1) Illiteracy. Unfortunately the Victorian censuses were undertaken at a time when up to half the adult population were illiterate or semi-illiterate. Many householders would, therefore, have found it difficult to read and interpret the instructions, and this would have led them to give inaccurate and incomplete information. moreover, it seems likely that, because of poor spelling and poor presentation, enumerators would have found it difficult to read some of their census schedules. This, in turn, would have led to transcription errors.
2) Reading the CEBs. The first problem relates to reading the census enumerator's books. The 1841 CEBs were completed in pencil and cheap ink was often used to complete the CEBs in later censuses. Consequently the CEBs can be difficult to read, the more so where, as often happens, the researcher is using microfilm copies or photocopies of the original books.
3) Addresses. Identifying individual addresses is often a problem. In towns few houses were numbered until the end of the nineteenth century, and in some places street names and house numbers were subject to periodic revision. In rural areas addresses are often rather vague or not given at all.
4) Number of Rooms. Unfortunately of the CEBs made public only those for 1891 give information on the numbers of rooms occupied by each household so it is not possible to comment on the accuracy of this information. It should, however, be mentioned that no instructions were given on the census schedule as to what was a room. Were, for example, large cupboards or indoor toilets to be counted as rooms? One example, of an enumerator misinterpreting his instructions has been found by the writer in his researches into nineteenth-century Warrington. The enumerator having placed the figure '1' (one) against the address of each householder whose family occupied fewer than five rooms. At least one street enumerated by him, still stands today, and it consists of four-roomed terraces.
5) Definition of a Household. Another problem is that of what constituted a household. The instructions given to the enumerators were vague. This has affected in particular how lodgers, boarders and different families renting rooms in the same houses have been enumerated. In some instances families of lodgers appear to have been treated as occupiers in their right. On other occasions families co-residing at the same address have been treated as lodgers. The extent of this problem is difficult to quantify. But, because there were few complex (i.e. non-nuclear) households in nineteenth-century Britain, it is unlikely to be a serious problem.
6) People's Names. Few problems exist relating to people's names although it should be mentioned that the spelling of surnames only gradually became standardised after 1837 with the state registration of births, marriages and deaths. When attempting to link households and families across censuses this can create problems but a little imagination can usually sort them out. Houghton, for example, might become Houghton or Oughton. A case in point is that of the Elisons of Eydon's Yard, in 1881, who became the Alisons of Aydon's Yard in 1891!
7) Relationships. Interpreting relationships is usually straight forward but problems can arise in identifying stepchildren, the parents of grandchildren, and relationships among lodgers, boarders and visitors.
8) Marital Status. Marital statuses do not usually pose problems. It is, however, rarely possible to identify second marriages from the nineteenth-century CEBs, and cases of co-habitation have usually to be inferred from relationships such as 'servant', 'lodger' and 'visitor,.
9) Gender. Occasionally enumerators wrote a person's age in the wrong sex column, but such errors are easy to identify.
10) Ages. Especially in the early years of the 19th century many people did not know their correct ages, and for older people age-data should, therefore, be treated with some caution. Moreover, at a time when the age of consent was 21 householders below this age often had an incentive to falsify their ages in order to rent accommodation and enter into legally-binding contracts. Similarly the ages of child workers appear on occasion to have been falsified to circumvent the various factory ages.
11) Occupations. A number of problems exist in interpreting the occupational data: a) job titles are sometimes vague with little or no information given on either the industry of employment or the actual job undertaken (in nineteenth-century Warrington, for example, a 'cutter, might be a 'glass cutter', a 'fustian cutter' or a 'file cutter'); b) it is often difficult to distinguish between dealers and makers (e.g. did a baker bake or sell bread?); and c) although people were asked to say how many people - if any - they employed it is often difficult to distinguish employers from the self-employed and employees. For example, in the Hanley CEBs, for 1881, the writer classified a 'builder' as a manual worker only to find on examination of the rate book that he owned several houses having presumably employed other people to build them for him. More fundamental problems exist in using occupational data for women and children. Higgs (1987) believes that the occupations of many women, and especially of those in part-time work and/or working at home, were not recorded in the census. Again, aggregate census statistics published in the 1841 and 1851 Census Volumes for those areas covered by the reports of the various Children's Employment Commissions suggest that the occupations of children were often under-enumerated.
12) Birth places. Inconsistency of birth place in the 1851 and 1861 censuses. Discrepancies exist in roughly 14% of cases, but in half these cases the discrepancies tended to be insignificant. one discrepancy found by the writer concerned a women shown as born in 'Ireland' in the 1881 census and 'At Sea' in the 1891 census.
13) Medical Disabilities. The least accurate data collected was the information sought on disabilities. The question was poorly worded and the replies given are often of little use. A study in Wales showed replies to this question included 'unhealthy from birth', 'helpless' and 'not well'. Many householders appear to have been reluctant to admit that a member of their family was an 'idiot' and when this description was changed to 'feeble-minded' in 1901 the numbers recorded as mentally ill rose markedly.
|
