|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Apr 4, 2017 8:15:03 GMT
There were a ton of changes made in 1885 and 1917 - mostly minor and some only to names. But some involved a lot of voters. I have a list somewhere.
In 1948 the initial proposals were sent back to the Boundary Commission to divide some of the larger boroughs into two divisions.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Apr 4, 2017 9:11:57 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. Looking at this map of Manchester  There are two names that did not appear - Newton Heath and Collyhurst. The names that are missing which were actually used are Openshaw and Cheetham. Presumably Newton Heath was named Openshaw and Collyhurst was named Cheetham but the Cheetham area itself is in the Exchange division according to that map so it suggests the boundaries may have been different too |
|
|
|
Post by Right Leaning on Apr 4, 2017 9:24:10 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. Looking at this map of Manchester There are two names that did not appear - Newton Heath and Collyhurst. The names that are missing which were actually used are Openshaw and Cheetham. Presumably Newton Heath was named Openshaw and Collyhurst was named Cheetham but the Cheetham area itself is in the Exchange division according to that map so it suggests the boundaries may have been different too Newton Heath was Clayton constituency. Collyhurst was Platting constituency. |
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,922 
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Apr 4, 2017 9:31:48 GMT
The biggest gripe I have with the Vision of Britain website is that you have to be a member (i.e staff member or student) of a major university in order to even get your hands on those maps (and even then you can't do too much without them saying "Er, excuse me, you're not thinking of publishing any maps are you?")
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Apr 4, 2017 9:46:15 GMT
Looking at this map of Manchester There are two names that did not appear - Newton Heath and Collyhurst. The names that are missing which were actually used are Openshaw and Cheetham. Presumably Newton Heath was named Openshaw and Collyhurst was named Cheetham but the Cheetham area itself is in the Exchange division according to that map so it suggests the boundaries may have been different too Newton Heath was Clayton constituency. Collyhurst was Platting constituency. You're right. I was obviosly looking at a later set of Manchester constituencies - don't know what I was playing at  |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Apr 4, 2017 9:48:34 GMT
Looking at this map of Manchester There are two names that did not appear - Newton Heath and Collyhurst. The names that are missing which were actually used are Openshaw and Cheetham. Presumably Newton Heath was named Openshaw and Collyhurst was named Cheetham but the Cheetham area itself is in the Exchange division according to that map so it suggests the boundaries may have been different too Newton Heath was Clayton constituency. Collyhurst was Platting constituency. Curiouser and curiouser. The Representation of the People Act 1918 created the following ten seats in the Parliamentary Borough of Manchester (which was coterminous with the County Borough). ARDWICK - Ardwick, New Cross, St Mark's BLACKLEY - Blackley, Crumpsall, Moston CLAYTON - Beswick, Bradford, Newton Heath EXCHANGE - Cheetham, Collegiate Church, Exchange, Oxford, St Ann's, St Clement's, St John's, St Michael's (part NW of Rochdale Rd) GORTON - Gorton N, Gorton S, Openshaw HULME - Medlock Str, Moss Side W, St George's MOSS SIDE - All Saints, Moss Side E, St Luke's PLATTING - Collyhurst, Harpurhey, Miles Platting, St Michael's (part not in Exchange) RUSHOLME - Levenshulme, Longsight, Rusholme WITHINGTON - Chorlton, Didsbury, Withington Obviously, some of the names have been changed from the 1917 Commission's report. I've no idea whether the boundaries differ as well. |
|
|
|
Post by hullenedge on Apr 5, 2017 8:50:50 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Apr 5, 2017 9:35:27 GMT
I've been poring over the maps from 1868 and have concluded that the Commission's recommendations were:
- Accepted in Dudley and Burnley
- Rejected in Gateshead
I'll keep looking.
|
|
|
|
Post by hullenedge on Sept 17, 2017 11:47:54 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by hullenedge on Oct 2, 2017 12:08:18 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Oct 2, 2017 13:24:21 GMT
Quite a lot of wards were initially numbered, with the names to be filled in later.
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Dec 27, 2017 16:29:17 GMT
I might be telling people something they already know, but I've revived this thread to report that the UK Genealogy Archives has some nice maps on each of its English county pages showing the county divisions and Parliamentary boroughs (but not, unfortunately, the divisions within Parliamentary boroughs). Click on the map and it comes up full screen. The maps apparently date from around 1895 and thus show the boundaries that applied 1885-1918, important as the first really modern set of boundaries with single-member seats almost everywhere. The maps are very clear and generally seem to be accurate (although I have found a couple of errors). They largely duplicate the boundaries recommended by the 1885 Commission, which can be seen on VoB. But the maps on UKGA use colour for greater clarity and they incorporate the name changes made by Parliament to several of the seats recommended in 1885. Here's the link to the Surrey page, by way of example - ukga.org/england/Surrey/index.html . |
|
|
|
Post by hullenedge on Jul 5, 2018 10:51:33 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jul 5, 2018 13:54:35 GMT
Hullenedge -
Thanks for this and for the reminder that we narrowly escaped 'Vale Royal' as a constituency name.
What is so wrong with Northwich and Winsford that a constituency containing them can't simply be called that? (Or 'West Cheshire'?)
In the end, of course, and with somewhat different boundaries, we wound up with 'Eddisbury' instead, which, as a name, is no better that Vale Royal and arguably worse.
With Weaver Vale and Tatton we have a hat-trick of wilfully obscure names covering much of Cheshire.
|
|
Chris from Brum
Lib Dem
What I need is a strong drink and a peer group.
Posts: 9,756
|
Post by Chris from Brum on Jul 5, 2018 14:09:47 GMT
Hullenedge - Thanks for this and for the reminder that we narrowly escaped 'Vale Royal' as a constituency name. What is so wrong with Northwich and Winsford that a constituency containing them can't simply be called that? (Or 'West Cheshire'?) In the end, of course, and with somewhat different boundaries, we wound up with 'Eddisbury' instead, which, as a name, is no better that Vale Royal and arguably worse. With Weaver Vale and Tatton we have a hat-trick of wilfully obscure names covering much of Cheshire. Eddisbury is the name of one of the old Hundreds of Cheshire. The Westminster constituency seems to have boundaries somewhat larger than the hundred, but does seem to contain most of it. Vale Royal, the former local government district, seems to have taken its name from a historic building, Vale Royal Abbey. (Waverley, in Surrey, is also named after an abbey within its borders, so it's not alone). |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Jul 5, 2018 16:54:42 GMT
Hullenedge - Thanks for this and for the reminder that we narrowly escaped 'Vale Royal' as a constituency name. What is so wrong with Northwich and Winsford that a constituency containing them can't simply be called that? (Or 'West Cheshire'?)In the end, of course, and with somewhat different boundaries, we wound up with 'Eddisbury' instead, which, as a name, is no better that Vale Royal and arguably worse. With Weaver Vale and Tatton we have a hat-trick of wilfully obscure names covering much of Cheshire. What's wrong with "Northwich & Winsford" can be stated in a single word. Winsford. Can't call it West Cheshire because it's to the east of two other Cheshire constituencies. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jul 5, 2018 17:23:58 GMT
Well, 'Northwich' is out of contention because on closer scrutiny I see that it was in NE Cheshire in the 1979 plan.
But what's wrong with Winsford?
(This is a genuine request for information by the way. It's not a part of the world I know very well, and to be honest Winsford is little more to me than a place on the map.)
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on Jul 7, 2018 8:08:04 GMT
Well, 'Northwich' is out of contention because on closer scrutiny I see that it was in NE Cheshire in the 1979 plan. But what's wrong with Winsford? (This is a genuine request for information by the way. It's not a part of the world I know very well, and to be honest Winsford is little more to me than a place on the map.) I've never been there either (other than occasionally passing through on the train) but I get the impression that it is one of those places that get looked down on by their neighbours. Apparently it had some "overspill" estate development in the post-war period, which might partially explain that, and certainly it has some Lower Super Output Areas with notably high deprivation including the one with the highest in Cheshire West & Chester. If we're talking about the current Eddisbury, it's also rather on the edge of the constituency, which might be a better reason for not just calling the constituency "Winsford". I note from that Cheshire proposal that two of the Winsford wards in Vale Royal were called Over One and Over Two, which sound like the beginning of a cricket match rather than wards. |
|
|
|
Post by hullenedge on Jul 14, 2018 8:21:04 GMT
'Provisional' Liverpool, 1981:-  |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Sept 9, 2018 17:25:02 GMT
1983 boundaries in London are an interesting one.
For some reason, the Boundary Commission refused to allow the creation of any constituencies which crossed two London boroughs (with the special exception of the City of London & Westminster South, of course) even though Greater London still existed as a county and even though cross-borough constituencies in other metropolitan counties (notably Stretford, Littleborough & Saddleworth, Denton & Reddish, and Tyne Bridge) were allowed for the purposes of relative equality between constituencies, and even when this resulted in some Greater London constituencies having only 2/3 to 3/4 of the average electorate.
Had they been allowed, this would have resulted in (based on the average English electorate per constituency being approximately 67,415 in 1983):
Hammersmith & Fulham being paired with Kensington for three seats, ironically giving the same arrangement we have now (Hammersmith, Chelsea & Fulham, and Kensington). Greenwich being paired with Bexley for five seats as is the case now (arrangement same as since 1997), Tower Hamlets and Newham being paired for four seats as they were from 1997-2010, with a similar arrangement, Redbridge and Waltham Forest being paired for five seats as they are now, and Kingston and Richmond being paired for three seats as they are now. But if this had happened for the 1983 general election where would those five seats have been reallocated to?
|
|
