|
Post by hullenedge on Jun 28, 2020 22:19:00 GMT
This did lead to wild inconsistency as lots of places had applied to establish Boards of Health without any intention (or capability) of doing anything. Someone noticed and an amending act restricted Boards of Health to places with populations of 3,000 plus but it was too late and in 1872 and some very small places found themselves classed as UDCs regardless. Where was the smallest town or village to become an UDC? Many candidates. Some authorities were ludicrously small. West Riding map before the welcome amalgamations of the 1930s:- www.visionofbritain.org.uk/maps/sheet/bc_reports_1917/West_Riding_Yorkshire_1917Scammonden had about 200 voters. Doubt that was the smallest UDC.
|
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,726
|
Post by Adrian on Jun 28, 2020 22:29:37 GMT
Where was the smallest town or village to become an UDC? Here is the (hopefully correct) list on Wikipedia - let us know what conclusion you come to.
Typo. It should be 1894-5. Does anyone have (a link to) the census data for 1891? I'd be happy to add a column to the Wikipedia table showing the populations.
|
|
|
Post by hullenedge on Jun 28, 2020 22:30:23 GMT
Looking at the 1968 BC Report smallest authorities (electors) in England:-
Eye MB 1,200 Saxmundham UD 1,142 Tintwistle RD 1,083
(may have missed one or two).
|
|
|
Post by bjornhattan on Jun 28, 2020 22:30:53 GMT
Where was the smallest town or village to become an UDC? Here is the (hopefully correct) list on Wikipedia - let us know what conclusion you come to.
I think it might be Kirklington-cum-Upsland in North Yorkshire - its population appears to have been 311 (in the 1870s), and today is 220.
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,722
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Jun 29, 2020 0:52:56 GMT
Thanks for the replies. I suppose it should be remembered many of these RDCs would have been originally created in 1894, since when there has been a fair amount of development! I always enjoy browsing www.old-maps.co.uk/#/, putting a post code in and seeing how areas have changed over the decades. Many of the RDC were headquartered in their UDC town. I don't know how common the practice was, but Whitby UDC and Whitby RDC essentially operated as a merged authority, many of the officers were officers of both and they shared most of their premises and operational departments.
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,722
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Jun 29, 2020 1:12:31 GMT
Thanks for the info regarding the transition from sanitary districts into UDs and RDs. Looking at the boundary maps of 1900, it often seems odd that some places are UDs and others aren't, but it makes more sense once you understand that UD in effect simply means "an area that was a USD" rather than people having sat in a committee and ruled on what was a town and what wasn't. This did lead to wild inconsistency as lots of places had applied to establish Boards of Health without any intention (or capability) of doing anything. Someone noticed and an amending act restricted Boards of Health to places with populations of 3,000 plus but it was too late and in 1872 and some very small places found themselves classed as UDCs regardless. There were some Urban District Councils in Scotland that you could probably heft a stone across, where they'd been based on police districts that seems to have been the size of one copper's beat. Rosehearty, Couper Angus.
|
|
|
Post by froome on Jun 29, 2020 3:45:11 GMT
This last page is the forum at its finest.
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Jun 29, 2020 6:33:15 GMT
How common was it for the town with UDC status to have multiple RDCs based there as well, rather than as described a single UDC surrounded by a single RDC? I imagine it would not be that unusual. Certainly Ashford when I first came here in 1963 had a line of 3 council offices on the same road, Ashford UDC, East Ashford RDC and West Ashford RDC. When Ashford district was created it amalgamated those three councils, plus the ancient Borough of Tenterden and Tenterden RDC. the new Ashford district nicked the Borough status off Tenterden, leaving it as a mere town council
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Jun 29, 2020 8:28:07 GMT
This last page is the forum at its finest. Had we been around at the time I think we could have set up our own Board of Health and become a UDC.
|
|
|
Post by David Ashforth on Jun 29, 2020 10:04:40 GMT
Which does lead to another question. What criteria made a council a rural district as opposed to an urban district? Was it simply a perception of the area, and something more statistical such as a percentage of the population there who could be said to be rural dwellers? According to E L Hasluck in "Local Government in England" (1936, revised 1948) the original differentiation was set by the 1872 Public Health Act which made all parishes that already had boards of health or were under special boards of improvement plus the historic boroughs into Urban Sanitary districts, everything else was a Rural Sanitary district. The 1894 Local Government Act set up UDCs and RDCs on much the same basis. Hasluck says the new nomenclature helped interest and political competition as "nobody wanted a halo that smelt of carbolic". He goes on to say that only UDCs could engage in Municipal Trading, and if large enough be responsible for such things as Education, policing and pensions. Does this mean that only larger UDCs could offer their employees pensions? Or does it mean they had some regulatory role in pensions in their area (which I'd be surprised by)?
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Jun 29, 2020 10:07:22 GMT
According to E L Hasluck in "Local Government in England" (1936, revised 1948) the original differentiation was set by the 1872 Public Health Act which made all parishes that already had boards of health or were under special boards of improvement plus the historic boroughs into Urban Sanitary districts, everything else was a Rural Sanitary district. The 1894 Local Government Act set up UDCs and RDCs on much the same basis. Hasluck says the new nomenclature helped interest and political competition as "nobody wanted a halo that smelt of carbolic". He goes on to say that only UDCs could engage in Municipal Trading, and if large enough be responsible for such things as Education, policing and pensions. Does this mean that only larger UDCs could offer their employees pensions? Or does it mean they had some regulatory role in pensions in their area (which I'd be surprised by)? I'm suspecting it is the former.
|
|
Chris from Brum
Lib Dem
What I need is a strong drink and a peer group.
Posts: 9,240
Member is Online
|
Post by Chris from Brum on Jun 29, 2020 10:26:38 GMT
According to E L Hasluck in "Local Government in England" (1936, revised 1948) the original differentiation was set by the 1872 Public Health Act which made all parishes that already had boards of health or were under special boards of improvement plus the historic boroughs into Urban Sanitary districts, everything else was a Rural Sanitary district. The 1894 Local Government Act set up UDCs and RDCs on much the same basis. Hasluck says the new nomenclature helped interest and political competition as "nobody wanted a halo that smelt of carbolic". He goes on to say that only UDCs could engage in Municipal Trading, and if large enough be responsible for such things as Education, policing and pensions. Does this mean that only larger UDCs could offer their employees pensions? Or does it mean they had some regulatory role in pensions in their area (which I'd be surprised by)? Responsibility for education and policing was/is normally a county function - so a district with those capabilities would be a county borough, and would be autonomous of the county.
|
|
ColinJ
Labour
Living in the Past
Posts: 1,982
|
Post by ColinJ on Jun 29, 2020 11:45:46 GMT
While on the subject of UDCs, have I ever mentioned my favourite, Kingsbury UDC? (Got a sneaky suspicion I have, but well worth repeating.) I quote extensively here from www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/middx/vol5/pp80-82. Stay with it, it's worth it! Poor and backward, [Kingsbury] was not welcomed by any of its neighbours when urban districts were formed in 1894, especially since sewerage had already caused friction with Hendon. After Kingsbury became a ward of Wembley UD, Wembley's 9 councillors resented paying for sewerage schemes for Kingsbury, while Kingsbury's 3 councillors were frustrated through being in a permanent minority. Personal jealousies exacerbated the situation, money was wasted in litigation, and in 1899 the inquirer from Middlesex CC considered Wembley UDC "an object lesson in misgovernment".
In 1900 Kingsbury became a separate urban district with 6 councillors, a clerk who also acted as surveyor, inspector of nuisances and collector of rents, and a medical officer of health. After more turbulence, however, another inquiry was held in 1906, when the district council was described as having furnished an example of maladministration. The trouble was partly inherent in Kingsbury's situation. As a sparsely populated district the rateable value was insufficient to provide essential services except by high rates, which discouraged people from settling there.
More important, however, was the struggle among the councillors, the reds and blues, for control of the chair. The two most notorious members were Dr. Arthur Calcutta White of Kenton Grove Farm and José Diaz, a Spaniard who lived at Fern Dene until his death in 1915. White, who had been largely responsible for the trouble with Wembley, owned Gore farm and caused offence with his piggeries and rubbish dumps in Honeypot Lane. Attempted improvements by the medical officer of health or the inspector of nuisances were blocked by White, who in 1904 responded to a summons by dismissing the clerk. Diaz, after his enforced resignation from the chair as an alien in 1904, continued to instruct his faction from the floor.
Government collapsed altogether in 1906, when minutes were rescinded, a rate was cancelled, and bills were left unpaid. Ratepayers petitioned for an inquiry, as a result of which the number of councillors was increased to nine. A works and finance committee and an outdoor committee were formed and salaried officials, a medical officer of health, a sanitary inspector, a clerk, and one man to serve as surveyor, assistant clerk and rate-collector, were appointed. Diaz, now naturalized, was elected chairman, however, and in 1909 White began to interrupt meetings, which became so stormy that the police were called. Two opponents of both Diaz and White ceased to attend in 1910 and Diaz retained control until his death in 1915.
Diaz's death coincided with the building of factories and the beginning of Kingsbury's long-awaited development, which increased the rateable value eightfold between 1922 and 1933. Kingsbury had a paltry number of electors. There were 141 parochial electors at the first election in December 1894, and this had only risen to 147 when the UD was formed in 1900. I will post the 1894 result in the Historical Election Results thread.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,369
Member is Online
|
Post by YL on Jun 29, 2020 16:05:59 GMT
Larger towns would be afforded the dignity of the status of Borough, meaning that the chair of the council would be a Mayor with chain of office and all, rather than a mere chairman (mutatis mutandis for female office holders). There were, I think, distinctions between the various types of council as to what powers were retained by the County Council, but I'm not entirely sure what they were. Boroughs with over 100,000 population might become a County Borough and be essentially separated from the county as far as governance was concerned. This helps to explain why some County Halls are in strange places - Derby, Nottingham and Leicester were all County Boroughs, so the county HQs were in Matlock, West Bridgford and Leicester Forest East, outside the boundaries of the titular county towns. Nottinghamshire County Council only moved to West Bridgford in the 1950s; before then it was based in the Shire Hall in Nottingham. Except that the Shire Hall wasn't actually in Nottingham, at least not in the county borough: it formed a tiny exclave of the administrative county and for a time formed Nottingham Shire Hall CP and the entirety of Nottingham Rural District. You can see this on 1950s maps, and it explains why Nottingham Central constituency was described as consisting of five wards of the County Borough and the Rural District of Nottingham. Vision of Britain shows this absurd "Rural" District as having a population of 6 in 1921, 4 in 1931 and 2 in 1941: www.visionofbritain.org.uk/unit/10474620/cube/TOT_POP
|
|
Chris from Brum
Lib Dem
What I need is a strong drink and a peer group.
Posts: 9,240
Member is Online
|
Post by Chris from Brum on Jun 29, 2020 16:13:20 GMT
Larger towns would be afforded the dignity of the status of Borough, meaning that the chair of the council would be a Mayor with chain of office and all, rather than a mere chairman (mutatis mutandis for female office holders). There were, I think, distinctions between the various types of council as to what powers were retained by the County Council, but I'm not entirely sure what they were. Boroughs with over 100,000 population might become a County Borough and be essentially separated from the county as far as governance was concerned. This helps to explain why some County Halls are in strange places - Derby, Nottingham and Leicester were all County Boroughs, so the county HQs were in Matlock, West Bridgford and Leicester Forest East, outside the boundaries of the titular county towns. Nottinghamshire County Council only moved to West Bridgford in the 1950s; before then it was based in the Shire Hall in Nottingham. Except that the Shire Hall wasn't actually in Nottingham, at least not in the county borough: it formed a tiny exclave of the administrative county and for a time formed Nottingham Shire Hall CP and the entirety of Nottingham Rural District. You can see this on 1950s maps, and it explains why Nottingham Central constituency was described as consisting of five wards of the County Borough and the Rural District of Nottingham. Vision of Britain shows this absurd "Rural" District as having a population of 6 in 1921, 4 in 1931 and 2 in 1941: www.visionofbritain.org.uk/unit/10474620/cube/TOT_POPSaid old Shire Hall now seems to be the National Museum of Justice. Fascinating.
Derbyshire's County Hall is in a converted spa hotel in Matlock. I've been there once, my company was working on an Oracle implementation and I needed to assist with actual data collection on the implementation. It's rather grand and stands halfway up a hill above the town centre.
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Jun 29, 2020 17:42:26 GMT
Larger towns would be afforded the dignity of the status of Borough, meaning that the chair of the council would be a Mayor with chain of office and all, rather than a mere chairman (mutatis mutandis for female office holders). There were, I think, distinctions between the various types of council as to what powers were retained by the County Council, but I'm not entirely sure what they were. Boroughs with over 100,000 population might become a County Borough and be essentially separated from the county as far as governance was concerned. This helps to explain why some County Halls are in strange places - Derby, Nottingham and Leicester were all County Boroughs, so the county HQs were in Matlock, West Bridgford and Leicester Forest East, outside the boundaries of the titular county towns. Nottinghamshire County Council only moved to West Bridgford in the 1950s; before then it was based in the Shire Hall in Nottingham. Except that the Shire Hall wasn't actually in Nottingham, at least not in the county borough: it formed a tiny exclave of the administrative county and for a time formed Nottingham Shire Hall CP and the entirety of Nottingham Rural District. You can see this on 1950s maps, and it explains why Nottingham Central constituency was described as consisting of five wards of the County Borough and the Rural District of Nottingham. Vision of Britain shows this absurd "Rural" District as having a population of 6 in 1921, 4 in 1931 and 2 in 1941: www.visionofbritain.org.uk/unit/10474620/cube/TOT_POPOne survivor of this is the modern-day parish of Chester Castle, which consists entirely of government buildings in Chester city centre. It has a resident population of zero.
|
|
|
Post by jm on Jun 29, 2020 19:11:55 GMT
Larger towns would be afforded the dignity of the status of Borough, meaning that the chair of the council would be a Mayor with chain of office and all, rather than a mere chairman (mutatis mutandis for female office holders). There were, I think, distinctions between the various types of council as to what powers were retained by the County Council, but I'm not entirely sure what they were. Boroughs with over 100,000 population might become a County Borough and be essentially separated from the county as far as governance was concerned. This helps to explain why some County Halls are in strange places - Derby, Nottingham and Leicester were all County Boroughs, so the county HQs were in Matlock, West Bridgford and Leicester Forest East, outside the boundaries of the titular county towns. Nottinghamshire County Council only moved to West Bridgford in the 1950s; before then it was based in the Shire Hall in Nottingham. Except that the Shire Hall wasn't actually in Nottingham, at least not in the county borough: it formed a tiny exclave of the administrative county and for a time formed Nottingham Shire Hall CP and the entirety of Nottingham Rural District. You can see this on 1950s maps, and it explains why Nottingham Central constituency was described as consisting of five wards of the County Borough and the Rural District of Nottingham. Vision of Britain shows this absurd "Rural" District as having a population of 6 in 1921, 4 in 1931 and 2 in 1941: www.visionofbritain.org.uk/unit/10474620/cube/TOT_POPVery interesting. I wonder if elections ever took place in this small 'rural district'? Presumably only a handful of people would have been entitled to vote and/or stand for election. If it was formally constituted as a rural district you would expect it would have been legally required to hold elections and form a council to discharge its legal functions.
|
|
|
Post by BossMan on Jun 29, 2020 19:38:51 GMT
This last page is the forum at its finest. Had we been around at the time I think we could have set up our own Board of Health and become a UDC. The Admin in 1894 would have been very busy creating all those threads. Makes the GE seem like a picnic.
|
|
|
Post by tonyhill on Jun 29, 2020 19:52:14 GMT
Sorry if this is something that has been raised before, but while looking at Winchester for the Almanac I noticed that there is an 86 year gap with regard to female candidates for the major parties (Con/Lab/Lib) - Frances Josephy (Lib) 1929 and Jackie Porter (LibDem) 2015. Are there any constituencies with a (value judgement) worse record than Winchester?
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Jun 29, 2020 20:04:43 GMT
Had we been around at the time I think we could have set up our own Board of Health and become a UDC. The Admin in 1894 would have been very busy creating all those threads. Makes the GE seem like a picnic. To all subscribers to Vote UK 1894: If any member has access to cheap pens and a supply of nibs, the town clerk/admin would be grateful for their supply. Also a strong drink or two.
|
|