MASTERCLASS: finding birth certificates - birth not registered

The MASTERCLASS: finding birth certificates in England & Wales has a section on "the birth was not registered at all". I have more than one example but I will give one in this post - my wife's great grandmother.

Fanny GROWCOTT was born at Matlock, Derbyshire on 4th February 1868 (date from 1939 register), the daughter of Joseph and Eliza, née BODEN. Three weeks later Eliza died from child birth peritonitis so she had probably been too ill to get the birth registered. Fanny was baptised at Matlock in March (parents named) and again in November at Bakewell as a resident of the workhouse (no names of parents).

Fanny was in the workhouse age 2 in 1871 and age 12 in 1881. Her father evaded the 1871 census and next appeared in records in 1876 when he married again. Fanny married her cousin Frank BROWNSON in 1885 but he died the following year.

Just to make things difficult for her descendants when she married again in 1893 she claimed to be a spinster instead of a widow and claimed her father was Joseph BROWNSON, greengrocer (deceased) , instead of Joseph GROWCOTT. We have known for years that there was no such person as Joseph BROWNSON and there was no sign of the birth of a Fanny BROWNSON but all has now been explained and we know why there was no registration of a birth.

Have other members found reasons for the lack of registration of a birth?

 

This is a common misconception but not actually correct. The wording of the 1836 Act has sometimes been seen as ambiguous, but nevertheless registering births was always compulsory and parents who refused to comply could be, and were, prosecuted.

 

That doesn’t mean it wasn’t compulsory, though. The intention was undoubtedly that all births should be registered, and while it might be said that the onus was as much or more on registrars as on parents, that didn’t mean that registration was in any way optional, though no doubt some may have viewed it as such.

 

The thing here, Peter, is that in some respects we are both right, which was why I initially said that the 1836 Act was ambiguous. Strictly speaking the obligation was to inform the registrar that the birth had happened, and the onus was then on the registrar to ask for the details necessary for registration, with which parents were obliged to comply. And strictly speaking the obligation to inform the registrar (within 8 days) was on the occupier rather than the parents, though the two would often be the same. So until 1875 there were no penalties imposed on parents for failing to register a birth, but there were penalties for not informing the registrar that a birth had taken place.

I would deduce from this that the intention was that all births should be registered

 

Sorry, I should have clarified that this was extended to 42 days in the final version. Also, while the final wording was indeed changed from shall to may, nevertheless the intention was clear from both the initial Bill and the final Act that all births should be registered, and that there was no sense in which it was to be deemed optional, or not compulsory. The word 'may' provided parents with the opportunity to themselves initiate informing of the birth rather than having to wait for the registrar to contact them, rather than implying registration was a matter of choice.

As I said before, there is that element of ambiguity between the letter and the spirit of the Act, but the suggestion that birth registration was somehow not compulsory before 1875 has the potential to be misleading.

For one reason or another, both before and after the 1874 Act, some births were just not registered.

 

There were only two children. The birth of Job Boden GROWCOTT was registered as normal in 1865 but I do not know if that was by the mother or the father. Fanny's father could have registered her birth but perhaps he was busy looking after his wife while she was ill. However that was more likely to have been done by Eliza's mother, Hannah.

42 days and the fine could be significant. I was wondering about the Registrar asking about a birth when a death caused by Child Birth Peritonitis was registered. It would be reasonable to ask the question.

It was Hannah who registered the death of Eliza, having been present. The death was registered a month after it happened and that was 48 days after the birth of Fanny.

 

As I said before, Peter, in some respects we are both right, though looking back I can see I haven't always expressed what I was trying to say very well. (People will insist on coming to the front door and interrupting at the wrong moment....!)

I certainly do not disagree that in the final wording of the 1836 Act, the proposed obligation on parents was removed, but as I read it, the obligation on registrars was not removed (see Section 18). Thus the registration of births was compulsory right from the start of civil registration.

 

It was not compulsory for parents to initiate the process of birth registration, but that is not the same as saying birth registration itself was not compulsory. Registrars admittedly had an almost impossible job, but they were nevertheless required to register every birth.

 

Exactly - so the legal requirement in the 1836 Act for registrars to register every birth in their patch means, as I said, that it was compulsory for them to do.

It’s not that the word compulsory means something different to me than it does to you, it’s that you are focusing on one aspect of the Act and the role of parents in birth registration, while I am looking at the Act as a whole. It’s the context that makes the difference here, not the dictionary definition of compulsory.

 

I have enjoyed the cut and thrust of the 'compulsory' discussion between Peter and Pauline and on this occasion agree with Peter, and as he knows that has not always been so, and in the same way more often than not agree with Pauline; just not this time.

Once the law (any law) is promulgated and becomes legally binding by an Act of Parliament its interpretation can only be as written -i.e. black or white. Thus, 'grey' interpretations will always be contentious, many ending in a court of law for a ruling, and if necessary, leading on to a change of wording in the Act.

Peter is considering the 'Birth' law as it applied to the parents not the Registrar. I concur whilst there is a monetary inducement to encourage notification within the 6 week time frame (7s 6d would have been a lot of money to pay after this time frame), this did not constitute 'compulsion'. The Registrar on the other hand did have a statutory obligation to record and notify the birth; given that he knew of it. There could be a myriad of reasons why a birth was not notified to the Registrar and likewise why a Registrar by all the means available did not learn of a particular birth, so it went unregistered.

It reminds me of throwing my school raincoat on a chair and my mother telling me to hang it on a peg. Then, noticing my cap was still on the chair, reminding me she had told me to hang it on a peg, and my gleeful retort that she did not specify the cap. Guess who won that argument?

 

Yes, I was aware of that, but his initial statement that birth registration was not compulsory until 1875 was misleading and not strictly correct.

I'm not quite sure of the relevance of Peter's comment about baptism, though, as the two situations are quite different. Registrars were legally required to register all births, and if approached, parents were legally required to comply.

The legal requirement on clergy is not to refuse (or unduly delay) any request for baptism from parishioners, and if approached by clergy, parents are fully entitled to say 'no thank you' - there is no legal obligation to comply.