding information about those who were at work? > Do any examples of completed or blank self-fill forms exist? There are very few completed forms (I have a coupe of examples that I use when teaching) - most were destroyed. There are examples of uncompleted forms in the various Census Reports and in the Acts of Parliament that commissioned the census. They are laid out very much like the enumerator's book, but with a space at the bottom for the signature of the head of the household, on the back there are instructions on how to fill them in and details of the address and schedule number - entered in the first column on the left in the enumerator's book. Peter Park. Walton on Thames, Surrey, UK.

Hello On Apr 4, 2005 1:28 PM, Tom Perrett <tomp@st.net.au> wrote: > > Because what you are looking at are not the actual schedules > filled in by the Householder, but the returns made out from the > schedules by the Enumerator, so of course they are all in the > same writing. Therefore the second half of my message summed up the situation pretty well - namely that the ED schedules are transcriptions, prone to all the problems associated with transcriptions, with the added problem that many original forms will have been filled in on behalf of others, some perhaps by people who were not much better at reading and writing than the illiterates themselves or had not been given the full story.. All told, bearing in mind that many families, in cities, towns and rural areas, lived in very poor conditions, often with many to a room, with all the noise, discomfort and difficulty that accompanied those conditions, including even the necessary pen, ink or pencil, it is a wonder that anything worthwhile emerged . Furthermore, enumerators would themselves, in all probability, have never have heard of many of the names and places that were written on the forms (or even perhaps in some cases told to them?), so how we have such a wonderful resource as a useable, and apparently generally reliable census speaks volumes for the common sense and application of those involved. Jim Halsey

I hesitate to take issue with my twin, Peter Park, and, in fact, suspect that we are not that far apart in our thinking. Yes, undoubtedly literacy, or the lack, of it plays a part in the accuracy of the information recorded in the various census enumerators books. While statistics of literacy do suggest a higher proportion of literate people existed in Victoria times than popularly supposed, I do question their real abilities, and I base this on personal experience over the last 40 years in dealing with civil engineering labourers, whose spelling can be, shall we say, interesting. However there are a number of other factors that may, or may not, be relevant to a particular case: 1. The lists we see today are a copy of an original, and this introduces the potential for an error. When indexing the GWR probate registers, I came across the place Redding. Now of all people, the G.W.Railway's own clerks should have known how to spell Reading. I very much doubt if the person concerned came from a small place in Stirlingshire, and the context suggests Berkshire. 2. Places of birth for individuals may not be known - the first place I can remember living is in South East London, whereas my birth certificate (and hearsay reports from my mother!) say Northamptonshire. 3. The person compiling the schedule may not have wanted to bother others and so put down what they thought 4. Spelling of places would tend to be based on a guess of correct spelling. Frank Hardy

Hi Tim, >> I think that a high proportion of the population was illiterate then, << It's as well to note that in "the dark ages" King Richard III complained bitterly that one quarter of the population was still illiterate. Nothing much changes. And beware the "x" on official documents. It was often the case concerning documents that were filled out on their behalf (Like Marriage Certificates) that the invitation was to "make yer mark" - so they did! My GGF was highly literate and kept accounts and diaries but on legal papers signed an "X" where the lawyer had pre written XYZ - his mark. Food for thought Regards Gerry Langley

My original posting (re "Fournass" for Foulness) clearly needs a bit of expansion. In this particular case, the head of household, his wife and sister-in-law were all literate. Any transcription error is most likely on the part of the enumerator (other samples of the head of household's handwriting show it to be very clear copperplate). As contributors have noted, the returns in RG10 are summaries made by the enumerator - the original forms, one per household, were mostly destroyed. Errors could have arisen on the original form, or in transcribing it for the summary. In the case in point, I am fairly sure the source of error was the latter. Hector Davie

If I may put my 2d worth here: The idea that someone in the house could write (eg the 13-year old cited earlier) and the possibility of transcription errors based on accent and unfamiliar names are not inconsistent. It is just that the enumerator is not the one making the mistake. Children (or even a wife, if not from the man's home area) can make the mistakes we often attribute to enumerators. Consider a young boy born after his parents migrated, and now at school. boy: "It says where were you born, dad" dad: [in his native accent] "Foulness" boy: [having never or rarely heard this word] writes as he hears "Fournass". If Father is the illiterate one, I doubt the child would ask how it was spelt! It is as likely then as now that children at school gain the local dominant accent... And whilst they would understand perfectly their parents non-local speech, isn't it possible that the understanding is limited to familiar conversation, rather than names of far-off towns? I did think one could use the relative accuracy of occupation words to test this, except that not only are original schedules not about any more, but with occupations at least, the Enumerator has a chance to correct them (sometimes making a new mistake, but maybe usually not). My wife's G-Grandfather migrated from Piddletrenthide DOR, by way of (probably) Flintshire, and St Helens LAN, to Gateshead DUR. My wife's family all firmly believed he was from a place called "Pigglestonhide" in Wales, as this is what Grandfather had said. In the event, one of the Gateshead census returns did luckily cite "Pittletrink DOR", a little more accurate, and in this case easy to guess. We don't know who filled in that census schedule. david beakhust david.beakhust@one-name.org -----Original Message----- From: Peter B Park [mailto:pbp@archive-research.freeserve.co.uk] Sent: 03 April 2005 16:28 To: SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [SoG] Origins ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim Powys-Lybbe" <tim@powys.org> To: <SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, April 03, 2005 9:32 AM Subject: Re: [SoG] Origins > In message of 3 Apr, "Peter B Park" <pbp@archive-research.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "John Brown" <john.dhb@btopenworld.com> > > To: <SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com> > > Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2005 8:17 PM > > Subject: Re: [SoG] Origins > > > > > > > So the enumerator was very slightly hard of hearing, and the subject had a > > > bit of an accent - sounds very reasonable ! > > > > Why does this myth persist. The enumerator delivered schedules to each > > household the during the week before census night. The schedules were filled > > in by the householder and collected after a check by the enumerator that all > > the correct parts had been filled in on the doorstep. There is no way an > > enumerator could have written out the details of 2,000 households in the > > houses - it took them days to copy the schedules into the books we see > > today. Hardness of hearing and accents very rarely came into the equation - > > relatively few households had no one that could read and write in them or > > living next door. I have a copy of an original schedule from Darlaston in > > 1861 signed by the 13 year old son. So please, lets give the enumerators a > > break and not blame them for all the evils of the world - well all the > > mistakes in the census. > > I think that a high proportion of the population was illiterate then, or > certainly in 1861 and this is why the schedule was signed by a 13 year > old as he was the only one who could write. So theonly way the forms > could get filled in was by the enumerator asking questions of the head > to the household. What's the guess as to the then illiteracy rate among > such heads? 40%? > > -- > Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org > For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org Modern research shows that the levels of literacy were higher that we think - evidenced by thousands of letters written by paupers to overseers claiming non-resident relief from the mid-eighteenth century onwards. Even allowing for Tim's only 40% for heads of household, it means that there is a very good chance that the head of a neighbouring household was not illiterate. Add to this the number of children and wives that could write, I would suggest that most forms were filled in before the enumerator collected them. Peter Park. Walton on Thames, Surrey, UK. This email has been scanned for viruses by NetBenefit using Sophos anti-virus technology

I am disappointed. I had made a list of people to look for. Another thing about responses from SOG. I volunteered twice as a helper and have never received a reply!! Kay -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.1 - Release Date: 4/1/05

Do we actually know that forms were left at the household for the occupier to complete? I was led to believe at my family history class that the earlier censuses or censi (?) were completed "on the doorstep" by the enumerator himself. He "interviewed" each household. Do any examples of completed or blank self-fill forms exist? Kay -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.1 - Release Date: 4/1/05

Now that is a surprise !!! ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Watts" <ml@ctwatts.plus.com> To: <SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 8:59 AM Subject: Re: [SoG] SoG members access to British Origins >| With apologies for this general posting, however I can't find, and > | likely lost the Email sent by someone in the Society [I don't remember > | who it was] concerning contacting the Origins Help Desk about access to > | the Origins site and using up unused time. > > Could you let me know too please. > I used their e-mail form to contact them but they have not bothered to > reply. > > Chris Watts > >

Hi, Its a pity Orgins didn't realise this at the beginning and not put it online free for a time then take it away. Dave. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeanne Bunting UK" <firgrove@compuserve.com> To: <SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 8:33 AM Subject: Re: [SoG] Census on Orgins Site > Dave, > >>After reading the small print on site it looks like we want get it > again. Oh well another site not worth going to again pity.< > > You can always pay to look at it! Do you realise just how much it costs > to > put one of these censuses on line? Why should they give it away free when > the SoG has done nothing towards its production? > > Jeanne Bunting > > >

| With apologies for this general posting, however I can't find, and | likely lost the Email sent by someone in the Society [I don't remember | who it was] concerning contacting the Origins Help Desk about access to | the Origins site and using up unused time. Could you let me know too please. I used their e-mail form to contact them but they have not bothered to reply. Chris Watts

Hi Alan, Yes so was I but I suspect they had dropped a clanger and it should not have been. After reading the small print on site it looks like we want get it again. Oh well another site not worth going to again pity. Dave ----- Original Message ----- From: <AlanMCraven@aol.com> To: <SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 8:02 AM Subject: Re: [SoG] Census on Orgins Site > > In a message dated 04/04/2005 07:59:07 GMT Daylight Time, > davegriggs3@ntlworld.com writes: > > Hi, > Why is it we can't get the two census on this site as part of our free > look > up for members. Have they taken it away (if it is good don't let them > have > it free) or is it because it was not a SOG given database. Logged on to > my > free 72 hours for the census then found not available (no warning before > you > log on) good trick if you can get away with it. > Seems to me the Orgins will play lip service to the SOG to get the > databases > then unless contracted as tightly as possible dump the free lookups. > Dave > > > > > I was certainly able to access the 1841 and 1871 census details at the end > of March as part of my SoG membership. Perhaps this part of their site is > down at the moment? > > Best Wishes > > Alan > > >

Hi, Why is it we can't get the two census on this site as part of our free look up for members. Have they taken it away (if it is good don't let them have it free) or is it because it was not a SOG given database. Logged on to my free 72 hours for the census then found not available (no warning before you log on) good trick if you can get away with it. Seems to me the Orgins will play lip service to the SOG to get the databases then unless contracted as tightly as possible dump the free lookups. Dave

Dave, >After reading the small print on site it looks like we want get it again. Oh well another site not worth going to again pity.< You can always pay to look at it! Do you realise just how much it costs to put one of these censuses on line? Why should they give it away free when the SoG has done nothing towards its production? Jeanne Bunting

In a message dated 04/04/2005 07:59:07 GMT Daylight Time, davegriggs3@ntlworld.com writes: Hi, Why is it we can't get the two census on this site as part of our free look up for members. Have they taken it away (if it is good don't let them have it free) or is it because it was not a SOG given database. Logged on to my free 72 hours for the census then found not available (no warning before you log on) good trick if you can get away with it. Seems to me the Orgins will play lip service to the SOG to get the databases then unless contracted as tightly as possible dump the free lookups. Dave I was certainly able to access the 1841 and 1871 census details at the end of March as part of my SoG membership. Perhaps this part of their site is down at the moment? Best Wishes Alan