1885 - Distribution of seats

[islington]

May 20, 2022 18:44:50 GMT YL said:

May 20, 2022 9:46:10 GMT islington said:

It had been my intention to go on next to look at the 1885 redistribution in other parts of the UK, starting with Ireland, but I think I might first write up something about political influences in the way borough boundaries were defined in 1885. In various parts of England, especially in London but also in Stoke, Birmingham and possibly elsewhere, there is evidence that boroughs were defined in certain ways in order to generate a preferred outcome. 

I'd like to see something on that. I notice that whereas in Sheffield the Parliamentary Borough was coterminous with the council area at the time other comparable cities often seem to have had bits added, usually bits which were annexed a few years later. For example, the Parliamentary Borough of Bristol included Horfield (in the West division), Stapleton (in North) and St George (in East), all of which weren't yet part of the City at that time but were by 1918. Indeed if those areas had not been included I think Bristol would only have had three seats.

I'm thinking about how best to take this forward because I still need to cover Scotland, Ireland and Wales as well as say something about how the rules of the redistribution were framed, specifically in terms of borough boundaries. On the other hand, a full review of borough boundaries, while it would be interesting, is probably beyond the scope of the present exercise.

Nevertheless, I did promise to answer specific questions and with regard to Bristol, you are quite right. Its population in 1881, i.e. on its old boundaries, was 206874, which would have put it in the middle of the range for three seats.

However, I don't think you can necessarily conclude that the boundary was extended with the specific aim of giving Bristol an additional seat. Bristol, like many major cities, grew rapidly during the Nineteenth Century and had expanded well beyond the boundary that had been set in 1832 (itself a great expansion of the ancient boundary). The 1867-68 boundary commission had recommended a substantial expansion but that was rejected by Parliament, meaning that for parliamentary purposes Bristol's boundary going into the 1885 redistribution was unchanged from 1832. So a boundary extension was long overdue - I don't think we need to posit any particular political motive for it.

[YL]

The suggestion that Bristol was expanded specifically so that it would have four seats is made in The Municipal Government of Bristol 1851-1901 by David Large (PDF link; see p29).

[islington]

May 22, 2022 21:56:11 GMT YL said:

The suggestion that Bristol was expanded specifically so that it would have four seats is made in The Municipal Government of Bristol 1851-1901 by David Large (PDF link; see p29).

Many thanks for this.

I haven't read it through but at a quick glance I can't see any mention of the aborted proposal to extend Bristol's boundaries in 1868. This was proposed by the boundary commission set up as part of the Second Reform but it was vetoed by the Liberals, who had pulled themselves together by this time after being brilliantly outmanoeuvred by Disraeli in 1866 and '67. The commission had proposed extensions to the Parliamentary boundaries of several boroughs to take account of urban growth, especially of major cities, since the previous review of Parliamentary boundaries in 1832. Only at the very last minute did it seem to dawn on the Liberals that this was a cunning plan by Disraeli, not so much to affect the electoral outcome in the cities themselves (most of which the Tories regarded as lost causes anyway) but to remove suburban voters, assumed to be Liberal-inclined, from the surrounding county seats thus improving the Tories' chances in the latter. So the Liberals asserted their Commons majority and insisted on setting up a Committee to review the commission's recommendations case by case, and rejecting them where they thought they were to the Liberals' disadvantage (they did not acknowledge in so many words that this was the criterion, of course, but it clearly was). So the commission's proposals to extend boundaries were rejected in Birmingham, Bristol, Liverpool, Manchester and various other places and in these boroughs the 1832 boundaries continued all the way to 1885.

As an aside, it's easy to forget that throughout the Derby-Disraeli government of 1866-68 the Liberals held a Commons majority had they been able to assert it. It's a tribute to Disraeli's skill as a Parliamentarian that he managed to exploit division and mutual mistrust between various factions of the Liberal Party and somehow managed to gain just enough support to get through the complex set of measures comprising the Second Reform. And the overall package (even after the loss of many of the hoped-for borough extensions) was much to the Tories' benefit - it's true they lost in 1868, but it's been convincingly calculated that the Tories would not have gained their famous majority in 1874 without the Second Reform.

Anyway, getting back to Bristol, here's the map produced by the 1868 commission. The existing Parliamentary boundary, set in 1832, is shown in blue, and it is identical with the municipal boundary (green). The new boundary proposed by the commission (and rejected by Parliament) is in red.

Bristol's urban growth continued in the years between 1868 and 1885 and an important realization that dawned on politicians of both parties during those years was that the assumption that suburban areas would be as Liberal-inclined as existing boroughs was not necessarily correct. 'Villa Toryism' was the term for it, as the growth of commuter rail networks allowed the creation of well-heeled suburbs around big cities, and this completely altered the politics of expanding borough boundaries. In 1885 Bristol's expansion finally took place, incorporating all the areas suggested in 1868 and more besides. The new areas are shown outlined in pink on the map below, which also shows the four new single-member divisions (whereas previously Bristol's two MPs had been elected at large).

[casualobserver]

This is a fascinating thread, thank you Issy.

I was aware that there had been a redistribution in 1885, but had never previously questioned how that redistribution was achieved. I await with great interest your next instalments.

I claim no specialised knowledge, but it strikes me that the unexplained exceptions to your distribution rules potentially invalidate the specific mathematical model that you propose. Creating additional rules to explain discrepancies (such as the eight member limit for Counties) is perfectly ok, if that rule can be objectively justified (as is the case with that additional rule). But even with these additional rules, your allocation of seats between different counties and different boroughs still doesn’t work in respect of two allocations(NE Lancs and Manchester/Sheffield), as you have clearly highlighted. When dealing with a rules-based system, it either works or it doesn’t, and yours doesn’t, even after your additional rules are applied.

I really don’t want to be uncharitable to you; your work is fascinating and I’ve gained a great amount of knowledge from reading it. But I feel, from an academic point of view, the inexplicable ‘final’ allocations of seats in both counties and boroughs in England shows that your attempt to retrofit a mathematical mechanism to explain the redistribution has failed ……. Unless you can show statistically how unlikely it would be that you could so closely ‘predict’ the final allocations of seats using your algorithm, or you can show a convincing mechanism (possibly political, probably non-mathematical) to explain those residual inconsistencies

[Deleted]

May 19, 2022 8:20:23 GMT islington said:

May 18, 2022 22:03:03 GMT andrewteale said:

With 1885 technology I'd be getting the 7-figure log tables out. That would replace the series of long divisions by a much easier series of subtractions. You don't have to convert the logs back to ordinary numbers to see which is larger, because if x > y then log x > log y meaning you can compare the logarithms directly.

I suspect any forum members raised in the calculator era have read the above posts with total incomprehension.

Anyway, I've edited my post about apportionment to English counties to add the populations. These are derived by summing the populations of the county divisions as given in the Debrett Parliamentary guide. Note that they exclude any boroughs in the county, which explains why some of the numbers may be smaller than one might expect.

The group of 8-member counties spans a wider range of population than the other groups because the four largest counties are capped at that level (they should each get 9; the award of 8 seats to Cheshire, Essex and Devon is numerically correct). Other than that, the apportionments follow population remarkably closely except that NE Lancs is unaccountably awarded 4 seats rather than 5 and Westmorland and Hunts owe their second seat not to their population but to the preallocation policy governing this exercise.

Correct.
The mere mention of the term 'long division' also awoke a deep, lingering sense of hatred, disgust and fear of mathematics.

[islington]

May 31, 2022 21:40:07 GMT casualobserver said:

This is a fascinating thread, thank you Issy.

I was aware that there had been a redistribution in 1885, but had never previously questioned how that redistribution was achieved. I await with great interest your next instalments.

I claim no specialised knowledge, but it strikes me that the unexplained exceptions to your distribution rules potentially invalidate the specific mathematical model that you propose. Creating additional rules to explain discrepancies (such as the eight member limit for Counties) is perfectly ok, if that rule can be objectively justified (as is the case with that additional rule). But even with these additional rules, your allocation of seats between different counties and different boroughs still doesn’t work in respect of two allocations(NE Lancs and Manchester/Sheffield), as you have clearly highlighted. When dealing with a rules-based system, it either works or it doesn’t, and yours doesn’t, even after your additional rules are applied.

I really don’t want to be uncharitable to you; your work is fascinating and I’ve gained a great amount of knowledge from reading it. But I feel, from an academic point of view, the inexplicable ‘final’ allocations of seats in both counties and boroughs in England shows that your attempt to retrofit a mathematical mechanism to explain the redistribution has failed ……. Unless you can show statistically how unlikely it would be that you could so closely ‘predict’ the final allocations of seats using your algorithm, or you can show a convincing mechanism (possibly political, probably non-mathematical) to explain those residual inconsistencies

Thanks for kind comments. I'm glad you've enjoyed the thread (and my thanks also to other contributors, who helpfully raised issues I hadn't thought of).

Sorry I've had to put this aside for a while because of other demands on my time but it is my intention to return to it, I hope during the impending long jubilee weekend.

As to whether I've proved my point, I'll just present the argument as best I can and others are free to agree or disagree. But my case was that the apportionment was primarily mathematically driven, not that it was necessarily exclusively so. In fact there's clear evidence that the process was politically steered in various ways, and I'll be looking at this in later posts. But even allowing for the odd deviation here and there, my contention is that the mathematical rules I've outlined predict the eventual outcome so closely that it can't be a coincidence, and that some numerical mechanism must have been used (although it may have been expressed differently from the way I've described it).

 

[islington]

Prompted by the discussion earlier, I've been thinking about how to resume and although it's still my intention to do something on how borough boundaries were adapted for the purposes of the review, I've decided that my thinking on this subject is insufficiently developed to allow me to do a proper post so I'm going to put that topic aside for now and revert to my original plan, which is to look next at the apportionment of seats in parts of the UK other than England. And so I give you (drumroll please) -

The Use of Population in the Redistribution of 1885 - Fit the Ninth

What of the other nations of the UK?

We turn first to Wales, which for the purposes of this exercise does not include Monmouthshire. It is probably fair to say that Wales tended to be thought of, at this time, as something of an adjunct to England and it is likely that it would follow the same rules. It was, however, regarded as having sufficient separate identity to have been guaranteed the retention of its 30 seats. On a strict numbers basis, it would have received only 26 so it is significantly overrepresented.

Of the 30 Welsh seats, no fewer than 27 are preallocated: 11 to the boroughs and 16 to the counties (using the same rules as applied elsewhere in the UK). There remain only 3 seats to be apportioned by population.

Boroughs are treated generously in their preallocation of 11 so, assuming they are treated separately from counties, they have no realistic claim for further representation (PV for a 12th seat only 38187). So the 3 seats to be assigned by population all go to counties and, in fact, all to easily the largest county, Glamorgan, giving it 5 in all. And this was indeed the actual outcome in 1885.

(If boroughs and counties had received seats without differentiation, as may have been the case in Scotland (see next section), the final seat would have gone to Cardiff Boroughs instead of Glamorgan.)

Allocation to Welsh counties is as follows. Going into the redistribution, Glamorgan, Carmarthenshire and Denbighshire each had two seats so these counties are preallocated two apiece and are joined by Carnarvonshire on account of its (just) exceeding 90000. Each county was split into the appropriate number of single-member divisions.

Five
Glamorgan - 236580

Two
Carmarthenshire - 94228
Carnarvonshire - 90458
Denbighshire - 88816

One
Cardigan - 70070
Pembrokeshire - 59029
Flintshire - 55457
Brecon - 55434
Merioneth - 52038
Anglesey - 51416
Montgomeryshire - 45793
Radnor - 23528

For boroughs, the apportionments and populations follow. The asterisk indicates that Merthyr Tydfil continued to return its two members at large. Swansea Boroughs was split into two divisions. 'Boroughs' in the name implies a burghal district comprising a number of towns that are usually not contiguous, and are often scattered over a fairly wide area.

Two
Swansea Boroughs - 100590
Merthyr Tydfil* - 91373

One
Cardiff Boroughs - 85862
Pembroke & Haverfordwest Boroughs - 34795
Carmarthen Boroughs - 30636
Carnarvon Boroughs - 28891
Flint Boroughs - 24154
Denbigh Boroughs - 22924
Montgomery Boroughs - 19925

Please note in both these lists I've used names and spellings as current in 1885.

[YL]

The existence of those non-contiguous "Boroughs" constituencies is one way in which the treatment of Wales differs from that of England (except for the not-really-English Monmouthshire) and also a legacy from the pre-1885 system. Some did disappear in 1885, like the Radnor Boroughs, presumably because their population was too small. (Was the merger of the Pembroke and Haverfordwest Boroughs constituencies because one was too small?) Most of the remaining Welsh ones went in 1918, but Caernarfon Boroughs lasted until 1950, of course with a famous representative for most of that time, in a rather bizarre and far from entirely urban arrangement.

[islington]

Jun 1, 2022 19:53:12 GMT YL said:

The existence of those non-contiguous "Boroughs" constituencies is one way in which the treatment of Wales differs from that of England (except for the not-really-English Monmouthshire) and also a legacy from the pre-1885 system. Some did disappear in 1885, like the Radnor Boroughs, presumably because their population was too small. (Was the merger of the Pembroke and Haverfordwest Boroughs constituencies because one was too small?) Most of the remaining Welsh ones went in 1918, but Caernarfon Boroughs lasted until 1950, of course with a famous representative for most of that time, in a rather bizarre and far from entirely urban arrangement.

This is right. There were 13 burghal districts in Wales up to 1885, of which four had populations in 1881 below 15000. One of them, Haverfordwest Boroughs, was combined with Pembroke Boroughs; the other three - Beaumaris Boroughs (Anglesey), Cardigan Boroughs and Radnor Boroughs - were merged into their respective counties. Another Welsh borough, Brecknock, was also below 15000 and duly bit the dust.

This is all part of the overall approach in 1885, which involved (among other things) a ruthless cull of small boroughs. Of the 98 boroughs in the UK found to have populations below 15000 in 1881, all but one were abolished (the exception, Warwick, survived only by absorbing the larger adjoining town of Leamington Spa).

Burghal districts were a feature of Wales and Scotland. Ireland never had them; England had only the semi-Welsh Monmouth Boroughs (although Sandwich, as it existed from 1832 to 1885, had something of the character of a burghal district).

[YL]

On that note, it's curious to see Cardiff's population, even combined with those of Llantrisant and Cowbridge (the other contributors to "Cardiff Boroughs"), not quite enough for a second seat. In 1918, with Penarth but without Llantrisant or Cowbridge and still without Llandaff, it had three seats.

[islington]

Jun 2, 2022 10:33:03 GMT YL said:

On that note, it's curious to see Cardiff's population, even combined with those of Llantrisant and Cowbridge (the other contributors to "Cardiff Boroughs"), not quite enough for a second seat. In 1918, with Penarth but without Llantrisant or Cowbridge and still without Llandaff, it had three seats.

Yes. That is strange. I assume it was a combination of population growth and boundary extension.

[islington]

The Use of Population in the Redistribution of 1885 - Fit the Tenth

In Scotland the same basic rules were applied as elsewhere in the UK. The 15000 minimum, however, eliminated only two existing seats, both burghal districts (Haddington and Wigtown). Two seats were preallocated to counties and burghs if they exceeded 90000; counties or burghs with fewer than 50000 (but more than 15000) were preallocated only one seat regardless of their previous allowance. (Presumably, as elsewhere in the UK, an existing multi-seat county or borough with fewer than 90000, but more than 50000, would also have been preallocated two, but in practice nowhere in Scotland satisfied this requirement.)

The effect is to preallocate 59 seats in Scotland, 24 to burghs and 35 to counties. This leaves only a further 11 seats to be apportioned by population and it is possible, given the small number involved, that this was done by means of a political or administrative judgment as seems to have been the case in Ireland (see next section).

It is noticeable, though, that if a mathematical approach is used, but without the distinction between burghs and counties that applied in England and Wales, the result is identical to the actual apportionment. Specifically, of the 11 additional seats available, Glasgow gets 5, giving it 7; Lanarkshire 4, giving it 6; and this leaves 2 for Edinburgh, giving it 4. (If, however, burghs and counties are allocated separately, Ayrshire gains a 3rd seat at the expense of Edinburgh.)

On any showing, though, a population-based apportionment is dominated by Glasgow and Lanarkshire.

Allocation to Scottish counties is as follows. Note that going into the redistribution, only three counties – Lanarkshire, Ayrshire and Aberdeenshire – had two seats. However, three others – Renfrewshire, Fife and Perthshire – exceeded 90000 and were preallocated a second seat. The redistribution did not alter the five existing pairings of counties; each pair is treated as a single Parliamentary county. Bute, it may be noted, was the smallest Parliamentary county anywhere in the UK. Each county was split into the appropriate number of single-member divisions.

Six
Lanarkshire - 387455

Two
Ayrshire - 162864
Aberdeenshire - 150129
Renfrewshire - 111914
Fife - 103089
Perthshire - 95044

One
Midlothian - 86576
Stirlingshire - 78000
Invernesshire - 72755
Ross & Cromarty - 72483
Angus - 67473
Argyll - 63506
Dunbartonshire - 61394
Dumfriesshire - 57575
Orkney & Shetland - 57492
Banffshire - 50875
Clackmannan & Kinross - 42057
Moray & Nairn - 38605
Wigtownshire - 38452
West Lothian - 37567
Roxburghshire - 37258
Kirkcudbrightshire - 34632
Berwickshire - 34415
Kincardine - 33349
Caithness - 30762
East Lothian - 29077
Sutherland - 22805
Peebles & Selkirk - 20861
Bute - 17489

For burghs, the apportionments and populations follow. The asterisk indicates that Dundee continued to return its two members at large. All other multi-member burghs were split into single-member divisions. ‘Burghs’ in the name means a burghal district.

Seven
Glasgow - 487985

Four
Edinburgh - 228357

Two
Dundee* - 140063
Aberdeen - 105003

One
Leith Burghs - 72856
Kilmarnock Burghs - 65652
Greenock - 63902
Montrose Burghs - 59674
Paisley - 55627
Falkirk Burghs - 49351
Ayr Burghs - 41723
Stirling Burghs - 36780
Hawick Burghs - 34709
Elgin Burghs - 31804
Kirkcaldy Burghs - 30086
Perth - 28949
Inverness Burghs - 26425
Dumfries Burghs - 25584
St Andrews Burghs - 19396
Wick Burghs - 17461

Note that although Scotland’s allowance of 70 seats accurately reflects its population (after allowing for the overrepresentation of Ireland and Wales), the country contains a large number of smaller burghs and counties and the need to provide a representative for each of these somewhat distorts the distribution elsewhere. Specifically, Glasgow has what would normally be a strong claim for an 8th seat (PV 65065), while a county with Ayrshire’s population would surely have received a 3rd seat had it been anywhere else in the UK (PV 65146).

[islington]

And now to wrap up coverage of the UK nations with Ireland.

The Use of Population in the Redistribution of 1885 - Fit the Eleventh

Ireland appears to have been guaranteed its existing allowance of 101 territorial seats. This means it is overrepresented, but only slightly as its numerical entitlement, based on 661 seats in the UK as a whole, is 98. Reflecting the UK-wide approach of the redistribution, the same basic rules are applied as elsewhere. The 15000 minimum eliminates no fewer than 22 of the 31 current Irish boroughs; two seats are preallocated to counties and boroughs if they exceed 90000 (or 50000 if they already have two); counties or boroughs with fewer than 50000 (but more than 15000) are preallocated only one seat regardless of their previous allowance.

This means that 75 Irish seats are preallocated: 12 to boroughs and 63 to counties. This leaves a further 26 to be awarded to bring the total to 101. But there is no conclusive evidence about the method used to do this. If a mathematical approach was used, it was certainly subject to some fine tuning; and it is also possible that whole process was politically or adminstratively managed, although if so it is clear that considerable attention was given to the numbers.

If the same method is applied to Ireland as this paper has outlined for England, the outcome would be that 3 of the 26 seats are assigned to boroughs giving them a total of 15 (2 additional seats to Dublin, giving it 4; 1 to Belfast, giving it 3). The remaining 23 seats would be awarded to counties, taking Co Cork to 7 (including its preallocation of 2); Cos Mayo, Down, Antrim, Galway, Donegal, Kerry and Tipperary to 4 each; and Cos Tyrone, Armagh, Dublin and Clare to 3 each.

However, this is not the actual outcome.

Could it be then that, as apparently in Scotland, seats were numerically assigned without regard to the distinction between boroughs and counties? In policy terms this might make sense, since in an Irish (or indeed Scottish) context the distinction was not such a sensitive issue as it was in England. However, a numerical apportionment on this basis is just as much at variance with the actual outcome: large boroughs fare better with Belfast duly gaining its 4th seat but Dublin now getting a 5th; these are at the expense (compared with the English-style apportionment) of the 4th seat for Co Tipperary and the 3rd seat for Co Clare.

The evidence suggests that instead of a strictly numerical approach, in Ireland the 26 additional seats (after preallocating the first 75) were assigned using political or administrative judgment, albeit in a way that had close regard to the numbers.

In the first place, with the average seat size in Ireland of 51236 it is difficult to justify giving Co Cork, by far the most populous county with 391109 (not including Cork City), any fewer than 7 seats – that is, 5 seats in excess of its preallocation of 2. There follows a group of eight counties with populations varying between 245212 (Mayo) to 197719 (Tyrone). If each of these is assigned 4 seats, compared with its preallocation of 2, that uses a further 16 seats. At this point there are only 5 seats left. It is obvious that Dublin City must get at least 2 of these, increasing its representation to 4, which is what an English borough of its population (273282) would have received (besides, any smaller allowance means that at least one of the divisions would have to exceed 90000). Belfast also has a clear claim to 4, at least in an Irish context, because its population of 221600 puts it in mid-range compared with the Irish counties that were awarded 4 seats (although it is slightly smaller than the English borough of Southwark, which received only 3). Only one seat is now available and it seems logical to assign it to Armagh, which is the only remaining county with a population exceeding 150000.

Allocation to Irish counties is as follows. Going into the redistribution each of the 32 counties returned two members; thus each is preallocated two with the exception of the least populous, Carlow, which falls below 50000 and receives only one. Each county is split into the appropriate number of single-member divisions.

Seven
Cork - 391109

Four
Mayo - 245212
Down - 233865
Antrim - 228940
Galway - 222834
Donegal - 206035
Kerry - 201039
Tipperary - 199612
Tyrone - 197719

Three
Armagh - 157232

Two
Dublin - 145628
Clare - 141457
Londonderry - 135829
Roscommon - 132490
Limerick - 131962
Cavan - 129476
Wexford - 123854
Sligo - 111578
Monaghan - 102748
Leitrim - 90372
Meath - 87469
Fermanagh - 84879
Kilkenny - 84253
Waterford - 83587
Louth - 77684
Kildare - 75804
Queens - 73124
Kings - 72852
Westmeath - 71798
Wicklow - 70386
Longford - 61009

One
Carlow - 46568

The 15000 minimum eliminates all but nine Irish boroughs, with apportionments and populations as below. The asterisk indicates that Cork City continues to return its two members at large. Dublin City and Belfast are split into four divisions each. Note that three boroughs exceed 90000 and are preallocated two; the remaining six all fall below 50000 and receive one. The 1885 redistribution left Kilkenny as the smallest surviving borough, and the smallest constituency, anywhere in the UK.

Four
Dublin - 273282
Belfast - 221600

Two
Cork* - 104496

One
Limerick - 48670
Waterford - 29181
Londonderry - 29162
Galway - 19171
Newry - 15590
Kilkenny - 15278

[obsie]

A number of the boroughs covered what were then the counties corporate - Cork, Limerick, Waterford, Galway, Kilkenny - which meant that they stretched well beyond the urban areas of the cities and towns concerned. This, as an example, is the County of the City of Cork on a second edition OS map:



Belfast and particularly Dublin were tightly drawn on the other hand - the then-developing towns of Rathmines and Pembroke, suburban refuges for the mainly Protestant and Unionist upper middle-classes from the widened electoral franchise of Dublin Corporation, formed part of the South Dublin division until 1918.

[islington]

That is a superb map of Cork. The constituency (2-member) kept those same boundaries all the way through until it left the UK.

"Belfast and particularly Dublin were tightly drawn on the other hand - the then-developing towns of Rathmines and Pembroke, suburban refuges for the mainly Protestant and Unionist upper middle-classes from the widened electoral franchise of Dublin Corporation, formed part of the South Dublin division until 1918."

Dublin kept the same boundary in 1885 as it had been given in the Second Reform, when it was defined in a way that meant it comprised the whole municipal borough plus any parts of the old county corporate lying outside the municipal boundary. That means for the most part a fairly tight boundary, as obsie says, but with a long tail extending southeastwards all the way to Blackrock. This is the best map I can find. It shows the four seats proposed by the 1885 Commission, and I think they were adopted in this form but with the names changed to College Green, Dublin Harbour, St Patrick's and St Stephen's Green instead of the more sensible (in my opinion) NW, NE, SW, SE respectively.

Unfortunately the map doesn't show the full extent to the south east, but Blackrock must be at least five miles from the city centre and is a long way outside the municipal boundary (which ran along the Grand Canal).

[obsie]

Jun 4, 2022 22:35:10 GMT islington said:

That Is a superb map of Cork. The constituency (2-member) kept those same boundaries all the way through until it left the UK.

"Belfast and particularly Dublin were tightly drawn on the other hand - the then-developing towns of Rathmines and Pembroke, suburban refuges for the mainly Protestant and Unionist upper middle-classes from the widened electoral franchise of Dublin Corporation, formed part of the South Dublin division until 1918."

Dublin kept the same boundary in 1885 as it had been given in the Second Reform, when it was defined in a way that meant it comprised the whole municipal borough plus any parts of the old county corporate lying outside the municipal boundary. That means for the most part a fairly tight boundary, as obsie says, but with a long tail extending southeastwards all the way to Blackrock. This is the best map I can find. It shows the four seats proposed by the 1885 Commission, and I think they were adopted in this form but with the names changed to College Green, Dublin Harbour, St Patrick's and St Stephen's Green instead of the more sensible (in my opinion) NW, NE, SW, SE respectively.

Unfortunately the map doesn't show the full extent to the south east, but Blackrock must be at least five miles from the city centre and is a long way outside the municipal boundary (which ran along the Grand Canal).

The strip running out to Blackrock is/was quite long but very narrow, between the Blackrock Road and the railway line, largely at the time consisting of marshes

but contrary to my earlier assumption most of what became Pembroke was within the Harbour constituency (Ringsend, Irishtown, South Lotts) or St. Stephen's Green (Ballsbridge, Donnybrook, Sandymount). Rathmines, however, was firmly outside.

As far as the names are concerned, Harbour is accurate enough as it was specifically drawn to cover that area and St. Stephen's Green is relatively central to the parts of that constituency within the then city limits. You could, I suppose, have renamed St. Patrick's as St. James's. The only potentially misleading one is College Green, where the namesake is south of the Liffey but almost all of the constituency is north of the river - St. Michan's, St. Mary's or Grangegorman would have been possibilities.

[islington]

Thanks obsie .

I still think the compass-point names made more sense. The name 'College Green' is very odd, as you say, because College Green itself is tucked right in the southeastern corner of the seat and is on the wrong side of the river compared with most of it.

The name 'Dublin Harbour' also bothers me, but this is because of my own pedantry. For the period 1885-1950, when Parliamentary boroughs still existed in terms of their formal status, my preferred style for referring to borough divisions is 'Bradford (West)', 'Birmingham (Edgbaston)', &c. But applying this rule consistently gives us 'Dublin (Dublin Harbour)', which looks silly. If they'd simply called the division 'Harbour' it would have been OK, but they didn't.

(And don't get me started on 'Battersea and Clapham (Battersea)' and 'Battersea and Clapham (Clapham)'.)

Getting back to Ireland, the 1885 boundary commission must have produced a map of Belfast's four seats but I can't find it online. I've laboriously traced out the seats based on the description in the 1885 Redistribution Act but it would be nice to see a map. Can anyone help?

The other Irish boundary issue that bugs me concerns Derry (or Londonderry if you must). The Second Reform mostly left unchanged the existing boundaries in Ireland but it did provide that Parliamentary boroughs should be extended to include any parts of the corresponding municipal borough (if there was one) that lay outside the Parliamentary boundary. This was of limited impact because there were only 11 MBs in Ireland (assuming 'MB' in this context means 'incorporated under the Municipal Corporations (Ireland) Act 1840') and in most cases the MB boundary was the same as, or smaller than, the Parliamentary boundary (as in Cork, for instance). However, it resulted in a small boundary extension in Drogheda, rather more significant extensions around the peripheries of Dublin, and substantial extensions to Belfast, where the municipal boundary had been considerably extended by a special Act in 1853 or thereabouts. But Derry is a puzzle because its Parliamentary boundary was definitely extended in the Second Reform but in a manner that took it well beyond its original municipal boundary as defined in the 1840 Act. So at some point prior to the Second Reform its municipal boundaries must have been increased from their original extent. I think that the new boundary is the area shown in green on the map below. Can anyone with better knowledge of Irish boundaries confirm or refute this (and advise when and by what legislative instrument the municipal boundary was extended)?

(I'm not at all sure about the smaller area shown in blue. It is similar to, but not the same as, the original 1840 MB boundary.)

[islington]

Meanwhile, here's a nice map of Dublin from 1837. It still doesn't go all the way to Blackrock but you can see the southeastern tail heading in that direction.

The Parliamentary boundary as defined in 1832 is shown in red. If you look very carefully you can also see, in green, the boundary of the county corporate as it threads its way though areas that, even in 1837, were well within the built-up area. Despite its large extension out of the city to the south east, nearer Dublin itself it is remarkably tight - minute examination of the map shows that even St Patrick's Cathedral is not included. The approach of the 1832 boundary commission was to include the whole county corporate plus appropriate additional areas (essentially, within the North and South Circular Roads) to try to capture the whole of the city without stripping County Dublin of too many electors.

[obsie]

This is the County of the City of Dublin pre-1840



and this is the Parliamentary Boundary:



Both from: nla.gov.au/nla.obj-231470358/view

[obsie]

My understanding with Derry is that the municipal boundary was the green line. Certainly it corresponds to the 1898-1973 county borough boundary.