Interesting set of birth registrations!

[Anne in Carlisle]

Just starting my d i l's tree. I have found an unfortunate couple who apparently had around 14 children from 1837 onwards.
I found several of the children on the censuses and discovered their mother's maiden name. They are from Yorkshire so plenty of parish records are available. Luckly both parents have unusual surnames for the location of the births. I wasn't surprised not to find any of the children's births registered, given the dates. However I trawled through the new GRO index checking for the mother's maiden name and came up with a whole list of other children with the right name and area.......

Now I was puzzled! Were there two families? Had I got the wrong mother? I think I have solved it and its not something I have seen before.

Non of the children on the census or birth register appear to have been baptised. However there are burial records, which clearly identify the dead children as of that family (address, names, occupation ... how lucky!) having made lists of them it is clear that the only children to have birth registration, also have death registrations. Were the parents required to register a birth before registering a death? Several of them are born and died in the same quarter but not all. This is not something I have seen before. Has anyone else? Were they required to do both registrations?
Anne

[Katarzyna]

Funnily enough Anne I thought to ask a similar question myself the other day. I have death in the same quarter as when the 1851 census was taken. The age is given as 3 so could be years, months or days but there is a corresponding birth registration with mmn and my child is on the 51 census (2months) but not on the 1861. None of the other children were registered. As parents were not legally required to register at that time I too wondered whether one had to register the birth if the child died?

[Anne in Carlisle]

Maybe Antony has some thoughts on this.... please?
Anne

[AntonyM]

As parents were not legally required to register at that time ...

From 1837 it was a legal requirement for all live births to be registered - the only thing that changed later was the emphasis on where the responsibility lay to make sure it was done, which shifted from the registrar to the parents in 1875. But some children did go unregistered and some families do seem to have resisted more than others, especially in the early years - it may be that this is one of those.

I would guess that the local vicar insisted on a certificate from the registrar before he would perform the burial (which is what the law required) so they had to register the deaths, and at that point the registrar made sure that the births were also registered, which could be done up to 6 months after the birth, increased to 12 months later (as it is now).

A couple of times I had to register such events - the birth and death together - just about the worst sort of job for a registrar..

[Anne in Carlisle]

Thanks very much Antony. It was very sad to see all this, I think I found 8 who had been registered like this. The living children (those seen on the censuses) did not have their births registered. It was in Sheffield if that's of any interest to anybody.

Edit to say .... Just realised the significance of the dates. One child was buried aged 1 but the birth registration appeared too close to the death for that age. I see now how that might have come about.
Thanks again, Antony, you always come up trumps!
Anne

[Katarzyna]

Yes, thank you Anthony, that does shed light on a few things.

[Guy]

Whilst it is true that the 1836 Act required births and deaths to be registered that is not when registration of births and deaths were first required by law.

It may surprise some to know that births & deaths were first required to be registered in 1653, but this system lapsed with the Restoration of the Monarchy.
A little later new Acts were passed in 1695 & 1696 which required births and deaths be registered, however even the penalty of £100 on the clergyman and the appointment of collectors to inspect and enforce compliance many clergymen failed to record births and deaths (by 1696 the duty was on parents to notify them of births within 5 days under the threat of a fine of 40 shillings (£2)) .

In 1785 this duty to record births was extended to Dissenters by another Act of Parliament.

Roses Act in 1812 when it was first introduced as a Bill in Parliament required births and deaths be registered but during its course through the Lords those clauses were removed with the only mention to births being left in its title.

It was because the clergy were so remiss in their duty to keep registers of births and deaths that civil registration was introduced. The system was envisaged in 1833 using tax-collectors as registrars but that fell due to costs to be reintroduced in 1836 with the advent of Poor Law Unions which provided a “cheap” coverage of officials to act as Registrars throughout the country.

I should also add the reason it was so important to record births and deaths was to prove family history to enable heirs to inherit, so never let a registrar tell you they are too busy to deal with family history requests; that is the only reason they have a job.

Cheers
Guy

PS For those who wish to read more about the introduction of Civil Registration visit Hansard at

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1833/mar/28/parochial-registration#S3V0016P0_18330328_HOC_28

for the speech introducing the bill

[Anne in Carlisle]

Thank you Guy, but tell all that to the family I was talking about in the 1840s and50s who lost child after child after child and did only register the births of those who died.
Anne

[margaretmarch]

I have a child in my tree born in the 1920's who died age 3 months whose birth was not registered - I only have the death to show this child existed!

Perhaps a fine was paid for failure to register the birth.

Margaret

[Guy]

Thank you Guy, but tell all that to the family I was talking about in the 1840s and50s who lost child after child after child and did only register the births of those who died.
Anne

I don't really know what you mean Anne.

Many people in those circumstances would be losing faith not only in the clergy to carry out their duty, but also their faith in God. The advent of civil registration release them from having to interact with a church which they may feel had let them down.
Certainly Dissenters were pleased they no longer had to engage with the CoE.

Cheers
Guy

[Anne in Carlisle]

Just wondering if you read my original post, Guy? Your comments, while interesting do not seem to be directed to mine at all. Must be me!
Anne

[Guy]

Just wondering if you read my original post, Guy? Your comments, while interesting do not seem to be directed to mine at all. Must be me!
Anne

No I had not read your initial posting or the first page of replies, I was responding to AntonyM's posting and Katarzyna's post he was replying to.
Pointing out the legal obligations that in some cases had been repealed but in other cases were still in force requiring both registrars to register births and deaths and that parents were also required to register both births and deaths.
Just because the clergy had been reticent in recording births and deaths and few parents had been fined for not registering the births does not mean the law was not still in force.

Cheers
Guy