1901  Townland Returns:

1.     Ballintlieve
2.     Ballinlough
3.     Carroghill
4.     Glasmullan
5.     Meenadiff


1911  Townland Returns:

1.     Ballintlieve
2.     Ballinlough
3.     Carroghill
4.     Glasmullan
5.     Meenadiff

We have tried to be diligent in transcribing these returns and avoid any errors. However, these returns will probably have a 'few' transcription errors, so if you see anything that looks to be inaccurate please email us and we'll double check the returns.

Some of the forms were very faint and were very hard to read. Question marks in the forms indicate unreadable handwriting, and/or some other questionable information.

You will note some differences in spellings for some surnames between the 1901 and 1911 returns. These are transcribed as shown on the returns in an effort to remain true to the original returns.

One important note... there is a 'very consistent discrepancy' between the ages of some of the same individuals from 1901 to 1911. Though there is just a 10 year difference in the returns; many adults, (especially middle aged and older adults), show up as 13 - 15 years older in the 1911 returns than they were in the 1901 returns. This happens repeatedly from household to household with many, (not all) of the returns. Given the fact that these are almost always 3-5 year 'differences' and almost always 'older,' it would seem this discrepancy is 'intentional' either on the part of the families, or the part of the Constables taking the returns.  We may have made a few transcription mistakes, but for the most part these age differences are just as they appear on the returns.

The reason for this is unclear, but it may have to do with the O.A.P. Old Age Pension applications from 1908.  Did some folks report a different age to qualify for the O.A.P. in 1908? If so, would they then have 'stuck to their story' three years later in the 1911 Census returns?

Or did some folks actually think they were younger... and found out through the OAP claims that they  were a few years older? And then reported it more accurately in 1911?

Apparently many folks neither knew, nor cared about their ages and didn't celebrate birthdays back then.
(Thanks to Dan Devlin for some additional feedback on this subject).

We have no 'solid' explanation yet, but we would love to hear from you if you've found similar discrepancies in returns from other parishes, or if you have any ideas why this pattern would show up on these returns.

Finally, we 'will' be adding a H.O.F. name index as soon as time allows and we welcome any suggestions and comments you may have.

Questions & Comments may be directed to Dan King at: dkng@cyberportal.net