Giving false info to census 1901

[aghadowey]

If I'm reading this correctly, a woman (I'll call Mary) is listed as married in 1901 and 1911 census with the latter stating married 13 years (c1898). In actual fact you've found the marriage took place in 1908?
If Mary's 'husband' is the head of the household then he's the one who gave false information on the forms, not Mary. Therefore, you can't really assume that Mary would have lied about other things (if this is what you are doing).
Many people said on the census that they were married when in fact they were not but had been living together for some time. Sometimes the 'lies' on the census form are because people didn't understand the form, were illiterate or the enumerator didn't make the questions clear.

[Helena_Wojtczak]

If I'm ready this correctly, a woman (I'll call Mary) is listed as married in 1901 and 1911 census with the latter stating married 13 years (c1898). In actual fact you've found the marriage took place in 1908?
If Mary's 'husband' is the head of the household then he's the one who gave false information on the forms, not Mary. Therefore, you can't really assume that Mary would have lied about other things (if this is what you are doing).
Many people said on the census that they were married when in fact they were not but had been living together for some time. Sometimes the 'lies' on the census form are because people didn't understand the form, were illiterate or the enumerator didn't make the questions clear.

The husband was away from home both nights, she was in the house with small children, calling herself Mrs Mary Bloggs (say) and saying she was the wife of the absent husband, and giving the children's surnames as his surname and not her own, and writing in 1911 that she was married for 13 years when I have her certificate of marriage in June 1903. Thirteen years would make it look like all her children were born in wedlock. And her signature (not his) appears on the return. So, yeah, she lied. And yes, I am trying to elicit whether she had ever lied in her life in order to weigh up whether she was likely to have lied about something else. I'm not blaming her for lying, just establishing that she did.

What I REALLY NEED is to know whether it was an offence to lie on a census return before 1910.

Regards

Helena

[avm228]

What I REALLY NEED is to know whether it was an offence to lie on a census return before 1910.

Yes.  The Census (Great Britain) Act, 1900 provided inter alia as follows:

11. [...]
(2.) If any occupier for whom a schedule is left under this Act --
(a.) wilfully refuses, or without lawful excuse neglects, to fill up the schedule to the best of his knowledge and belief, or to sign and deliver it as by this Act required; or
(b.) wilfully makes, signs, or delivers, or causes to be made, signed, or delivered, any false return of any matter specified in the schedule; or
(c.) refuses to answer, or wilfully gives a false answer to, any question necessary for obtaining the information required to be obtained under this Act;
he shall for each offence be liable on conviction under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts to a fine not exceeding five pounds.
[...]

[avm228]

Like others I would be cautious about drawing inferences about the person's character on the basis of the facts you have described. 

The myth of "common-law marriage" appears to endure in pockets even today, with some people apparently believing that cohabitation for some significant period of time amounts to lawful marriage in England & Wales. Perhaps she thought of herself as a common-law wife?

[Helena_Wojtczak]

Yes.  The Census (Great Britain) Act, 1900 provided inter alia as follows:

11. [...]
(2.) If any occupier for whom a schedule is left under this Act --
(a.) wilfully refuses, or without lawful excuse neglects, to fill up the schedule to the best of his knowledge and belief, or to sign and deliver it as by this Act required; or
(b.) wilfully makes, signs, or delivers, or causes to be made, signed, or delivered, any false return of any matter specified in the schedule; or
(c.) refuses to answer, or wilfully gives a false answer to, any question necessary for obtaining the information required to be obtained under this Act;
he shall for each offence be liable on conviction under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts to a fine not exceeding five pounds.
[...]

A MILLION THANKS TO YOU FOR CLEARING THAT UP! Brilliant, that is precisely what I wanted to know.

I think I have made it abundantly clear that I am NOT "drawing inferences about the person's character" but establishing that she was a liar, and that is abundantly clear. She most definitely WAS, even when that constituted an offence against the law carrying a fine.

What you say about common-law marriage is absolutely correct. My hackles rise every time I hear the phrase as it is utterly meaningless. People just pick it up from others and repeat it like parrots without finding out if it is even real.

Anyway thanks again, that is a fantastic help to me!

Helena

[andycand]

Hi

It might help to give some indication as to what the 'other lie' is. For example, if a child was registered as Mary Jones but is on a census (or other document) as Mary Bloggs then that is not a lie as there is no law that says she can't just change her name.

I would be cautious about judging a person as a liar because of what was filled in on a census form.

Andy

[Helena_Wojtczak]

Hi

It might help to give some indication as to what the 'other lie' is. For example, if a child was registered as Mary Jones but is on a census (or other document) as Mary Bloggs then that is not a lie as there is no law that says she can't just change her name.

I would be cautious about judging a person as a liar because of what was filled in on a census form.

Andy

It's not just a change of name on the 1911 it asks "how many years have you been married" and she filled it in as 13.

The 'other lie' was that she lied on a different official form, not a census, and people are saying that she 'could not have lied, because it was an official form, lying would have constituted an offence and carried a penalty, so she would not have done it'.

However, I can now correctly counter that with the news that she had previously lied on an official form, where lying would have constituted an offence and carried a penalty.

Gads, why have you guys such a problem with this? I've proved she lied, what is it to you? 
 

[avm228]

Rootschatters are only trying to help, and give freely and generously of their time in order to do so.

[KGarrad]

Gads, why have you guys such a problem with this? I've proved she lied, what is it to you? 

And why are you so vigorous in persuing a witch-hunt against someone you probably never knew?

Maybe she couldn't get married bacause the first wife was still around?
And to protect the children, just let people assume she was married?
Nothing wrong with a little white lie?

So what? Big flipping deal! Everybody lies at some point in their lives.
Deal with it! Get over it!