Birth registration rules in 1901 UK

[california dreamin]

I wonder if it was anything to do with collecting an old age pension.  There seemed to be compulsory and non-compulsory options. Here's an article https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v2n4/v2n4p14.pdf

Anyway just a thought...

CD

[Whipby]

…but the father had to return just 5 days later to register the boy's (this time anonymous) death.  The likelihood of that happening was perhaps the main reason for the typical wait until the sixth week.

This is really sad, the possibility that people might have waited until the last minute to register a birth, in case they also had to register the baby’s death, too.  I’d never thought of this scenario, but it makes sense, especially for families in rural areas with a longer journey to the register office. 

How tragic that infant mortality was so common that they had to think like this 😭

[coombs]

I have several birth certs where the parents waited until the last minute to register the birth, or some who registered it days after, but as we know, until 1875, the onus was on the registrar and his deputies to be on the ball in regards to new births in the district. I have once born in rural Essex in late Dec 1843 and birth registered on 31 Dec 1843. I have a old work pal who was born a week before Xmas 1944 and he showed me his birth cert once, registered I think 27 or 28 Dec. His dad was a local clerk. And a 1944 birth had a much higher survival rate than someone born 1844.

[AntonyMMM]

but as we know, until 1875, the onus was on the registrar and his deputies to be on the ball in regards to new births in the district.

The actual wording of the act was that the registrar "is hereby required to inform himself carefully of every Birth and every Death which shall happen within his District".

Records of correspondence in the RG files at TNA make it clear that there was no expectation that the registrar was supposed to go out walking the streets asking about births and deaths or to be knocking on people's doors.

He was required to live within his district and to make his address (and times of availability) known by having a sign "in some conspicuous place on or near the outer door of his own dwelling house".

Announcements placed by registrars in the newspapers of the time advertising times for registering are also quite common.

With young infant deaths in the early/mid Victorian period, although there should be both a birth and a death registration, it isn't uncommon to find only the death recorded by the registrar.

[coombs]

but as we know, until 1875, the onus was on the registrar and his deputies to be on the ball in regards to new births in the district.

The actual wording of the act was that the registrar "is hereby required to inform himself carefully of every Birth and every Death which shall happen within his District".

Records of correspondence in the RG files at TNA make it clear that there was no expectation that the registrar was supposed to go out walking the streets asking about births and deaths or to be knocking on people's doors.

He was required to live within his district and to make his address (and times of availability) known by having a sign "in some conspicuous place on or near the outer door of his own dwelling house".

Announcements placed by registrars in the newspapers of the time advertising times for registering are also quite common.

With young infant deaths in the early/mid Victorian period, although there should be both a birth and a death registration, it isn't uncommon to find only the death recorded by the registrar.

So you could say parents were in a way asked to come forward prior to 1875 then?

[Whipby]

That’s really interesting, I had no idea that they would record births etc at their own homes!

[AntonyMMM]

So you could say parents were in a way asked to come forward prior to 1875 then?

GRO issued notices in the press when registration was launched. The issue, and all the discussion since, really revolves around the use of the word "may" rather than "must" in  the 1836 B&D Act, and how that would have been defined at the time. It was certainly the intention of parliament, and the Registrar General, that this was a compulsory system being introduced.

The press notice said ..."all births and deaths which occur after June 1837 may be registered by the registrar of the district within which they occur.." it then confirms that registration is free but then warns of the fee that becomes payable for registering births after the required 6 weeks ( which was 7s 6d), and goes on to say therefore that "All persons therefore should have the births of their children registered without delay".

The 1874 Act clarified things a little and instead of saying parents "may" register a birth it became "shall be the duty of " - it also extended the period of free registration to 3 months and reduced the fee for late registration slightly (to 5s).

Registrars had no ability to issues fines, and could only levy the statutory fees. Fines could only come from a court after prosecution. What is clear is that some parents were prosecuted for failing to register or refusing to regsiter births right from the start in 1837, but failing/refusal only became an offence once the registrar had issued a notice requiring the parents to register which they then ignored.

[coombs]

So you could say parents were in a way asked to come forward prior to 1875 then?

GRO issued notices in the press when registration was launched. The issue, and all the discussion since, really revolves around the use of the word "may" rather than "must" in  the 1836 B&D Act, and how that would have been defined at the time. It was certainly the intention of parliament, and the Registrar General, that this was a compulsory system being introduced.

The press notice said ..."all births and deaths which occur after June 1837 may be registered by the registrar of the district within which they occur.." it then confirms that registration is free but then warns of the fee that becomes payable for registering births after the required 6 weeks ( which was 7s 6d), and goes on to say therefore that "All persons therefore should have the births of their children registered without delay".

The 1874 Act clarified things a little and instead of saying parents "may" register a birth it became "shall be the duty of " - it also extended the period of free registration to 3 months and reduced the fee for late registration slightly (to 5s).

Registrars had no ability to issues fines, and could only levy the statutory fees. Fines could only come from a court after prosecution. What is clear is that some parents were prosecuted for failing to register or refusing to regsiter births right from the start in 1837, but failing/refusal only became an offence once the registrar had issued a notice requiring the parents to register which they then ignored.

Would make a great new episode for Dave Annal's Setting the Record Straight series on YouTube. thought.

[Whipby]

Thank you, everyone, for all the information - it’s so useful.

How common was it for a child’s birth to go completely unregistered in the mid 1870s?  Was that even possible?  I haven’t been able to find my ancestor even though I’ve tried everything I can think of - different spellings, sounds like, searching different years, different areas, etc.

She obviously doesn’t want to be found!