"Peter B Park" <pbp@archive-research.freeserve.co.uk> wrote : > From: "Tim Powys-Lybbe" <tim@powys.org> > <snip> >> >> 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%? > > 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. It sounds good but what is the actual evidence ? You say 'thousands of letters' but how can we be sure these were actually written by the paupers, and not by someone else on their behalf ? Tim's comment about the prercentage of literate heads of household is a general figure - it doesn't take account of the differential incidence of literacy in different areas. A poor area would inevitably have a generally higher level of illiteracy, the neighbours just as dodgy as him indoors. Does anyone have any concrete evidence about this issue, or are we just discusiing opinions and perceptions ? Did none of the enumerators write down their experiences ? John B Leic., Eng