|
Post by hullenedge on Aug 15, 2014 18:31:40 GMT
Here's a jolly scheme presented by Admiral Sir John Hay & Mr James Campbell to the HoC in October 1884:- 'This Bill proposes to continue the representation of the people by 658 members. Of these, four at present are given irrespective of population to the City of London, and nine as at present to the Universities. 645 members remain for the representation of the general population of the United Kingdom. It is proposed to redistribute these 645 members, first, according to the estimated population in 1885 of England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland respectively; secondly, by giving to each county with its boroughs its proportion of members according to population; and thirdly, to distribute that proportion again within the limits of each county according to the population of the rural districts and of the towns respectively.' The authors calculated 469 members for England, 25 for Wales, 75 for Scotland and 89 for Ireland. It was proposed that no existing borough should be disenfranchised however in the case of a borough represented by a small population other boroughs would be combined with it so as to form a group having joint representation. Therefore this Bill created a patchwork of single, double and three-member constituencies. www.dropbox.com/sh/u2n2reg2wdmn7tt/AAALkL6wCrZoDyhWWX_tTc5Qa?dl=0In the West Riding (Northern Division) Bradford would return three members, Halifax one and the combined boroughs of Keighley, Todmorden and North Bierley one member. The remaining county area is split into a Northern division (Sedbergh, Settle, Skipton and rural Keighley) two members and a Western division three members. Leeds is split into 2 three-member constituencies whereas Sheffield has one three-member and one double-member constituency. London - City (4), Chelsea (3), Kensington (3), Paddington (2), Marylebone (3), Pancras (3), Hampstead (1), Charing Cross (2), Westminster (2), Islington (3), Canonbury (3), Finsbury (3), Hackney (3), Bethnal Green (2), Shoreditch (2), Tower Hamlets (3), Mile End (2), Poplar (3), Lambeth (3), Brixton (3), Camberwell (3), Southwark (2), Bermondsey (2), Greenwich (3), Streatham (3), Battersea (3) and Lewisham (1). Given that the scheme was proposed by two Conservative MPs it was viewed (by some) as a possible Tory gerrymander although press opinion did acknowledge that it was an attempt to create equal representation and the grouping of boroughs was already a feature of the Scottish constituency map. There is only the briefest of hints about 'minority representation' i.e. the limited vote in three-member constituencies in the preamble to the Bill so I assume that Hay & Campbell did not consider changes to the electoral system.
|
|
piperdave
SNP
Dalkeith; Midlothian/North & Musselburgh
Posts: 906
|
Post by piperdave on Aug 15, 2014 21:49:13 GMT
That looks really interesting. Any chance of posting the Scotland and Wales details?
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Aug 15, 2014 22:14:45 GMT
I can give you the whole Bill if you want.
WALES: Anglesey (1) Brecon (1) Cardigan (2) Carmarthen (2) Carnarvon (2) Denbigh (2) Flint (1) Glamorgan (9): Eastern division and Western division Merioneth (1) Montgomery (1) Pembroke (2) Radnor (1)
Plus Monmouthshire (4)
SCOTLAND: Aberdeen, Eastern division (4) Aberdeen, Western division (1) Argyll (1) Ayr, Northern division (2) Ayr, Southern division (2) Banff (1) Berwick (1) Clackmannan and Kinross (2) Dumbarton and Bute (2) Dumfries (2) Edinburgh (7) Edinburgh University (1) Elgin and Nairn (1) Fife (3) Forfar (4) Haddington (2) Inverness (2) Kincardine (1) Kirkcudbright (1) Lanark, Northern division (12): including Glasgow parish of Gorbals and parts of Barony (3), Glasgow city and Govan (3) Glasgow University (1) Lanark, Southern division (2) Lanark (1) Linlithgow (1) Orkney and Shetland (1) Peebles and Selkirk (1) Perth (3) Renfrew (5) Ross and Cromarty (1) Roxburgh (2) Stirling (2) Sutherland with Caithness (1) Wigtown (2)
|
|
|
Post by hullenedge on Aug 15, 2014 23:40:11 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2014 9:28:37 GMT
|
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,734
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Aug 16, 2014 10:28:13 GMT
Now this is very interesting indeed. When I wrote my own version of "Around the World in Eighty Days" (which stops on December 23rd 1872) I carried it on until New Year's Day 1873 where I suggested that thanks to his exploits, Phileas Fogg is effectively parachuted into the double member constituency of St. Marylebone for the 1874 general election. I am considering writing a sequel which would be based on the Moonshot stories ("From the Earth to the Moon" and "Around the Moon") which would be set in 1884. Could I therefore ask what implications for St. Marylebone these boundary changes would have had / had?
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Aug 16, 2014 11:02:00 GMT
If I was living where I am now in 1874, I would be in the Borough of Marylebone, for Parliamentary elections. It had originally included "the several parishes of Saint Marylebone, Saint Pancras, and Paddington." and in 1868 had been extended to include parts of the parishes of Hornsey and Willesden.
The Bill defines the Boroughs in terms of registration districts and sub-districts rather than parishes, and Marylebone consists of the Registration District of Marylebone (154,910 population in the 1881 census) and the Registration Sub-district of Regent's Park (39,115). The Registration District of Marylebone was coterminous with the parish of Saint Marylebone. The Registration Sub-district of Regent's Park was 419 acres of the parish of Saint Pancras.
I do think it's worth saying that Admiral Sir John Hay (Conservative, Wigtown Burghs) and James Campbell (Conservative, Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities) were not likely to have much influence on the Gladstone government. Their Bill, introduced on 10 March 1884 (and then reintroduced in the new session on 24 October 1884), did help add to the pressure on Gladstone to have a redistribution at the same time as his proposed franchise change, but had no effect on influencing Gladstone's actual redistribution. The Gladstone government had introduced its own Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill (1 December 1884) with numbers of seats in each borough and county indicated; Boundary Commissioners were appointed on 28 November 1884 and reported on 10 February 1885 (16 February 1885 for Ireland) but they were there to report on the details of the divisions and not given a free hand.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Apr 12, 2017 16:50:35 GMT
If I was living where I am now in 1874, I would be in the Borough of Marylebone, for Parliamentary elections. It had originally included "the several parishes of Saint Marylebone, Saint Pancras, and Paddington." and in 1868 had been extended to include parts of the parishes of Hornsey and Willesden. David Sorry to bump up a three-year-old thread, but are you sure about the statement I've emboldened above? I've been looking at the VoB maps from the 1868 review and it's clear than not all of the proposals were implemented. I'd identified the proposed change to Marylebone as one of those that were rejected, which would mean that the constituency kept its boundary as set in 1832 right through to the more comprehensive (and long overdue) redistribution effected in 1885. In particular, the 1868 Commission suggested that the whole parish of Hampstead be included in the seat, plus some bits of the parishes of Willesden (the Kilburn area) and Hornsey (the Highgate area). But am I not right in thinking that Hampstead remained in the Middlesex county seat until 1885 (when it was set up as a separate Parliamentary borough)? In fact I'd gone on to assume that all the changes proposed by the 1868 Commission in the London area were also rejected, e.g. to Finsbury and Chelsea, meaning that in London the only changes were those effected by the 1867 Act itself (i.e. a new borough of Chelsea and the splitting-off of a new borough of Hackney out of Tower Hamlets). But I'm 100% receptive to being told that I'm wrong about any or all of this. Edited to add: If I'd been living where I am now in 1874, I'd have been in the Borough of Finsbury. My full sequence would run - Up to 1832 - Middlesex (2 members) 1832 - Finsbury (2 members) 1885 - Islington East 1974 - Islington Central Since 1983 - Islington South and Finsbury
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Apr 12, 2017 17:31:19 GMT
You live in Canonbury ward then
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Apr 12, 2017 19:01:48 GMT
If I was living where I am now in 1874, I would be in the Borough of Marylebone, for Parliamentary elections. It had originally included "the several parishes of Saint Marylebone, Saint Pancras, and Paddington." and in 1868 had been extended to include parts of the parishes of Hornsey and Willesden. Sorry to bump up a three-year-old thread, but are you sure about the statement I've emboldened above? I think you are right - I was going just on the 1868 Boundary Commission recommendations. Here's a contemporary map from 1884 just before the 1885 changes.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Apr 12, 2017 20:14:23 GMT
Thank you David. That's extremely helpful and seems to settle the matter of the Marylebone seat.
It also clears up another point. It shows that Plumstead had been added to Greenwich, which was another change recommended by the 1868 Commission. So my this disproves my assumption that its recommendations in the London area were all rejected.
Very attractive and clear map, btw.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Apr 12, 2017 21:02:14 GMT
What's the strange boundary around Sroke Newington and Finsbury PArk? Looks like that whole area is in the Finsbury seat as it's all shaded pale green but then there are these strange internal boundaries..
|
|
|
Post by islington on Apr 12, 2017 21:28:45 GMT
I think I can help you there - and you've put your finger on another 1868 implementation that I'd missed.
The heavy red line is the perimeter of the Metropolitan Board of Works (which later became the initial boundary of the LCC). It included Stoke Newington parish, but excluded Hornsey. The latter parish jutted south into the Clissold Park area, and moreover had two detached parts at the southern end of Stoke Newington. All of these areas were outside the MBW, hence the convolutions of the heavy red line in this area.
They were also outside the original 1832 version of the Finsbury seat. But the 1868 Commission recommended an extension in this area, presumably to get rid of this very awkward boundary, and this is another proposal that was evidently accepted.
But not for long...
Because in 1885, Islington parish became a Parliamentary Borough by itself (with four divisions) and Stoke Newington parish was thrown in with Hackney parish to form a new Hackney PB with three divisions. And the two detached bits of Hornsey reverted to Middlesex, and were included in the new Hornsey division. So the tidying-up of 1868 was revoked.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Apr 12, 2017 21:51:45 GMT
Muswell Hill formed an exclave of the post 1885 Finsbury Central constituency but it doesn't appear to have formed part of the much larger Finsbury seat prior to that which is odd as it was an obvious anachromism, understandable if it had always been like that but strange to introduce it then. There was another exclave in Queens Park which formed part of Chelsea after 1885 but of course that had formed a contiguous part of the Chelsea seat prior to that
|
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,726
|
Post by Adrian on Apr 12, 2017 22:02:11 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Apr 12, 2017 22:07:03 GMT
Of course it wasn't actually unrepresented; it was represented by the members for Surrey or the members for Middlesex. And if you were lucky enough to live within one of the Parliamentary boroughs and also qualified to vote in elections for the Knights of the Shire, you could freely vote for both in the same election (and polling would also be on different days).
|
|
|
Post by islington on Apr 13, 2017 7:00:03 GMT
Muswell Hill formed an exclave of the post 1885 Finsbury Central constituency but it doesn't appear to have formed part of the much larger Finsbury seat prior to that which is odd as it was an obvious anachromism, understandable if it had always been like that but strange to introduce it then. There was another exclave in Queens Park which formed part of Chelsea after 1885 but of course that had formed a contiguous part of the Chelsea seat prior to that The Muswell Hill exclave was a detached part of the parish of Clerkenwell. It covered the area between Colney Hatch Lane and the boundary of (originally) Tottenham parish (later Wood Green, when it was split off from Tottenham in 1894). It was merged into Horney parish in 1900 at a time when a lot of awkward and anomalous boundaries around London were regularized. I presume it was part of the MBW and (until 1900) of the LCC but I'm not 100% sure about this. The Parliamentary Boundaries Act 1832 (wonderful piece of legislation, full text available online) excluded it from the Finsbury seat. But from 1885, it was part of Finsbury Central as Pete says, and it remained so until that seat was abolished in 1918. Note also the detached part of Putney (the Leg o' Mutton reservoir area) just north of the village of Barnes - also within the MBW.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Apr 13, 2017 7:44:01 GMT
Of course it wasn't actually unrepresented; it was represented by the members for Surrey or the members for Middlesex. And if you were lucky enough to live within one of the Parliamentary boroughs and also qualified to vote in elections for the Knights of the Shire, you could freely vote for both in the same election (and polling would also be on different days). I'm confused. There's some kind of restriction in the 1832 Reform Act (sections 24 and 25) on voting rights in the county in respect of holdings in a borough seat, but I'm far from clear about how this worked in practice. It's very clear from legislation and Boundary Commission reports that, right up to 1918, Parliamentary boroughs were (with a handful of exceptions - see below) part of the relevant Parliamentary county and that persons possessing a county qualification in respect of holdings in the borough could, in principle, vote in the county seat on the strength of it; although perhaps not if that same holding also entitled the owner to vote in the borough. I can see how this might happen because the borough franchise required residence whereas the county franchise merely required ownership but generally, I'm very foggy about this. At any rate, by the time of the 1885 redistribution - if not earlier - it appears that this kind of plural voting had become relatively unimportant and it seems that the inclusion of Parliamentary boroughs in county seats was something of a formality. Certainly the naming practice suggests this: a county seat that included one or more boroughs was invariably given a name that reflected its non-borough element only, even though the included boroughs might be much larger and better-known (hence, e.g., a seat that, on paper, included (among other places) the City of London and the parish of Hornsey was named after the latter). And the mention of the City of London reminds me of another baffling oddity. Generally, the 1832 Act was very particular about specifying that towns and cities that were counties of themselves (the old 'counties corporate'), e.g. Canterbury, Chester, York & Ainsty, &c, were to be part of their respective counties. There's a list of them in Schedule G to the Act. But five of them were scrupulously excluded: Bristol, Exeter, Lichfield, Norwich and Nottingham. These five were thus not part of any Parliamentary county; and this exclusion was carefully maintained in the subsequent reforms of 1867 and 1885 (except that when Lichfield was disfranchised in 1885 specific provision was made transferring it to Staffordshire). Why these five in particular? What was so special about them? And if you were going to draw up a list of five 'special' counties corporate that required exceptional treatment, what is the rationale for including relatively run-of-the-mill places like Exeter and Lichfield, whilst excluding places like York and, especially, London? Yet in Schedule G, alongside the likes of Caermarthen (sic), Poole, &c, we see London and York meekly taking their alphabetical places and being assigned to Middlesex and the N Riding (and duly remaining in those Parliamentary counties right through to 1918). Sorry if this has turned into a bit of a ramble, but I'd be hugely grateful to anyone that can cast any light on any aspect of this.
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Apr 13, 2017 8:09:19 GMT
It was massively complicated but basically only the bigger property owners got double votes. From 1867 only people who occupied property at a rent of £50 annually and upward in a borough got a second vote for the county.
After 1885 a voter in a borough only got an additional vote for the county if they were a freehold owner of land. That could mean ownership without them actually living there.
Most double registration ended in 1918 but some still carried on in relation to business premises voters and of course University graduates.
In the 1885-1918 period, although they were a relatively small proportion of voters, the ownership voters were enough to affect the result in some county divisions. Henry Pelling's "Social Geography of British Elections" frequently refers to them.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Apr 13, 2017 10:45:12 GMT
Another interesting consequence of the theory that Parliamentary boroughs were part of a county seat is that it was possible to draw a county seat that, on paper, inclusive of a PB, was contiguous; but in practice, with the PB excluded, was disconnected. So far, looking at the period 1885-1918 (when the system became recognizably modern), I've found three of these: Hallamshire and Shipley in Yorkshire, and Ince in Lancashire.
Hallamshire and Ince don't look so bad because the main body of the seat is contiguous and it is only a relatively small part that is separated from the rest by the PBs of (respectively) Sheffield and Wigan. And this type of arrangement, although hardly desirable, is not uncommon at the time, so these seats don't really stand out as peculiar.
Shipley looks like the worst case: set aside Bradford PB (itself divided into three single-member seats) and you are left with the Shipley / Idle / Eccleshill area north of Bradford and a strip of territory including Clayton, Wibsey and part of the Bierley area on the other side of the PB. The reason this looks so bad is that the two territories of which the seat consists (once you ignore Bradford) are both fairly small so the gap between them appears proportionately very large. (But, of course, people at the time had no problem with Districts of Boroughs (or Burghs), so obviously expectations were different back then.)
There are a lot of other county seats at this time that are left highly convoluted, but not actually discontinuous, if you ignore the PB element. Osgoldcross is a notable example.
|
|