Evaluating the same-name technique as a way of measuring burial register reliability in England

Local Population Studies

Volumn 64, Issue , 2000, Pages 8-22

  Razzell, Peter ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0345806485     PISSN: 01432974     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (52)

1. R.E. Jones, 'Further evidence on the decline in infant mortality in pre-industrial England: North Shropshire, 1561-1810', Population Studies, 34 (1980), 250.
2. J.T. Krause, 'The changing adequacy of English registration, 1690-1837', in D.V. Glass and D.E. C. Eversley eds, Population in History, (London, 1965), 393.
3. Krause, 'Changing adequacy', 379-93.
4. Krause, 'Changing adequacy', 380.
5. E.A. Wrigley and R.S. Schofield, The population history of England, 1541-1871: a reconstruction, (London, 1981), 137.
6. Wrigley and Schofield, Population history of England, 561.
7. Wrigley and Schofield, Population history of England, 137.
8. Negligence appears to have primarily resulted from the practice of entering events in rough note books and only copying them up at very irregular intervals, a practice that was present from the very beginning of parish registration. For a detailed discussion of this topic see D.J. Steel, General sources of births, marriages and deaths before 1837, (National Index of Parish Registers, Volume 1, 1968), 27-31. For further discussion, see P. Razzell, Essays in English population history, (London, 1994), 108-11. For evidence on the role of non-payment of fees see note 38 below.
9. Negligence appears to have primarily resulted from the practice of entering events in rough note books and only copying them up at very irregular intervals, a practice that was present from the very beginning of parish registration. For a detailed discussion of this topic see D.J. Steel, General sources of births, marriages and deaths before 1837, (National Index of Parish Registers, Volume 1, 1968), 27-31. For further discussion, see P. Razzell, Essays in English population history, (London, 1994), 108-11. For evidence on the role of non-payment of fees see note 38 below.
10. Wrigley and Schofield, Population history of England, 135.
11. P. Razzell, 'The evaluation of baptism as a form of birth registration through cross-matching census and parish register data: a study in methodology', Population Studies, 26 (1972), 129. The issues and procedures involved in this census/baptism register comparison are complex, but although there are a number of problems in comparing census with parish register data, it is possible to check the reliability of the census/parish register method by using additional civil registration information on individuals born between 1837 and 1851. I concluded from this research that the census/parish register method accurately measured the quality of baptism registration. See Razzell, Essays, 82-149.
12. P. Razzell, 'The evaluation of baptism as a form of birth registration through cross-matching census and parish register data: a study in methodology', Population Studies, 26 (1972), 129. The issues and procedures involved in this census/baptism register comparison are complex, but although there are a number of problems in comparing census with parish register data, it is possible to check the reliability of the census/parish register method by using additional civil registration information on individuals born between 1837 and 1851. I concluded from this research that the census/parish register method accurately measured the quality of baptism registration. See Razzell, Essays, 82-149.
13. Wrigley and Schofield, Population history of England, 561.
14. E.A. Wrigley, R.S. Davies, J.E. Oeppen and R.S. Schofield, English population history from family reconstitution, 1580-1837, (Cambridge, 1997), 101-6.
15. See P. Razzell, 'The conundrum of eighteenth-century English population growth', Social History of Medicine, 11 (1998), 476-7.
16. Wrigley, Davies, Oeppen and Schofield, English population history from family reconstitution, 91-2.
17. Wrigley, Davies, Oeppen and Schofield, English population history from family reconstitution, 109-10.
18. L. Henry, Manuel de demographie historique, (Paris, 1967), 22-3; R. Finlay, Population and metropolis, (Cambridge 1981), 45-9.
19. L. Henry, Manuel de demographie historique, (Paris, 1967), 22-3; R. Finlay, Population and metropolis, (Cambridge 1981), 45-9.
20. See the Genealogists' Magazine, June 1998, 59; September 1998, 95-7; and December 1998, 145.
21. See the Genealogists' Magazine, June 1998, 59; September 1998, 95-7; and December 1998, 145.
22. See the Genealogists' Magazine, June 1998, 59; September 1998, 95-7; and December 1998, 145.
23. This information is taken from the Canewdon parish register lodged in the Society of Genealogists' library.
24. For details of information on the Turner family, see G.H. Jennings, The diary of a Georgian shopkeeper, (London, 1979), 79-84.
25. I am grateful to the East Sussex Record Office Society for conducting a search of the East Hoathly parish register.
26. See the Genealogists'Magazine, June 1998, 59; September 1998, 95-7; and December 1998, 145.
27. See the Genealogists'Magazine, June 1998, 59; September 1998, 95-7; and December 1998, 145.
28. See the Genealogists'Magazine, June 1998, 59; September 1998, 95-7; and December 1998, 145.
29. I am grateful to Mrs E.A. Digby for providing the details of this monument.
30. See J. Le Neve, Monumenta anglicana, vol. 1 (London, 1717), 267-8.
31. For London see D. Glass ed., London inhabitants within the walls, (London, 1965).
32. For details of this sample, see Razzell, Essays, 93-4.
33. An extreme example of identical first names but different middle forenames is to be found in the family of William Thomas Spencer, 6th Earl Fitzwilliam. His sons' names were as follows: William, William Henry, William Thomas, William Charles, William John, William George, William Hugh, and William Reginald, and all but one of these children survived childhood: see Burke's peerage, 104th edn. (1967), 958.
34. For example, 8 per cent of all baptisms and 26 per cent of child burials included in a reconstitution study of two rural Bedfordshire parishes in the period 1700-1849 were first same-name children, whereas the equivalent proportions in London during the period 1681-1709 were 12 and 23 per cent. For details of the Bedfordshire study see Razzell, 'The conundrum', 491; the London research is discussed later in the present paper.
35. For details of the London enumeration list see Glass, London inhabitants.
36. This material is deposited in the library of the Society of Genealogists. For details of this source, see A. Camp, 'Boyd's London burials and citizens of London', Family Tree, 1 (September-October 1985), 12.
37. P.E. Jones and A.V. Judges, 'London population in the late seventeenth century', Economic History Review, 6 (1935), 48.
38. D. Glass, 'Introduction' in D. Glass ed., London inhabitants, xxviii.
39. Glass, London inhabitants.
40. Theoretically these figures can be compared to those derived by David Glass and Jeremy Boulton from their study of parish register and collectors' returns of births and deaths made in London for the 1695 Marriage Duty Act. Unfortunately the collectors' figures were derived from the returns made by Anglican clergymen and were not therefore independent of parish register figures. There is evidence that clergymen were negligent in recording all births and burials, which was one of the reasons why the Marriage Act legislation was repealed in 1706. See Glass, 'Introduction', xxxvi-xxxvii; and J. Boulton, 'The Marriage Duty Act in London', in K. Schürer and T. Arkell eds, Surveying the people, (Oxford, 1992), 222-52.
41. Theoretically these figures can be compared to those derived by David Glass and Jeremy Boulton from their study of parish register and collectors' returns of births and deaths made in London for the 1695 Marriage Duty Act. Unfortunately the collectors' figures were derived from the returns made by Anglican clergymen and were not therefore independent of parish register figures. There is evidence that clergymen were negligent in recording all births and burials, which was one of the reasons why the Marriage Act legislation was repealed in 1706. See Glass, 'Introduction', xxxvi-xxxvii; and J. Boulton, 'The Marriage Duty Act in London', in K. Schürer and T. Arkell eds, Surveying the people, (Oxford, 1992), 222-52.
42. Finlay, Population and metropolis, 85.
43. Personal communication from John Landers.
44. See J. Marshall, Mortality of the metropolis, (London, 1832), 63. Boyd's data probably includes more people listed as owning taxable wealth than was typical for London as a whole. Glass estimated that about 27 per cent of the population paid higher levels of taxation, lower than the proportion in Table 3. See Glass, 'Introduction', xxi.
45. See J. Marshall, Mortality of the metropolis, (London, 1832), 63. Boyd's data probably includes more people listed as owning taxable wealth than was typical for London as a whole. Glass estimated that about 27 per cent of the population paid higher levels of taxation, lower than the proportion in Table 3. See Glass, 'Introduction', xxi.
46. In addition to the problem of the representativeness of the sample in Table 4, there is the issue of the proportion of eligible children who were given same names and its effect on the reliability of the same-name method. Andrew Hinde (personal communication) has kindly carried out some simulations of the effect of different degrees of same-naming and burial registration quality on the overall reliability of the same-name method. Although limited to two possible scenarios, his conclusion is that the simulations provide some reassurance that non-universal same-naming and moderate degrees of burial under-registration do not invalidate the method.
47. Boothman found that one of the reasons for the under-registration of pauper burials in Long Melford was the non-payment of burial fees by the parish authority. It is possible that the non-payment of fees was an important general reason for burial under-registration. In six parishes with occupational information at the end of the eighteenth century - Highworth, Swindon, Clayworth, Woodford, Bedford St Paul's and Rochester St Margaret's - which I have analysed, there was a significantly higher proportion of unregistered same-name burials amongst labourers' children (12 out of 59) than among other occupational groups (11 out of 97). This suggests that poverty may have been a factor in the non-registration of burials, presumably through the non-payment of fees. For the information on pauper burials in Long Melford see L. Boothman, 'Letter on Long Melford parish registers', Local Population Studies, 50 (1993), 80-1. I am grateful to Lyn Boothman for letting me have additional information on pauper burials in Long Melford.
48. Razzell, Essays, 212.
49. Boothman, 'Letter on Long Melford' and personal communication.
50. Razzell, Essays, 210.
51. Wrigley, Davies, Oeppen and Schofield, English population history from family reconstitution, 77, 144.
52. Census/parish register comparison methods are likely to be most appropriate for the nineteenth century because of the decline of infant and child mortality in that period. This decline in mortality led to a reduction in the number of same-name cases (the number of such cases is usually a good indication of the level of infant and child mortality), and there are not likely to be enough cases in small rural parishes for purposes of analysis. Also the growing use of two or more forenames in the nineteenth century complicates the analysis of same-names, as discussed earlier in this article.