Author Topic: Census - A form No. 301 refused  (Read 476 times)

Offline gaffy

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 3,963
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Census - A form No. 301 refused
« Reply #9 on: Wednesday 01 July 20 10:59 BST (UK) »
I'm wondering if there is a summary or covering page / card somewhere for these census returns, with the usual identifiers on it (Poor Law Union, DED etc.) and someone back in the day has written these words as a comment on that page / card (but by chance, in the immediate vicinity of the townland / street), simply to highlight that the return for no. 301 is missing, then someone transcribing the documentation for the NAI has literally interpreted the words as part of the townland / street.  It's the only such instance I can find in the census so far.


Offline Sinann

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 10,248
    • View Profile
Re: Census - A form No. 301 refused
« Reply #10 on: Wednesday 01 July 20 11:14 BST (UK) »
I'm wondering if there is a summary or covering page / card somewhere for these census returns, with the usual identifiers on it (Poor Law Union, DED etc.) and someone back in the day has written these words as a comment on that page / card (but by chance, in the immediate vicinity of the townland / street), simply to highlight that the return for no. 301 is missing, then someone transcribing the documentation for the NAI has literally interpreted the words as part of the townland / street.  It's the only such instance I can find in the census so far.



That's exactly what I think happened, the enumerator made a note next to the address and the transcribers included in on all the addresses but only Anne O Connor refused and her form A is number 301. 

Offline Liam59

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 78
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Census - A form No. 301 refused
« Reply #11 on: Wednesday 01 July 20 14:54 BST (UK) »
Yes, it must have been as it seems to be added on the electronic record for the whole area when the original scans just have this for one address.  It confused me but makes sense now after your help.

Thank you again for all for your help.