1871 census puzzle.

[Olde Crone]

I'm reading "The Jews of South West England", an extended thesis published in 1993. I have just come across this: (about the 1871 census returns for Plymouth)

" ..and although the door to door enumerator recorded the occupation of Samuel Levy as a Second hand clothes dealer and outfitter, the Superintendent Registrar crossed this out and substituted JEW. "

The puzzle is - did the Superintendent Registrar really go through every return? If he did, why would he have substituted the word Jew? Other than nasty prejudice of course, which surely was not in his remit.

Any thoughts?

OC

[Phoenix]

I don't know who checked the returns, but they clearly were subjected to additional scrutiny, with occupations and birth places changed (and those irritating slashes that sometimes make ages illegible.)

But that sounds like a personal, offensive comment.

[kiterunner]

It isn't crossed out but Jew does seem to be written in the last column. Will have to browse through for a while to see whether there is anything else similar.

https://www.ancestry.co.uk/imageviewer/collections/7619/images/DEVRG10_2131_2135-0516?treeid=&personid=&rc=&usePUB=true&_phsrc=UMN82455&_phstart=successSource&pId=9231246

[Phoenix]

No, the writer was an idiot. It's not the occupation that has been crossed out.

Place of birth - Russia - has been crossed out, and in the last column the word Jew entered in brackets.

[kiterunner]

From browsing through, I think they put a mark of some kind in the last column for each person who was born in another country. The letter before what looks like "(Jew)" could be F for "foreign parts" as they had in previous censuses.

[Phoenix]

Having said that, countries, and indeed counties other than Devon seem to be crossed through.

[kiterunner]

On this page from Yorkshire the entries for people born in Russia, Poland, or Germany have "for" added over the line between occupation and where born, presumably short for "foreign parts" or "foreigner":

https://www.ancestry.co.uk/imageviewer/collections/7619/images/ERYRG10_4780_4782-0225?backlabel=ReturnSearchResults&queryId=ab62317310b69455116613b4486712ee&pId=10002206

[kiterunner]

And on this page F in the last column:
https://www.ancestry.co.uk/imageviewer/collections/7619/images/LNDRG10_371_373-0038?backlabel=ReturnSearchResults&queryId=ab62317310b69455116613b4486712ee&pId=11740347

[Olde Crone]

Ah, that's interesting. The writer points out one or two other instances of "Jew" being unnecessarily recorded but perhaps he (the writer) misunderstood what he saw. If you aren't used to looking at census returns they can be difficult to read as we know.

I still find it difficult to believe it was the Superintendent Registrar himself who made any alterations and tallies, surely the clerks would have done that and he would just have signed it off.

OC

[kiterunner]

I agree, OC.

[Olde Crone]

And now the startling information that the Plymouth Synagogue register of marriages took 75 years to fill! I already knew of course, that any marriage venue might take many years to complete a register and some still haven't, but 75 years. No wonder we sometimes can't find marriages.

OC

[Phoenix]

Chicken feed, OC. In Norfolk in the 1980s, the vicars were still using the registers starting in 1837.

[Olde Crone]

Phoenix, yes, I remember a long discussion about a register which didn't appear to have been deposited, even though the searcher had the original marriage cert. It turned out to be that the church was rarely used for marriages and so the register wasn't full. (Traps for the unwary are everywhere!)

OC