|
|
Post by finsobruce on Apr 2, 2020 15:57:15 GMT
Looking up one of those names I have found this, which appears to have some spelling errors: The Urmston District Council was formed in December, 1894. The first election of Councillors was held on December 17th of that year, when no less than 25 candidates came forward for the 12 seats. The following were successful, with the result of the polling : Dr. J. Clegg, 515 ; Hy. Galloway, 498 ; W. Howatt, 370 ; E. Farrand, 346 ; G. P. Tate,329 ; John Walton, 328 ; John Soddy, 289 ; W. Seddon, 288 ; John Robinson, 273 ; J. Pearce, 273 ; itev. E. H. Cooke, 263; G. Houghton, 256. Dr. Clegg was elected as chairman. The cost of the election was £25. 16s.Henry Galloway is listed elsewhere as the builder and owner of Manor Croft, which was a rather posh house next to (and in the style of) Urmston Hall, the manor house for the area. Both were sadly knocked down after the War. But here is a picture (I have some elsewhere in an old book): www.flickr.com/photos/traffordcouncil/8677128193There is also a reference to Galloway's daughter contributing to the building of the parish church opposite. A plaque in memory of Dr. Clegg is still in place on the old Cottage Hospital (where my mother was born). Another book I have found refers to Clegg trying to keep the peace during a debate about extending the tramway in 1905, in which an argument occurs between Cllrs. Schofield and Johnson, with the former shouting "don't you make your dirty remarks to me", at which point "a scene ensued". these scenes seem to have been a regular part of council life everywhere at the time, when you imagine everything was very sedate and formal. I came across another one for Urmston (I think) when a cllr started arguing about whether they should send a joint delegation with Heaton Norris UDC about their water supply. Eventually the councillor left the chamber and the paper recorded that the other members were familiar with such incidents "since Cllr so and so had joined the district". |
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Apr 2, 2020 16:12:43 GMT
Yeah, that sounds like Urmston. See the recent news on Cllr Lally on the defections thread!
|
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Apr 3, 2020 18:27:41 GMT
No results but an interesting paragraph from "The Graphic" newspaper commenting on the result of the municipal elections in early November 1894.
"The Conservatives and Unionists gained something like fifty seats;but the great feature of the year's elections was the increase in the number of nominations of Independent Labour and Socialist candidates. As might be expected the Independent Labour candidates won their seats in the great industrial cities of the North; in the Midlands and the South they were less successful. Socialists gained seats in Reading, Burnley and Southampton and many votes which might otherwise have gone to the Liberals, went to them and to Independent candidates. In more than one instance the Conservatives won seats owing to the Socialists splitting the vote , and the general result of the elections was to emphasise the gradual disintergration of what once was the Liberal party".
|
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Apr 3, 2020 18:43:13 GMT
And a couple of results from Dundee for Forfarshire ConservativeOnly the second and seventh wards were contested. The first instance I've seen giving the number of male and female voters in a ward.
It was stated that the election was fought mostly on the 'liquor question', and with a spirit dealer on one side and Mr Robertson being the leader of the Temperance movement in Dundee on the other, the Temperance side won out in both wards. Second Ward(male voters 1772, female voters 633) James McIntosh (confectioner) 707 George Willsher (spirit dealer) 633 (spoilt votes) Seventh ward(male voters 1811, female voters 403) John Robertson (stair railer) 749 Hugh Ballingall (ex provost)519 (spoilt votes 19) |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Apr 4, 2020 9:42:35 GMT
And a couple of results from Dundee for Forfarshire Conservative Only the second and seventh wards were contested. The first instance I've seen giving the number of male and female voters in a ward. It was stated that the election was fought mostly on the 'liquor question', and with a spirit dealer on one side and Mr Robertson being the leader of the Temperance movement in Dundee on the other, the Temperance side won out in both wards. Second Ward (male voters 1772, female voters 633) James McIntosh (confectioner) 707George Willsher (spirit dealer) 633 (spoilt votes) Seventh ward (male voters 1811, female voters 403) John Robertson (stair railer) 749 Hugh Ballingall (ex provost)519 (spoilt votes 19) Latterly known as James Rowntree-McIntosh of course.. |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Apr 4, 2020 15:41:24 GMT
And a couple of results from Dundee for Forfarshire Conservative Only the second and seventh wards were contested. The first instance I've seen giving the number of male and female voters in a ward. It was stated that the election was fought mostly on the 'liquor question', and with a spirit dealer on one side and Mr Robertson being the leader of the Temperance movement in Dundee on the other, the Temperance side won out in both wards. Second Ward (male voters 1772, female voters 633) James McIntosh (confectioner) 707George Willsher (spirit dealer) 633 (spoilt votes) Seventh ward (male voters 1811, female voters 403) John Robertson (stair railer) 749 Hugh Ballingall (ex provost)519 (spoilt votes 19) Latterly known as James Rowntree-McIntosh of course.. you are a sweetie. |
|
ColinJ
Labour
Living in the Past
Posts: 2,126
|
Post by ColinJ on Apr 8, 2020 13:46:49 GMT
Not quite 1894, but the lockdown has given me the opportunity to refine and expand information on my web site. I've just found the following for a by-election in Wealdstone UDC on Monday 13 April 1896. The result was:
Harold Senier 135
Richard Rixon 47
Henry Job 23
It is not the result that is strange (and which I've known for a long time), but a report of polling day provided by the Wealdstone, Harrow and Wembley Observer. A couple of excerpts show that the report started off quite jovially, only to take a somewhat sinister turn later:
“The weather was not at all favourable for outdoor sport — a keen wind blowing all day with alternate showers of rain and hail — still, one would have expected that the electors, especially those living within a stone’s throw of the booth, would have exercised that privilege so long agitated for and now so seldom taken advantage of. Punctually at eight o’clock the doors of the school were opened ..... the first elector to record his vote was Mr. H. Hiscock.... There are evidently no Jew voters in the parish of Wealdstone, and out of the Gentile list only four electors were unable to read, while several were still under the impression that they could vote by proxy....”
Is this racism? Or just a fact imparted using the style and language of late Victorian Britain? And why should arrangements for Jewish voters (if any) be of interest, as the poll did not take place on the sabbath? And why the reference to proxy voters?
|
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Apr 9, 2020 8:21:06 GMT
finsobruce, would it be possible to dig out the results for Chandlers Ford please?
|
|
Crimson King
Lib Dem
Be nice to each other and sing in tune
Posts: 9,842 
|
Post by Crimson King on Apr 9, 2020 9:57:32 GMT
Not quite 1894, but the lockdown has given me the opportunity to refine and expand information on my web site. I've just found the following for a by-election in Wealdstone UDC on Monday 13 April 1896. The result was: Harold Senier 135 Richard Rixon 47 Henry Job 23 It is not the result that is strange (and which I've known for a long time), but a report of polling day provided by the Wealdstone, Harrow and Wembley Observer. A couple of excerpts show that the report started off quite jovially, only to take a somewhat sinister turn later: “The weather was not at all favourable for outdoor sport — a keen wind blowing all day with alternate showers of rain and hail — still, one would have expected that the electors, especially those living within a stone’s throw of the booth, would have exercised that privilege so long agitated for and now so seldom taken advantage of. Punctually at eight o’clock the doors of the school were opened ..... the first elector to record his vote was Mr. H. Hiscock.... There are evidently no Jew voters in the parish of Wealdstone, and out of the Gentile list only four electors were unable to read, while several were still under the impression that they could vote by proxy....” Is this racism? Or just a fact imparted using the style and language of late Victorian Britain? And why should arrangements for Jewish voters (if any) be of interest, as the poll did not take place on the sabbath? And why the reference to proxy voters? wikipedia talks about the emancipation of Jews in the UK occuring in 1858, only 40 years before, it is unclear as to the practical arrangements but it is possible that in being emancipated a group previously denied the franchise were put on a new and separate list, which still existed then??? |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Apr 9, 2020 12:00:02 GMT
finsobruce , would it be possible to dig out the results for Chandlers Ford please? I'm looking as we speak, but I have found this story from June of that year.
" George Goodchild an aged man admitted making use of obscene language at Chandlers Ford last Monday. His excuse was that it was dark and no-one could see him".
|
|
ColinJ
Labour
Living in the Past
Posts: 2,126
|
Post by ColinJ on Apr 9, 2020 15:23:54 GMT
Not quite 1894, but the lockdown has given me the opportunity to refine and expand information on my web site. I've just found the following for a by-election in Wealdstone UDC on Monday 13 April 1896. The result was: Harold Senier 135 Richard Rixon 47 Henry Job 23 It is not the result that is strange (and which I've known for a long time), but a report of polling day provided by the Wealdstone, Harrow and Wembley Observer. A couple of excerpts show that the report started off quite jovially, only to take a somewhat sinister turn later: “The weather was not at all favourable for outdoor sport — a keen wind blowing all day with alternate showers of rain and hail — still, one would have expected that the electors, especially those living within a stone’s throw of the booth, would have exercised that privilege so long agitated for and now so seldom taken advantage of. Punctually at eight o’clock the doors of the school were opened ..... the first elector to record his vote was Mr. H. Hiscock.... There are evidently no Jew voters in the parish of Wealdstone, and out of the Gentile list only four electors were unable to read, while several were still under the impression that they could vote by proxy....” Is this racism? Or just a fact imparted using the style and language of late Victorian Britain? And why should arrangements for Jewish voters (if any) be of interest, as the poll did not take place on the sabbath? And why the reference to proxy voters? wikipedia talks about the emancipation of Jews in the UK occuring in 1858, only 40 years before, it is unclear as to the practical arrangements but it is possible that in being emancipated a group previously denied the franchise were put on a new and separate list, which still existed then??? Thanks for your thoughts, but I don't think so. I have studied at length the 1895 Register of Electors for the Harrow division of the County of Middlesex; it has quite an intricate structure and several different sections, but with no classification by religion. The different sections are: 1. Ownership Electors, qualified as Parliamentary and Parochial electors. 2. Occupation Electors - Division 1 (other than lodgers), qualified as Parliamentary, County and Parochial electors. 3. Occupation Electors - Division 2 (other than lodgers), qualified as Parliamentary and Parochial electors, not as County electors. 4. Occupation Electors - Division 3 (other than lodgers), qualified as County and Parochial electors, not as Parliamentary electors. 5. Lodgers, qualified as Parliamentary and Parochial electors. 6. Separate List of Parochial electors, qualified as Parochial electors only. 7. Parliamentary Electors, those not appearing in 1-6 above but registered by the Revising Barrister to vote as Parliamentary electors in Harrow. Women voters could appear in sections 4 and 6. |
|
pl
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,664
|
Post by pl on Apr 9, 2020 15:36:54 GMT
wikipedia talks about the emancipation of Jews in the UK occuring in 1858, only 40 years before, it is unclear as to the practical arrangements but it is possible that in being emancipated a group previously denied the franchise were put on a new and separate list, which still existed then??? Thanks for your thoughts, but I don't think so. I have studied at length the 1895 Register of Electors for the Harrow division of the County of Middlesex; it has quite an intricate structure and several different sections, but with no classification by religion. The different sections are: 1. Ownership Electors, qualified as Parliamentary and Parochial electors. 2. Occupation Electors - Division 1 (other than lodgers), qualified as Parliamentary, County and Parochial electors. 3. Occupation Electors - Division 2 (other than lodgers), qualified as Parliamentary and Parochial electors, not as County electors. 4. Occupation Electors - Division 3 (other than lodgers), qualified as County and Parochial electors, not as Parliamentary electors. 5. Lodgers, qualified as Parliamentary and Parochial electors. 6. Separate List of Parochial electors, qualified as Parochial electors only. 7. Parliamentary Electors, those not appearing in 1-6 above but registered by the Revising Barrister to vote as Parliamentary electors in Harrow. Women voters could appear in sections 4 and 6. What was the franchise for County electors at this point - how could you be a parliamentary or parochial elector but not a county one? |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Apr 9, 2020 15:47:56 GMT
Not quite 1894, but the lockdown has given me the opportunity to refine and expand information on my web site. I've just found the following for a by-election in Wealdstone UDC on Monday 13 April 1896. The result was: Harold Senier 135 Richard Rixon 47 Henry Job 23 It is not the result that is strange (and which I've known for a long time), but a report of polling day provided by the Wealdstone, Harrow and Wembley Observer. A couple of excerpts show that the report started off quite jovially, only to take a somewhat sinister turn later: “The weather was not at all favourable for outdoor sport — a keen wind blowing all day with alternate showers of rain and hail — still, one would have expected that the electors, especially those living within a stone’s throw of the booth, would have exercised that privilege so long agitated for and now so seldom taken advantage of. Punctually at eight o’clock the doors of the school were opened ..... the first elector to record his vote was Mr. H. Hiscock.... There are evidently no Jew voters in the parish of Wealdstone, and out of the Gentile list only four electors were unable to read, while several were still under the impression that they could vote by proxy....” Is this racism? Or just a fact imparted using the style and language of late Victorian Britain? And why should arrangements for Jewish voters (if any) be of interest, as the poll did not take place on the sabbath? And why the reference to proxy voters? I was thinking it might be Passover, but I checked the calendar for 1896 and it had already been and gone. Unless they are thinking Job is a Jewish surname - which it isn't. |
|
ColinJ
Labour
Living in the Past
Posts: 2,126
|
Post by ColinJ on Apr 9, 2020 17:01:32 GMT
Thanks for your thoughts, but I don't think so. I have studied at length the 1895 Register of Electors for the Harrow division of the County of Middlesex; it has quite an intricate structure and several different sections, but with no classification by religion. The different sections are: 1. Ownership Electors, qualified as Parliamentary and Parochial electors. 2. Occupation Electors - Division 1 (other than lodgers), qualified as Parliamentary, County and Parochial electors. 3. Occupation Electors - Division 2 (other than lodgers), qualified as Parliamentary and Parochial electors, not as County electors. 4. Occupation Electors - Division 3 (other than lodgers), qualified as County and Parochial electors, not as Parliamentary electors. 5. Lodgers, qualified as Parliamentary and Parochial electors. 6. Separate List of Parochial electors, qualified as Parochial electors only. 7. Parliamentary Electors, those not appearing in 1-6 above but registered by the Revising Barrister to vote as Parliamentary electors in Harrow. Women voters could appear in sections 4 and 6. What was the franchise for County electors at this point - how could you be a parliamentary or parochial elector but not a county one? Well quite. I think the following comes close to an explanation. The Register was first of all divided into the various local government units, e.g. parishes of rural districts, urban districts, boroughs, wards, etc. Within each local government unit of the Register the sub-division into the 7 categories that I listed above took place. Due to some electors having plural votes, e.g. in neighbouring local authorities - but within the same parliamentary division or county division - care had to be taken not to 'double count' for certain categories of elections. I think this is how a person could be excluded as a county elector in one section .... it is because their name appears as a county elector in one of the sections of one of the other local authorities. Features used to further categorise electors, and to confuse the modern student, that I did not mention above, were: a. In section (1) - Ownership electors - were of two types. 'Standard' entries, and 'italicised' entries also marked with an asterisk (*). (The latter claimed to vote as a Parliamentary elector in another polling district.) b. In section (4) - Occupation electors Division 3 - were also of two types. 'Standard' entries, and entries with a dagger by the name, indicating the elector was not qualified to vote as a Parochial elector with respect to that entry, because their name had already appeared as an entry in section 1. When I carried out my study I focused in on the new Harrow-on-the-Hill UD. There are a total of 1,250 entries in the 1895 Register; of which 1,014 would be qualified to vote in a Parliamentary election, 1,018 in a County election, and 1,183 in an UD election. Going back to my original posting, it will be seen that although the Register has mega-complexity, religion is not a factor. If you ever find it difficult getting to sleep at night, forget counting sheep .... try counting Victorian electors! |
|
pl
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,664
|
Post by pl on Apr 9, 2020 17:08:37 GMT
What was the franchise for County electors at this point - how could you be a parliamentary or parochial elector but not a county one? Well quite. I think the following comes close to an explanation. The Register was first of all divided into the various local government units, e.g. parishes of rural districts, urban districts, boroughs, wards, etc. Within each local government unit of the Register the sub-division into the 7 categories that I listed above took place. Due to some electors having plural votes, e.g. in neighbouring local authorities - but within the same parliamentary division or county division - care had to be taken not to 'double count' for certain categories of elections. I think this is how a person could be excluded as a county elector in one section .... it is because their name appears as a county elector in one of the sections of one of the other local authorities. Features used to further categorise electors, and to confuse the modern student, that I did not mention above, were: a. In section (1) - Ownership electors - were of two types. 'Standard' entries, and 'italicised' entries also marked with an asterisk (*). (The latter claimed to vote as a Parliamentary elector in another polling district.) b. In section (4) - Occupation electors Division 3 - were also of two types. 'Standard' entries, and entries with a dagger by the name, indicating the elector was not qualified to vote as a Parochial elector with respect to that entry, because their name had already appeared as an entry in section 1. When I carried out my study I focused in on the new Harrow-on-the-Hill UD. There are a total of 1,250 entries in the 1895 Register; of which 1,014 would be qualified to vote in a Parliamentary election, 1,018 in a County election, and 1,183 in an UD election. Going back to my original posting, it will be seen that although the Register has mega-complexity, religion is not a factor. If you ever find it difficult getting to sleep at night, forget counting sheep .... try counting Victorian electors! That is fascinating. So there is precedent for marking the register that an elector is registered in more than one local authority area, and is not eligible to vote in for a particular election in that area. This is potential solution (and precedent) to our current issue of people being on more than one register. |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,759
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Apr 9, 2020 18:07:49 GMT
What was the franchise for County electors at this point - how could you be a parliamentary or parochial elector but not a county one? Well quite. I think the following comes close to an explanation. The Register was first of all divided into the various local government units, e.g. parishes of rural districts, urban districts, boroughs, wards, etc. Within each local government unit of the Register the sub-division into the 7 categories that I listed above took place. Due to some electors having plural votes, e.g. in neighbouring local authorities - but within the same parliamentary division or county division - care had to be taken not to 'double count' for certain categories of elections. I think this is how a person could be excluded as a county elector in one section .... it is because their name appears as a county elector in one of the sections of one of the other local authorities. Features used to further categorise electors, and to confuse the modern student, that I did not mention above, were: a. In section (1) - Ownership electors - were of two types. 'Standard' entries, and 'italicised' entries also marked with an asterisk (*). (The latter claimed to vote as a Parliamentary elector in another polling district.) b. In section (4) - Occupation electors Division 3 - were also of two types. 'Standard' entries, and entries with a dagger by the name, indicating the elector was not qualified to vote as a Parochial elector with respect to that entry, because their name had already appeared as an entry in section 1. When I carried out my study I focused in on the new Harrow-on-the-Hill UD. There are a total of 1,250 entries in the 1895 Register; of which 1,014 would be qualified to vote in a Parliamentary election, 1,018 in a County election, and 1,183 in an UD election. Going back to my original posting, it will be seen that although the Register has mega-complexity, religion is not a factor. If you ever find it difficult getting to sleep at night, forget counting sheep .... try counting Victorian electors! It was a breakthrough when the register because a single document with entry annotations instead of seven "seperate" documents. In Sheffield it happened with the 1920 register, so it makes me wonder if the change in the franachise also allowed/prompted a change in the physical manifestation of the register. I understand that even today the law requires seperate registers for different categories*, but for practicality they are combined into the same document. Something like, Local Government law requires "a register of local electors must be kept", Parliamentary law requires "a register of Parliamentary electors must be kept". One of the comments I noticed in the recent electoral law review recently published was a recommendation that all these be merged into single legislation. |
|
|
|
Post by hullenedge on Apr 9, 2020 21:40:15 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by David Ashforth on Apr 10, 2020 10:24:23 GMT
I will look up results where I know people's locations. If anyone would like to suggest their area, just let me know.
Our large concentration of Forumites in Sheffield would make that an obvious place to go, but I'm assuming that David Ashforth already has these recorded. Let me know if not, David. I do have a pdf of the newspaper report of the results, but I don't have anything typed and ready to post here. Not that it should take too long to type the results as only three of Sheffield's nine wards had contested elections: It took longer than I hoped it would. |
|
|
|
Post by David Ashforth on Apr 10, 2020 10:56:55 GMT
Sheffield (Sheffield people: YL , J.G.Harston , iain , @priceofdawn , hallamshire , Defenestrated Fipplebox , carlton43 ) Sheffield was incorporated as a borough in 1843 and became a city 50 years later in 1893, so 1894 was Sheffield’s first full year as a city. From 1843 until 1901 Sheffield had nine wards, seven of which (Brightside, Ecclesall, Nether Hallam, Park, St. George’s, St. Peter’s, St. Philip’s) had 6 councillors each and each elected 2 councillors every year. The other two wards (Attercliffe, Upper Hallam) both had 3 councillors and both elected 1 councillor every year. I don’t know if the ward boundaries remained unchanged throughout that time but here is a ward map from 1885. (link)
The Conservatives had run Sheffield council since 1883 [1] and would do so until the Liberals took control in 1901, following the city’s boundary extension and ward changes [2] .The Conservatives were led by Alderman George Franklin, later Sir George, and they pursued “the distinctive policy of borough improvement and municipalization, which was to become the centre-piece of Conservatism in the 1880s and 1890s.” [3]
Since 1887 Alderman William Johnson Clegg had been leader of the Liberal Party, he was an abstainer and “During Clegg's period at its head, the Liberal Party became more closely linked with the Social Questions League (SQL), a Brightside based temperance body. A number of Liberal candidates connected with the SQL contested the 1894 municipal elections, only to be defeated on that issue” [4]. “Never again was temperance allowed to become the dominant issue at an election. The "S. Q. L." cry was still a Conservative trump card in 1895” [5]. Following Clegg’s death in 1895 he was succeeded as Liberal leader by his second son, Alderman William Edwin Clegg, later Sir William, “He was unique in that he never had to fight a municipal contest, being returned unopposed in 1886 and again in 1889 and in 1892 when he became an Alderman”[6] . Sir Charles Clegg (W. J.’s eldest son and W. E’s older brother) had also been a Liberal councillor in the 1880s but was now President of the Football Association.
In A History of Labour in Sheffield Sidney Pollard wrote, “Up to the mid-nineties, the Sheffield Federated Trades Council (S.F.T.C.) remained the chief organisation voicing working-class political claims. It was led largely by officials of the “light trades” societies, who adhered to the Liberal Party, and, when elected to the City Council, sat as “Lib.-Labs.” or as Liberals with Trade Council backing. Their wards were in the central areas where men in the light trades formed the bulk of the electorate.”
“From about 1895 onward the centre of gravity of local working-class politics began to shift eastward, to the Brightside and Attercliffe divisions. These also had a largely working-class electorate, but it was made up mainly of steel workers, engineers and others in the heavy trades, men who had no traditions of collaboration with the Liberal-Radical caucus and who did not know of the “independence” of the old crafts: they formed the proletariat of a modern large-scale industry, and they turned relatively early towards the Socialist groupings.”
“The split between those who clung to the Liberals and those who sought an “independent” labour representation, found in most parts of the country, was particularly sharply defined, geographically and industrially, in Sheffield. It first appeared in 1894, when the I.L.P put up Charles Hobson, a Britannia-metal smith and a leading member of the S.F.T.C., to contest a Parliamentary by-election in Attercliffe. But the Liberals objected, and Hobson obediently stood down in favour of Ald. Langley, an employer. The outraged I.L.P. thereupon nominated Frank Smith, a Londoner, who succeeded in polling over 1,000 votes, despite the lack of an established party machine”.
The elections took place on Thursday 1st November with only three of the nine wards being contested.Attercliffe [7]
Edward Emmanuel Holliday (Ind Lib) 1,574
Charles Alexander Kirkby (Lib) 1,176
Thomas Hough (Unoffical Lab) 576
Independent Liberal GAIN from Liberal
Brightside [8]
Alfred Taylor (Con) 4,705
Thomas Clarke (Con) 4,543
Edwin Richmond (Lib) 2,832Thomas Bulloss Senior (Lib) 2,765John Arthur Smith (ILP) 661Conservative GAIN from Liberal x2Ecclesall
William Wheatcroft Harrison (Con) – Unopposed
Henry Parker Marsh (Con) – Unopposed
Nether Hallam
Joshua Maxfield (Lib) – Unopposed
Richard Langley (Lib) – Unopposed
Park
John Albert Manton (Con) – Unopposed
John Eaton (Lib) – Unopposed
St. George's [9]
Robert Jackson (Con) 2,102
Charles Frederick Bennett (Con) 2,087
Thomas Henry Waterhouse (Lib) 1,247Arthur Neal (Lib) 1,243John James Gratton (Ind Lib) 65Conservative HOLD x2St. Peter’s
John Maxfield (Lib) – Unopposed
Alfred Taylor (Con) – Unopposed
St. Philip’s
Joseph Nadin (Lib) – Unopposed
Arthur Jackson (Con) – Unopposed
Upper Hallam [10]
Duncan Gilmour (Con) – Unopposed
Following the elections the composition of the council was [11]:
Cllr Alderman Total
Conservatives 26 13 39
Liberal 22 3 25
Four Liberal Unionists are included in the 13 Conservative Alderman and the Independent Liberal councillor in Attercliffe is within the Liberal total.
Notes
[1] Stevens, Christopher Philip, A study of urban Conservativism: with reference to Sheffield, 1885-1906
[2] Sheffield City Council, Boundary changes research guide
[3] Stevens
[4] ibid
[5] Mathers, Helen, Sheffield municipal politics: 1893-1926
[6] Hawson, Herbert Keeble, “Sheffield: The Growth of a City, 1893-1926”
[7] Attercliffe
Edward Emmanuel Holliday had been a Liberal councillor in Attercliffe since 1882 but fell out with some of his colleagues and so stood for re-election as an Independent Liberal.
Polling Districts Electorate Voted Turnout
Attercliffe 2,997 1,621 54.1%
Darnall 1,564 773 49.4%
Carbrook 1,856 942 50.8%
6,417 3,336 52.0%
There were 10 spoilt ballots.[8] Brightside
Polling Districts Electorate Voted Turnout
Burngreave 5,748 4,038 70.3%
Neepsend 2,398 1,506 62.8%
Grimesthorpe 1,493 1,135 76.0%
Brightside Village 409 310 75.8%
Newhall 751 500 66.6%
Princess Street 886 615 69.4%
11,685 8,104 69.4%
Ballots Clarke Richmond Senior Smith Taylor
Clarke & Richmond 63 63 63
Clarke & Senior 52 52 52
Clarke & Smith 61 61 61
Clarke & Taylor 4282 4282 4282
Richmond & Senior 2571 2571 2571
Richmond & Smith 82 82 82
Richmond & Taylor 42 42 42
Senior & Smith 54 54 54
Senior & Taylor 57 57 57
Smith & Taylor 181 181 181
Clarke 85 85
Richmond 74 74
Senior 31 31
Smith 283 283
Taylor 143 143
8061 4543 2832 2765 661 4705
There were 19 spoilt ballots.[9] St. George's
Liberal candidate Arthur Neal would later become MP for Sheffield Hillsborough.
Polling Districts Electorate Voted Turnout
Mount Zion 1,167 750 64.3%
Red Hill 1,182 737 62.4%
Jericho 1,350 856 63.4%
Weston 1,488 1,089 73.2%
5,187 3,432 66.2%
Ballots Bennett Gratton Jackson Neal Waterhouse
Bennett & Gratton 29 29 29
Bennett & Jackson 2008 2008 2008
Bennett & Neal 13 13 13
Bennett & Waterhouse 14 14 14
Gratton & Jackson 17 17 17
Gratton & Neal 10 10 10
Gratton & Waterhouse 7 7 7
Jackson & Neal 20 20 20
Jackson & Waterhouse 23 23 23
Neal & Waterhouse 1185 1185 1185
Bennett 23 23
Gratton 2 2
Jackson 34 34
Neal 15 15
Waterhouse 18 18
3418 2087 65 2102 1243 1247
There were 13 spoilt ballots.
[10] Upper Hallam’s Duncan Gilmour was a brewer and his name can still be seen in some pubs around Sheffield.
(link)
[11] Stevens
|
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Apr 10, 2020 17:39:29 GMT
Sheffield“The split between those who clung to the Liberals and those who sought an “independent” labour representation, found in most parts of the country, was particularly sharply defined, geographically and industrially, in Sheffield. It first appeared in 1894, when the I.L.P put up Charles Hobson, a Britannia-metal smith and a leading member of the S.F.T.C., to contest a Parliamentary by-election in Attercliffe. But the Liberals objected, and Hobson obediently stood down in favour of Ald. Langley, an employer. The outraged I.L.P. thereupon nominated Frank Smith, a Londoner, who succeeded in polling over 1,000 votes, despite the lack of an established party machine”.
Ah, if anyone ever sees a copy of the biography of Frank Smith ("MP and Modern mystic") by E I Champness, grab it, it's very rare. He was a very interesting man. |
|
