There has long been a tendency amongst historians to view the Victorian and Edwardian censuses of England and Wales as a problematic source for studying the work of women. Census-taking in the period was a predominantly male affair-census enumerators, who were mainly men, gave to household heads, again mostly male, census household schedules which they filled up using instructions provided by the exclusively male civil servants of the General Register Office (GRO) in London. The Victorian enumerators collected the household schedules and copied them into census enumeration books (CEBs), and then dispatched these to the officials at the GRO. When the latter received the CEBs they proceeded to 'abstract' the information in them using classification and coding systems they had devised to create tables and commentaries to be published in Parliamentary Papers. 1 This, it has been argued, introduced biases against recording the work of women at almost every stage. If such under-enumeration existed it would create signal problems for understanding the changing role of women in the economy and in the family, and indeed the nature of economic development during the Industrial Revolution as a whole. This article is in two parts. In the first, Edward Higgs examines the historiography on the issue, and his own position in it, and in the second, Amanda Wilkinson presents new evidence on the reliability of the census returns.