|
|
Post by islington on Apr 3, 2017 8:22:34 GMT
I have a feeling there may have been a thread on this before, but I can't see it ...
The current boundary review has stimulated my interest in the evolution of constituency boundaries over time, particularly in the period since the 1885 redistribution created something that is recognizable as the forerunner of the current system (replacing an arrangement that was still, although much adapted, recognizably the successor of the pre-1832 regime).
It's a real pleasure to dredge through old maps with their mixture of the relatively familiar, the strikingly different, and the downright bizarre (in the last category I nominate the seat of Rothwell (W Yorks) in its 1918-50 configuration).
My reason for posting is to ask for advice on how to fill in the many gaps. I'd be especially grateful to anyone that can point me in the direction of maps showing the configuration of seats in the major cities in 1918-50. I've found maps for London, Liverpool and Glasgow, but I can't find anything showing the arrangement in Birmingham (12 seats, plus an extra one in 1945), Manchester (10 seats), Leeds, Sheffield, &c.
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Apr 3, 2017 8:31:58 GMT
You want the 1917 Boundary Commission report which has these maps in Volume III. Here's an example - this is Birkenhead.  |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on Apr 3, 2017 9:41:00 GMT
There are some maps in this Atlas Forum thread, generally either by Sibboleth or former regular contributor stepney . E.g. here are stepney 's maps of the results in Sheffield from 1918 to 1945. The central constituency was, unsurprisingly, Sheffield Central; then starting from the westernmost and going clockwise we have Hallam, Hillsborough, Brightside, Attercliffe, Park and Ecclesall.  |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,804 
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Apr 3, 2017 13:03:25 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Apr 3, 2017 13:30:32 GMT
Thanks to everyone for replies.
Yes, I've been poring over the maps on VoB but, sadly, for some reason the 1917 Review in England seems to be represented only by maps for the counties, not for the boroughs. Scotland is a different matter - VoB has some truly beautiful maps from 1917 covering Edinburgh and Glasgow. The English maps may well be equally attractive and informative if David Boothroyd's Birkenhead example is typical; but sadly they don't seem to be online anywhere. There are London maps on wikipedia, and I've found an online map that appears to show the 11 (!) Liverpool seats, plus Leeds and Sheffield on the Atlas forum linked to by YL above (thank you, YL). But I can't find most other boroughs and Birmingham and Manchester would be especially interesting to see on account of the large number on seats involved (12 and 10 respectively).
I'm also aware of the book on this subject by the late Fred Craig, although the maps it contains are a bit sketchy. (This is not to criticize - he had neither internet not modern map-drawing technology to help him.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Apr 3, 2017 14:10:54 GMT
I have a very poor quality map of Birmingham wards for the period and from that you can deduce the constituency boundaries from the list of wards included  |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Apr 3, 2017 14:16:21 GMT
Actually it isn't much help as the boundary commission seems to have split wards all over the place in Birmingham in 1917
|
|
|
|
Post by Right Leaning on Apr 3, 2017 14:44:39 GMT
Thanks to everyone for replies. Yes, I've been poring over the maps on VoB but, sadly, for some reason the 1917 Review in England seems to be represented only by maps for the counties, not for the boroughs. Scotland is a different matter - VoB has some truly beautiful maps from 1917 covering Edinburgh and Glasgow. The English maps may well be equally attractive and informative if David Boothroyd's Birkenhead example is typical; but sadly they don't seem to be online anywhere. There are London maps on wikipedia, and I've found an online map that appears to show the 11 (!) Liverpool seats, plus Leeds and Sheffield on the Atlas forum linked to by YL above (thank you, YL). But I can't find most other boroughs and Birmingham and Manchester would be especially interesting to see on account of the large number on seats involved (12 and 10 respectively). I'm also aware of the book on this subject by the late Fred Craig, although the maps it contains are a bit sketchy. (This is not to criticize - he had neither internet not modern map-drawing technology to help him.) Check the National Library of Scotland site for old O/S maps, maps.nls.uk/os/There are various years and sizes. You can find a lot of the old ward boundaries on the 25 inch. Here is west Birmingham - maps.nls.uk/view/115633221. These also include the constituency boundaries. If you are anything like me, dipping into this, will mean we won't hear from you until a week on Friday!!! |
|
|
|
Post by Right Leaning on Apr 3, 2017 15:20:38 GMT
Thanks to everyone for replies. Yes, I've been poring over the maps on VoB but, sadly, for some reason the 1917 Review in England seems to be represented only by maps for the counties, not for the boroughs. Scotland is a different matter - VoB has some truly beautiful maps from 1917 covering Edinburgh and Glasgow. The English maps may well be equally attractive and informative if David Boothroyd's Birkenhead example is typical; but sadly they don't seem to be online anywhere. There are London maps on wikipedia, and I've found an online map that appears to show the 11 (!) Liverpool seats, plus Leeds and Sheffield on the Atlas forum linked to by YL above (thank you, YL). But I can't find most other boroughs and Birmingham and Manchester would be especially interesting to see on account of the large number on seats involved (12 and 10 respectively). I'm also aware of the book on this subject by the late Fred Craig, although the maps it contains are a bit sketchy. (This is not to criticize - he had neither internet not modern map-drawing technology to help him.) There are a couple of commercial sites as well. Old-Maps.co.uk is good because it has maps up to recent times, however it is a subscription site, so there is limited access, but I suspect you will still find it useful. Again here is central Birmingham - www.old-maps.co.uk/#/Map/409500/287500/13/100765www.oldmapsonline.org/ - this one tends to go back to the Library of Scotland site. |
|
|
|
Post by hullenedge on Apr 3, 2017 17:25:29 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Apr 3, 2017 17:29:04 GMT
Interesing that they've given an alternative name for Birmingham West as Hockley |
|
|
|
Post by hullenedge on Apr 3, 2017 17:35:53 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Right Leaning on Apr 3, 2017 18:03:27 GMT
Is the copy of the full report available anywhere? |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Apr 3, 2017 18:12:53 GMT
Is the copy of the full report available anywhere? That is the full report. The 1917 Boundary Commission report doesn't give any explanation beyond the actual recommendations, and some generic remarks about the process in Volume I. |
|
|
|
Post by Right Leaning on Apr 3, 2017 18:33:12 GMT
Is the copy of the full report available anywhere? That is the full report. The 1917 Boundary Commission report doesn't give any explanation beyond the actual recommendations, and some generic remarks about the process in Volume I. What about the rest of the country? Were all boroughs dealt with individually? |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Apr 3, 2017 18:48:42 GMT
That is the full report. The 1917 Boundary Commission report doesn't give any explanation beyond the actual recommendations, and some generic remarks about the process in Volume I. What about the rest of the country? Were all boroughs dealt with individually? The same detail is provided in Scotland and Ireland. The 1917 reports include detailed maps of all the multi-member boroughs but not of those with one member. |
|
|
|
Post by Right Leaning on Apr 3, 2017 18:52:34 GMT
What about the rest of the country? Were all boroughs dealt with individually? The same detail is provided in Scotland and Ireland. The 1917 reports include detailed maps of all the multi-member boroughs but not of those with one member. OK and are the 1917 reports available on line anywhere? |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Apr 3, 2017 19:23:29 GMT
Interesing that they've given an alternative name for Birmingham West as Hockley That suggests that the maps were based on the Commission's report rather than the Act. If the system allowed me, I'd award multiple likes for hullenedge's post. |
|
|
|
Post by An Sionnach Flannbhuí on Apr 3, 2017 21:03:35 GMT
I have a feeling there may have been a thread on this before, but I can't see it ... The current boundary review has stimulated my interest in the evolution of constituency boundaries over time, particularly in the period since the 1885 redistribution created something that is recognizable as the forerunner of the current system (replacing an arrangement that was still, although much adapted, recognizably the successor of the pre-1832 regime). It's a real pleasure to dredge through old maps with their mixture of the relatively familiar, the strikingly different, and the downright bizarre (in the last category I nominate the seat of Rothwell (W Yorks) in its 1918-50 configuration). My reason for posting is to ask for advice on how to fill in the many gaps. I'd be especially grateful to anyone that can point me in the direction of maps showing the configuration of seats in the major cities in 1918-50. I've found maps for London, Liverpool and Glasgow, but I can't find anything showing the arrangement in Birmingham (12 seats, plus an extra one in 1945), Manchester (10 seats), Leeds, Sheffield, &c. Found what was put up (search for "Philip's Atlas") - open in new tab for full size.     |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Apr 4, 2017 7:44:44 GMT
Many thanks to everyone for input to this.
An allied issue is whether one can rely 100% on the Commission report as representing the final outcome. My impression of this is as follows (and I'm very happy to be told I've got any of this wrong).
1868 - This is the trickiest one. The Commission was set up by the 1867 Act but its recommendations were not fully implemented. Let me take a few cases at random. Its recommendations seem to have been accepted to modify the 1832 boundaries of Coventry, and thankfully its changes to the completely ridiculous 1832 Rochdale boundary were also accepted. But the approach seems capricious - the Commission's recommendation in Stockton was accepted, but just up the Tees in Darlington was rejected. And so far as I can see, its recommendations around the major cities appear to have been rejected wholesale - Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool all seem to have kept their 1832 boundaries right through to 1885, despite recommended extensions by the 1868 Commission. Likewise, the Commission seems to have been ignored in respect of the boundaries of existing seats in the London area - the only changes were those made by the 1867 Act itself (splitting Hackney from Tower Hamlets, a new borough of Chelsea). I'm pretty sure, for instance, that Hampstead was not incorporated into Marylebone despite the 1868 Commission's recommendation (even though some maps on wikipedia suggest the contrary). But I have to admit I'm not 100% sure about much of this, and I'd welcome any information.
1885 - So far as I can see, some of the Commission's proposed names were changed but the actual boundaries were adopted unaltered except that a seat was switched from the Westminster area (which ended up with 3 seats instead of the recommended 4) to Tower Hamlets (7 seats instead of 6). But have I missed any other changes?
1917 - I'm not aware of any changes apart from the name change in Birmingham West.
1945 onward - All adopted or rejected en bloc so far as I know.
|
|
