1901 census gaps.

ifconfig

I have read that some of the searchable indexes of the 1911 census are incomplete but the browsable data is 100% complete allowing for transcription errors or minor omissions.

I am looking for someone on the 1901 census.
They are not showing up via a web search.

Is there a possibility that they might be there if I were to exhaustively go through all the candidate address returns for the area in which they might have lived ?

The individual in question may have been outside the state for whatever reason, eg: Boer war service, short term migration to another jurisdiction, imprisonment, etc and that might account for the gap.

Not that it might apply in this case but would convicts within the state be untraceable for the periods of detention ?
I've seen returns for Barracks as well (pre free state) where the names appear to be anonymised ( British soldiers in garrison barracks, I assume).



-ifc

Drummer Mummer

I too am looking for someone I know was in the State in 1901 but I am not getting anything in the areas I think she might have lived. It is a possibility they might have resided somewhere other than where we think they lived at the time. Put in a search with the age and christian names and see what you come up with but it looks like it might be a long trawl.......good luck

pinkypinky

ifconfig wrote: »

Not that it might apply in this case but would convicts within the state be untraceable for the periods of detention ?
I've seen returns for Barracks as well (pre free state) where the names appear to be anonymised ( British soldiers in garrison barracks, I assume).

All soliders/police/prisoners would have had just their initials. Sometimes you can work it out if you know other vital stats of the person and have an idea where they might be.

ifconfig

Many thanks for that info, PinkyPinky.

I may have spotted the individual based on good fortune that the firstname and lastname initials are an unusual combination and the age also checks out with 1911 census (minus 10 yrs). Location also is in the correct neck of the woods.

Here is a large entry for Ussher's Quay:
http://www.census.nationalarchives.ie/pages/1901/Dublin/Ushers_Quay/James_s_Street/1302665/

What might be going on here ?
I don't think this was a barracks - or prison.
Has anyone else seen this kind of stuff on the 1901 census ?

Might the microfilms yield more info ? or do these look like they have been deliberately anonymized ?

shanew

As far as I remember this address is the South Dublin Workhouse.

The census form images on the NAI website are scanned directly from the films or new scans of original returns - so exactly the same details are shown.

p.s. scroll to the very end of the page - it has 'form E workhouse'
p.p.s the location corresponds to where James's Hospital is now


Shane

ifconfig

Shane,

That makes sense alright.
Alas, I was too hasty in assuming I had the correct individual.
The gender was wrong.
Although, in one sense, I am relieved they weren't resident in the workhouse.

I watched that WDYTKA on BBC with Dervla Kirwan recently and the conditions of the workhouses that one of her ancestors was resident in having come out of prison and developed depression appeared to be abysmal at times.

Many thanks for the help, as usual.

-ifc

shanew wrote: »

As far as I remember this address is the South Dublin Workhouse.

The census form images on the NAI website are scanned directly from the films or new scans of original returns - so exactly the same details are shown.

p.s. scroll to the very end of the page - it has 'form E workhouse'
p.p.s the location corresponds to where James's Hospital is now


Shane

Bicycle

If its any consolation, my great grandparents went missing in the 1901 census but I knew for a fact that they were living in the same house they were living in in 1911.

However after some searching (and a rather stiff drink and some chocolate :D:D) I found that the initial letter of their surname (B) had been transcribed as D. It made a huge difference, particularly as the house numbers in this particular rural area had changed in the 10 years (I'm sure all the houses had names or just had family identification so there weren't proper numbers per se)

zagmund

It looks like parts of East Arran Street in Dublin are missing from the 1901 census. The family are there in 1911 and I'm pretty sure they were there in 1901 also, but Mrs Zag did some digging and tells me that in 1901 there's a whole chunk of the street missing. Anyone have any ideas whether this might be missing/damaged returns or maybe whether it might be filed under Erran Street or some other such typo ?

I have a feeling the entire return is missing because Mrs Zag & myself went through all the matching family names for 1901 and they don't seem to exist anywhere but other records indicate they should have been around at the time.

z

shanew

There are a few streets and townlands missing from the 1901 census online - and these are being worked on by the NAI. A couple of original pages have been lost or damaged - so may never be available.

Some streets are split between two DEDs so all the occupants do not appear on the one street view on the website.

It's a good idea to check the building returns for a street to see is any of the missing numbers were included in these forms, but were unoccupied and therefore do not have a corresponding household return.

Another other detail to keep in mind is that the numbers on the 1901 do not always relate to the actual address numbers - which can be misleading.

What section of East Arran St seems to be missing ?

here's the street on the 1911 census (no. 24 to 65) : http://www.census.nationalarchives.ie/pages/1911/Dublin/Inns_Quay/Arran_St__East/

and on 1901 (no. 23 to 67) : http://www.census.nationalarchives.ie/pages/1901/Dublin/Inns_Quay/East_Arran_Street/


Shane

zagmund

It's this family here - http://www.census.nationalarchives.ie/pages/1911/Dublin/Inns_Quay/Arran_St__East/33232/ - the Costellos. They were a family with a fish merchants and a presence in Howth also. There weren't too many Honoria Costellos around in those days.

I need to read some of the old documentation again to see why I think they were in East Arran Street at the time, but I'm relatively sure they were.

z

shanew

Number 42 is a shop/dwelling in 1901 and has no occupants - see the form B1 : http://www.census.nationalarchives.ie/reels/nai003686591/


Shane

shanew

found a reference for you in Thom's 1904

42 Arran St, East

M. Costello, fish salesman & ice importer

35 to 41 are marked as Dublin Corporation waste ground... so maybe parts of the street were in the process of being redeveloped.


Shane

shanew

I've just seen that the same name is listed st 42 Arran Street East in Thom's 1894, so they maybe they were away from home or living temp. somewhere else for some reason at 1901 census time ?

42. M. Costello, fish salesman

In 1894 numbers 35 to 41 are 'Dublin Corporation Food-market'

In 1884 the address is vacant and the market had not yet been built. There are a few other fish salesman on the street (~6 in that section)

Between 1884 and 1904 the entrance to the fish market is between no.s 48 & 49.

p.s. there's also a Costello & May, fish salesmen at No.48


Shane