----- 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.

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? Many is the time when I have breathed a sigh of relief to move on to the next ED, not because it is more relevant to my search but simply because the handwriting is easier to read ! If what some listers are saying is that preliminary forms were left at each house in advance, to be completed and collected by the enumerator who would transcribe them into the books, then I can well understand that that he would have had problems in comprehension through legibility,spelling and interpretation instead of through speech, accent and hearing. Whichever way it was, the enumerators, their own handwriting apart, seem to have coped pretty well with a job for which they probably got little pay and no thanks!! Jim Halsey On Apr 3, 2005 4:27 PM, Peter B Park <pbpand @archive-research.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: > ----- 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. > >