How strict were the census takers...

[tilly56]

Good afternoon,

I have two "general" questions..... firstly, how strict were the census takers in noting whether someone was "Deformed"? My Gt Grandfather (Charles Abiah Lancaster) was given as such in the 1881 census, but no mention in earlier censuses. He died in 1887 of "Asthma 12 years Bronchal Pneumonia". What did "Deformed" cover?

Secondly, his widow, Elizabeth, had illegitimate twins, Harold and Elsie, born in 1891. I have just found a "Bastardy" claim made by her on the 29th September 1891 in Leighton Buzzard. The supposed father was represented by a Solicitor. Am I correct in thinking that he must have been from a "good family" for this to be the case?

Any thoughts very welcome!

Many thanks  Tilly xx

[hanes teulu]

"Deformed" would not appear to "fit" the 4 conditions specified at the top of the column. Tabbing through the census sheets either side of Charles' entry I spotted "Rhumatism (sic)" and "Par. Paralysed".

Perhaps the enumerator decided it was best to play safe when presented with any condition by a householder?

[tilly56]

Hello Hanes,  Thank you for such a quick reply.  I don't know how many censuses I have looked at, but never noticed the list of conditions at the top of the column....

As you say, maybe the enumerator was playing safe... or maybe he did suffer from one of the conditions, but that, I suppose, I will never know!

Tilly x

[iluleah]

The enumerators 'should' follow the format however some men would, some wouldn't... the ones I have seen on the 1881 census noting 'deformed' was always written under occupation and said "none (deformed)" rather than " Gen Servant" or "Mason retired" so unable to work ? but the enumerator wrote what they were told  by the householder, child, neighbour or what they thought they knew or saw so I would say they were not strictly following the details of the enumerators jb discription.

If represented by a Solicitor then it would also be my conclusion that the person was wealthy enough to afford legal representation and I would be off investigating him further

[tilly56]

Thank you for your interesting reply, Iluleah,

I do have the name of the supposed father and I did have a quick dig on Ancestry, but it is quite a common name and so I gave up. He was sentenced to give her one shilling for each child per week "henceforth" so it seems he either admitted paternity or couldn't get out of it. At the time she made the claim she was in the Leighton Buzzard workhouse, poor thing. One of the twins died the next year.

Elizabeth already had an illegitimate son when she married Charles Abiah.....

Thanks again

Tilly

[iluleah]

 

I have just found a "Bastardy" claim made by her on the 29th September 1891 in Leighton Buzzard.

This is where I would start https://www1.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk with filters of the year "1891" and "Leighton Buzzard Observer and Linslade Gazette"
Bedford Council also have a newspaper collection http://bedsarchives.bedford.gov.uk/Guide-to-Collections/Collection-Guides-A-to-Z/NewspaperCollection.aspx

[tilly56]

BINGO!!!! 
I've had a quick look at the Leighton Buzzard Observer and there they are!

The father  was a labourer. A fellow lodger gave evidence that there had been "intimate relations".  The solicitor brought up the fact that Elizabeth already had an illegitimate child of 18 to try and show that she had "systematically led an immoral life", but his witness said it was "not his business".

I'm very pleased he had to pay something!

I shall keep looking for other articles, just in case.

Many many thanks!

Tilly

[iluleah]

Well done!

[Jool]

Hi Tilly, she is mentioned again in the Leighton Buzzard Observer and Linslade Gazette 05 May 1896.  I haven't given details as you may want to read the article for yourself