1851 census transcript - strange line items

zagmund · 30-08-2011 11:13pm #1

I'm not sure how best to explain this, but here goes . . .

I was trawling through a stash of old documents that I got from a relative a while back when I came across a transcript/certified copy of an entry from the 1851 census. It's dated 4 July 1917, dated and stamped by the Pubilc Record Office of Ireland, so it's a real record and not someones unofficial transcribing.

There are 3 tables in it - one covering people present on the night, one covering family members absent on the night and one covering family members deceased since the last census.

In 2 of the 3 tables there are partially filled in entries Here's a rough transcript from table 1 -
1) Ann Barrett, 60, ~, F, Head of Family, widow, 1810, etc . . .
2) Mary Drew, 40, ~, F, daughter, do, 1840, etc . . .
3) X, X, X, X, <blank>, X, not married
4) Cate, do, 5, ~, F, grand daughter, ~, ~

There seems to be a distinction between the use of X and the use of ~. For example ~ is used for both Ann & Mary in the column for "months if under 1 year", whereas the X is only used on the mostly blank link that consists of essentially the entry "not married"

There's a similar entry in the 3rd table covering deceased members - there was only one person listed, but for some reason the details are split across 2 lines. For example X is listed on line 3 as an agricultural labourer, whereas the real person Patrick Drew was listed on the line below as 'do' (presumably being ditto).

Any ideas what's going on here ? Why would an official in the records office in 1917 have inserted the 3rd line with mostly X entries and include the "not married" on a line by itself ?

Is it possible the original 1851 form was filled out in this messed up way, and they guy in 1917 was literally transcribing the form, word for word without any adjustment, whether it made sense or not ?

z

zagmund · 30-08-2011 11:16pm

I should have just uploaded the scan instead of typing all that out . . .

z

familyseeker · 31-08-2011 9:27am

My gut reaction would be - is it possible that line 3 was illegible or crossed out on the original and therefore transcribed with X in each column to show that there is an entry for a person on that line that cannot be reproduced?

The only reason I thought that is because of the note at the side explaining that the age of the child has been altered in the original - and there is an x in the column beside the "5".

But I've never seen that kind of entry on a census document before so I could be totally out of the ballpark.

pinkypinky · 31-08-2011 9:38am

First, can I just say how fantastic it is to see such a rare document?! Thanks for showing us it.

My guess is they mucked up the granddaughter's line and re-entered it below but that "not married" was perfectly clear.

zagmund · 31-08-2011 5:18pm

Thanks, I was amazed myself when I came across it. I was thinking "this can't be, sure all those records were destroyed" and then I realised of course that there was a time when they weren't destroyed

.

From what I can tell from other records in this stash, someone was either into genealogy that far back or else had to prove some lineage or something. There are a good few pretty old baptism certs (as in the certs are old, not just the person recorded).

I don't have enough information at the moment to determine whether there were other family members there that might have been listed at line 3 and were illegible. I imagine though, that if the official went to the trouble of writing in the note that the 6 was altered to 5 (on the original presumably) he would have noted other illegible entries.

z

CeannRua · 31-08-2011 6:23pm

I have one of these documents. I hope this answer is understandable because the document does make sense!

First off, I think this is a certified extract from a census return rather than a certified copy. So this is not the whole entry.

On the outside of mine it says that it was requested during the 1910s to prove the age of a child listed on the census. I think it was on the National Archives site I read that census info was accepted as proof of age to prove eligibility for the old age pension when it was introduced first (after 1908) as there would not have been civil registration of births for these people. So basically the census was treated as a surrogate birth cert.

Bearing this in mind, the info which is on the document makes sense. What it does is give the info for the child and her parents as well as the info you need to understand the entries for the child and parents.

Zagmund, I'm presuming here that Patrick Drew was Cate's father?

The x's on line 3 refer to a person who is not relevant to the child and her parents, maybe a sibling.

I think the squiggly lines are mostly just there to fill in blanks so it would be obviously if the doc was amended later.

If the PRO official had copied direct the entry for Patrick Drew he would have had to put in 'do' for occupation (otherwise he would have been amending the official record which I'm guessing is a no-no) which wouldn't make a lot of sense so he had to take 'agricultural labourer' from the line above. This also explains the 'not married' on line 3 of the bit that Zagmund scanned because if that hadn't been put in it would imply that Cate listed below was a widow as the two women listed on lines 1 and 2!

The document I have has a number on it in the 7000s so there must have been a fair few of these in existence. Sorry this is so long!

pinkypinky · 31-08-2011 10:00pm

CeannRua is right - they did use the census to verify age for the pension, which came in 1908 and you had to be 70+, which meant you were born before birth certificates started (for Ireland, but in the UK, civil registration began in 1834).

The National Archives has a microfilm of tantalising clues in the form of the records of those who came to verify their birth on the census, which I've looked at in case there were any random ancestors of mine. There weren't. It was a long time ago but they were more like a short form birth cert than what Zagmund showed us.

CeannRua · 01-09-2011 7:27am

Thanks Pinky for clarification re what the census verification for pension claims look like. I haven't seen them. I didn't mean to suggest in my post that Zagmund's form was used for this. What I was going for was to say that this form had potential to be used as a surrogate birth cert and I think that's still valid. I shouldn't have conflated the comment about the census being used for pension claims.

pinkypinky · 01-09-2011 10:24am

Didn't mean to sound all authoritarian! So hard to convey tone with text.

CeannRua · 01-09-2011 11:36am

Don't worry, Pinky - I know what you meant. I wasn't having a go or anything like it!! I did a bad job explaining what I meant and think you're right about the pension forms. You're right too about tone and text but that's another day's story!!

I only know from what I've read on the web (very little) about the pension but I was thinking if these forms had anything to do with it they would have been sent in to the relevant govt dept and not still be with families so were used for something else (unless forms were issued in duplicate)??

Interestingly, on the outside of mine it says it was requested by the parish priest. I haven't checked but if the child's dates are right there should be a baptism record for her. Maybe he was just acting as an amanuensis for the family but whatever the form was needed for I guess the baptism record wouldn't suffice (that's if it does exist).

pinkypinky · 01-09-2011 11:42am

Full marks for the use of an awesome word like amanuensis!

hblock21 · 01-09-2011 3:14pm

pinkypinky wrote: »

The National Archives has a microfilm of tantalising clues in the form of the records of those who came to verify their birth on the census, which I've looked at in case there were any random ancestors of mine.

What is the official name of this microfilm?

pinkypinky · 01-09-2011 3:36pm

I'm actually not sure - just checked on the NA website and their catalogue is useless...couldn't find a haystack nevermind a needle. If you asked at the desk in the reading room and described it, I'm sure they'll know what you mean.

1851 census transcript - strange line items

Comments