How did they take the Census ?

[john_harvey]

Was it done by an official knocking at the door ?
If so obviously all of the country wasnt done on the same day/night, must have been many mistakes and lies as we all know.
Also people not home etc, must have been a logistical nightmare ?
I wonder how long it tok to do the whole country ?
Any one have any info on how the census returns were done ?
Regards.....John

[Olde Crone Holden]

A few days before census night, the census schedule was delivered to each house. they were supposed to fill it in as of midnight on cenus night.

The completed forms were collected over the next few days and the details entered into large books. the household schedules were then destroyed (apart from 1911).

Those who were comp[letely illiterate got someone else to fill in the form for them - a neighbour, a school;child or at a push, the enumerator calling for the completed form.

The census contains inaccuracies, mistakes, transcription errors and downright lies. It is not a primary source document and therefore the information it contains should be backed up from other sources.

EDIT - should have said, census enumerators were drawn locally from the great and the good and hopefully the literate. so a schoolteacher, a bank clerk, the vicar and so on would have been recruited. If you look on ancestry, you can see details of each enumeration district. I think the criteria was a distance which could be easily walked in one day - one day to deliver the forms, one day to collect them.

OC

[john_harvey]

Thanks for that, very interesting.....John

[colin taylor]

I unoffficially helped an enumerator several years back... he had to contact everyone and often there was no answer so it took several evenings.. Not sure why I was asked to help as I only accompanied him on each call but it may be he did not feel comfortable in the area he was given.
I met a lot of lonely old people in self contained flats in high rise buidings.....I am sure I learned something from the experience.

[Rusty]

I wouldn't describe myself as 'The Great and The Good! but I was an census enumerator on two or three occasions, we had a 'district' to cover, sorry I can't remember how many houses, but it was quite a few, we weren't meant to deal with anyone we knew, if we did come across a friend or colleague we had to offer them an envelope so that their return wouldn't be read by me! In the small country district that I belonged to it was hard to cover an area where everyone was unknown to me, some asked for an envelope others just said that I knew all about them so why worry! Anyway we had the forms to deliver and as we delivered we had to ask a few questions such as 'how many people should we expect to find on the census return when we returned to collect it', after all these years I can't remember all the questions or the purpose behind them.

The forms were left for the householder to fill in, then we had to collect them after census night, check that they were filled in correctly and note any discrepencies between the questions we had asked earlier and the replies on the form. I think that we had a couple of weeks to do this in as some houses required several call backs before there was anyone at home, we also had to help people fill in their forms if they couldn't manage.

If there were any problems we had someone to go to who would take over that particular household for us, then when all the forms were in they went back to the person above us who would collate the answers and presumably hand them all over to the person above him (it was nearly always a 'him', often a retired Local Government Officer or army type) and so on up the chain.

We had to sign the relevant part of the official secrets act even if we'd signed it before.

Margaret

[john_harvey]

Being a census enumerator must be a "devils own" job and not one I would fancy.
It must be even more difficult today the way our society is, I would also imagine quite difficult in area's with a large immigrant population.

Oh and the lies and mis-truths that have been told
I have quite a few from my ancestors, age being one of them.
Regrards......John

[Night Owl]

I was also an enumerator once and wouldn't do it again. You got a set fee and that took no account of how many times you had to go back. I was about 25 at the time and I certainly met some strange types (amazing how many men came to the door in their underpants!!). There was only one house (well it was a caravan in a scrap metal yard and guard dogs were roaming) that I refused to go back to. The person above me had to sort that one out.

The part I found the most tedious was that we were given a book of words which explained why each question was being asked and what use that information might be put to. We had to learn that in case someone asked. I'm pretty sure no one did. Needless to say I've forgotten most of it now.

[Olde Crone Holden]

It has always amazed me that so many people, especially in the early years, DID tell the approximate truth, lol, for purposes which many of them would only have seen as nosey parkering.

OC

[john_harvey]

It has always amazed me that so many people, especially in the early years, DID tell the approximate truth, lol, for purposes which many of them would only have seen as nosey parkering.

OC

"nosey parkering" .....and that is the phrase of the day, and I am nicking it....LOL.
John

[john_harvey]

When (if ever) will they start releasing cenusus returns "early" ?
John

[Little Nell]

Who can answer that question John?!

As people live longer and longer the logic would suggest that they release the information later and later. The census was done primarily to enable planned services, not so we could find out that gt aunt Nora was shacked up with a man she wasn't married to!

[Olde Crone Holden]

John

Most of the censuses were taken with the strict promise that the individual information would not be released for 100 years.

This was in the hope that most people would therefore be reasonably honest, and they usually were unless they had something to hide, lol.

The 1911 census was released early, thanks to a campaign by one of our members, Guy. My own, very personal feeling, is that no census should be released early where a solemn promise was made in ordwer to extract personal information. But that is MY personal opinion and very few people share it!

OC

[john_harvey]

Interesting comments...Thanks John

[Joy Dean]

Quite useful - http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/e...hat_is/how.htm

[Joy Dean]

John

Most of the censuses were taken with the strict promise that the individual information would not be released for 100 years.

This was in the hope that most people would therefore be reasonably honest, and they usually were unless they had something to hide, lol.

The 1911 census was released early, thanks to a campaign by one of our members, Guy. My own, very personal feeling, is that no census should be released early where a solemn promise was made in ordwer to extract personal information. But that is MY personal opinion and very few people share it!

OC

I do share your opinion

[john_harvey]

I do share your opinion

So do I .................... now if only if I could get hold of the 1921.........Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm :-)

[Guy]

John

Most of the censuses were taken with the strict promise that the individual information would not be released for 100 years.

This was in the hope that most people would therefore be reasonably honest, and they usually were unless they had something to hide, lol.

The 1911 census was released early, thanks to a campaign by one of our members, Guy. My own, very personal feeling, is that no census should be released early where a solemn promise was made in ordwer to extract personal information. But that is MY personal opinion and very few people share it!

OC

That is the whole problem OC no promise was made.
The undertakings of confidentiality for 100 years only appeared on census schedules in 1981, 1991 and 2001 and the undertakings on the 1981 and 1991 census were as admitted in parliament unauthorised.

This is shown by the letter the then Registrar General wrote to parliament (dated 14 March 2005) in which he stated-

"In an attempt to simplify the confidentiality message on the front of the 1981 and the 1991 Census forms, the assurances, as worded, stated that the Registrar General had authority himself to retain the records for 100 years. This pledge asserts authority that the Registrar General does not have."

The Advisory Council on Public Records and Archives (ACPRA) October 1998 statement about the closure of census records stated-

"The Council considered the appropriateness of the closure period of 100 years which applied to the decennial census of population. It concluded that since undertakings of confidentiality had been given in the past by successive governments to people making returns, any reduction in the closure period for censuses up to that taken in 1991 would be a breach of confidence. It also felt, however, that a shorter period, of 80 years for instance, might be appropriate for future censuses."


We therefore have the situation where the census is being withheld against the recommendations of the ACPRA in an effort to save the embarrassment of parliament who supported legislation based on false assurances from the Registrar General who later informed parliament he was not authorised to give the assurances.
Perhaps those who oppose the census being released should consider who was actually deceived.
Was it our ancestors or is it the present population who have been misguided?
Cheers
Guy

[Olde Crone Holden]

Guy

I think it is the 1921 population who have been deceived, frankly. The passing of the 1920 census Act must have fooled many into believing that all census information would be withheld for 100 years. My interpretation of the Act is the same.

OC

[Uncle John]

Just confirms that what's right and what's legal are often two different things.

[Blackberry]

I think it is the 1921 population who have been deceived, frankly. The passing of the 1920 census Act must have fooled many into believing that all census information would be withheld for 100 years.

It can't have done if the first mention of 100 years came in 1981. There's nothing very specific in the wording of the Act or on the form itself.