Talk:Local Government Act 1888

some random notes

Debate on July 8, 1888 in Hansard: (column 839 onwards). Hard to tell who is saying what, as hansard is written in the third person back then!

Rowntree (MP for Scarborough) proposes to change requirement to 25,000 rather than 50,000. Mentions case of Cambridge. "The government proposed to extempt to City of Canterbury which had a population of 20,000." Scarborough was in a liberty back in 1888 he notes.

Ritchie, president of the Local Government Board notes that "the Government were pressed, and pressed very strongly, to reduce the limit of population to 50,000". This reduction of the limit is lamanted by various people including Mr. Staveley Hill (MP for Kingswinford) and Mr. Heneage (MP for great Grimsby). Although Mr. Heneage has a petition to include Great Grimsby in the schedule 4 (hah). "boroughs who could give a satisfactory proof that they had a population of 50,000" would be included in the schedule by the government.

someone made a probing amendment giving London County Council control of the police! also there is talk of abolishing the county of the city of London. The wording that explicitly creates the county of London a geographic county as well as an administrative one was moved by an amendment, with what is to me a not very clear explanation... (original wording just created it an administrative county)

generally it appears the bill as introduced didn't use the term "administrative county", this was patched on bits in amendments as the bill progressed, which is why the bill doesn't use the terminology "administrative county" terribly consistently.

ooh, found the Staffordshire Potteries amendment! proposed by Captain Heathcote, MP for Staffordshire North West, July 13, 1888, column 1276. he proposes that

"the district of the Staffordshire Potteries; comprising the municipal boroughs of Hanley, Stoke-upon-Trent,
 Longton and Burslem, the urban sanitary district of the Fenton Local Board of Health, and the urban sanitary district
 of the Tunstall Local Board of Health," should constitute a county (not a county boorugh, as this would mean
 abolishing the separate corporations and therefore be "fatal" ).

The amendment to keep Sussex split was made by Walter B. Barttelot (Member for Horsham) on column 1284 of the same day. he notes that the "the county of Sussex had from time immemorial two distinct counties more or less". "he believed that the people of the county generally were most anxious that the two divisions should be maintained". Was accepted by mr Ritchie for the government. Mr Francis Hervey did the same thing for Suffolk, noting "public sentiment in that district West Suffolk was strongly in favour of the retention of existing divisions." Mr Hervey is of course the member for Bury St Edmunds. Mr F. S. Stevenson, member for Suffolk Eye disagreed, "the inhabitants of the whole Eastern Division of the county were unanimous that there should only be one County Council and that it should meet at Ipswich". Lowestoft Borough Council suggested northern and southern divisions of Suffolk???

more to come....

194.66.226.95 18:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It looks like they originally intended to use the term counties, meaning the "parliamentary counties at large", with just a few county boroughs. By the time the local interests had split up counties and constituted a whole bunch of CBs, they had to come up with the term "administrative county". Compare this to the LG(S)A 1889 which just uses "counties".Lozleader 09:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. I've not been able to track down whether the Parts of Lincolnshire, the Isle of Ely and the Soke of Peterborough had been originally included in the Bill as administrative counties: they were't added at the same time the Sussex and Suffolk splits were. This is more ad hoc than I'd imagined - as it ended up having each of the county quarter sessions becoming an administrative county this seemed like design. East Kent and West Kent quarter sessions had been abolished early in c. 19th: they would have been another candidate. And East Hertfordshire and the Liberty of St Albans weren't identified, either. Almost certainly the Ridings were to be considered separate counties as introduced. The non-administrative counties are referred to in debates as "geographic counties", and there seemed to have been no hesitation about creating the county of London as a geographic county as well as an administrative county (there was some fun regarding who should be appointing sherriffs for Middlesex). Morwen - Talk 09:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Then of course there was the Isle of Wight which made the break a year later: I wonder was anyone campaigning for it? Lozleader 12:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Reportedly the good people of the Isle of Wight were outraged at having to send councillors to Winchester. It was controversial enough in 1972, with somewhat better transport links! (although, probably easier than getting to Beverley from Cleethorpes) Morwen - Talk 21:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC) Suffolks, Soke of Peterborough ==

From the Times August 7, 1888:

Committee stage in the Lords:

• In Clause 46, relating to special counties, LORD BRISTOL moved an amendment for dividing Suffolk
  into two separate administrative counties for the purposes of this Act.
  After a discussion the amendment was carried by 59 to 20.
• LORD EXETER moved that the Soke of Peterborough and the residue of the county of Northampton should be separately administrative counties for the purposes of this Act. The amendment was agreed to.
• In Clause 49 LORD GRANVILLE moved an amendment to allow the Local Government Board to constitute the Cinque Ports "the county of the Cinque Ports."
• LORD BALFOUR stated that, the constituencies of the several boroughs in the Cinque Ports not being contiguous, the government could not accept this amendment.
• After a discussion the amendment was rejected by 35 to 32.

Lozleader 22:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

That's odd - some to and fro-ing there about Suffolk? That insertion of East Suffolk and West Suffolk is after the insertion I found in the Commons. I wonder where it got removed?

Lord Hervey's original amendment to separate Suffolk was defeated on July 13, 1888 by 157 votes to 130. Lozleader 12:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Have you been able to track down at what stage the county borough population figures were reduced? I had trouble doing this. And someone at some point introduced an amendment to add some low-population counties corporate to the list.

(Poole seems to have been especially hard done by. It is a historic county corporate and had a population of 27,558 in 1901 - more than Canterbury's which was 24,889 - and it grew, and managed to make 57,000 in 1931, then 100,000 in 1971, but one step behind becoming a county borough) Morwen - Talk 23:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

According The Times of June 9, 1888, Sir H James moved an amendment to reduce the population to 50,000. This was accepted by Mr Ritchie (who explained they had already brought the figure down from 150,000 to 100,000, and that further pressure had been brought to bear on the government). The government didn't have reliable population figures, and they "should admit boroughs which gave sufficient proof" of having the required populace.

He went to state "Now that they had down so far in population as 50,000 there arose a question as to the admission of boroughs which had not so large a population as 50,000, but which had very peculiar claims. He referred to the counties of cities."...

"Two or three of these cities had so small a population that he did not propose to deal with them in this way. The best course was to give the names of the cities which he proposed to include. They were Exeter, Lincoln, Chester, Gloucester, Worcester, and Canterbury."

Lozleader 00:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The Bill

The Times very helpfully published the entire Local Government (England and Wales) Bill as it was, in the editions of 27, 28 and 29 March 1888. The Bill had been introduced on March 19, 1888.

There are some striking differences, not least being the proposed creation of *district* councils!:

Firstly the term "administrative county" was not used, as far as I can see.

• Part I (County Councils)
  • Clause 2 (a)

Councils were to consist of "elective" and "selected" councillors. The latter became county aldemermen in due course.

• Part II (Application of the act to boroughs, the Metropolis and certain special counties)
  • County boroughs named in Schedule 4 are nly 10 in number
  • Clause 39 (1) "The ridings of Yorkshire and the divisions of Lincolnshire shall respectively be separate counties." (no other counties divided)
• Part III (District councils in counties)
  • Every county was to be divided into urban and rural districts, with an elected council. Urban districts were to be all existing urban sanitary districts and boroughs. Rural districts were to be formed form rural sanitary districts, divided on county lines. (sound familiar???). Like the county councils, they were to consist of selected and elective councillors. This part of the Bill did not apply to the Metropolis or county boroughs.
• Fourth Schedule: Large boroughs dealt with as separate counties: Liverpool, Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield, Bristol, Bradford, Nottingham, Kingston-on-hull, Newcastle-on-Tyne

Lozleader 12:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Isle of Ely

On July 13, 1888 Captain Selwyn introduced an amendment to separate the Isle of ely and the residue of Cambridgeshire, which was acceptedLozleader 12:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Timetable for changes to Bill

• March 19, 1888 Bill introduced. Was to have a county council for each historic county, with the exception of Yorkshire and Lincolnshire which were to be divided by ridings/divisions, a new county of London and ten large county boroughs. Counties were to have the same boundaries as parliamentary counties (that is 1832/1844 boundaries). Each county was to be divided into urban and rural districts.
• June 9, 1888
  • Amendment to bring population of county boroughs down to 50,000 accepted
  • Six smaller counties of cities to be county boroughs listed
• July 13, 1888 in Commons
  • Amendment to create Staffordshire Potteries county withdrawn
  • Amendment to split Suffolk defeated
  • Amendment to split Sussex accepted
  • Amendment to separate Isle of Ely from Cambridgeshire accepted
• July 19, 1888 in Commons
  • New Schedule listing 59 county boroughs substituted, including towns of 50,000 population and some counties of cities
  • Amendment to add Lichfield "negatived"
• July 31, 1888, on introduction to the Lords for second reading, the term "administrative county" was introduced. according to Lord Balfour "The difficulty was, in the chaos that existed, how to get the administrative county to conform with what he might call the geographic county... No one would like unnecessarily to interfere with county boundaries; but it was not less dangerous to interfere with Poor Law unions, as important financial questions would immediately come to front..." In other words, a compromise of sorts. Where the boundary commission would have moved county boundaries to follow PLUs, this was going to be fudged: while the councils were to "consider the reports of the commission", the final decision was left to the Local Government Board.
• August 6, 1888 In Lords
  • Amendment to split Suffolk passed
  • Amendment to split Northamptonshire and Soke of Peterborough accepted
  • Amendment to create Cinque Ports county defeated

Lozleader 13:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC) and Lozleader (talk) 18:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Towns on county boundaries

Why is Tunbridge Wells not included in the list? Although it did not receive a charter as a municipal borough until January 1889, the Improvement Act district created in 1835 included territory in Sussex (part of Frant parish) and this area was also in the borough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Balrik vostog (talk • contribs) 16:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The list is based on those USDs shown as situated in more than one county in Youngs. I've had a look in more detail in the book and it seems that the parish of Frant was partly in Kent and partly in Sussex. It was, according to Youngs, part of the Kent portion of Frant parish that was included in the MB/USD. In 1894 the part of Frant in Tunbridge wells MB became Broadwater Down parish, the part in Kent outside the borough was transferred to Tonbridge Rural parish. The remaining (sussx) part became Frant parish in East Sussex. In 1900 the county boundaries were altered, with part of Frant and E Sussex being taken into Kent, Broadwater Down parish and Tunbridge Wells MB.

However...

• Kelly's Directory of Kent, 1882 [1] ..situated partly in the parish of Tonbridge, partly in Speldhurst and partly in Frant, Sussex,...
• Kelly's Directory of Kent, Surrey & Sussex, 1891 [2] ..situated partly in the parish of Tonbridge, partly in Speldhurst, Kent and partly in Frant, Sussex,... (presumably out of date?)
• Kelly's Directory of Kent, 1903 [3] [4] it is all in Kent, and the 1900 extension is included.

So I'm inclined to think you are right: Youngs seems a bit confused about Tunbridge Wells, he doesn't have a date for it becoming a USD, has the incorporation as 1888 and doesn't know when it became "Royal Tunbridge Wells". Lozleader (talk) 22:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Lozleader

Thanks for your quick response. I agree that the entry for Tunbridge Wells in Youngs' "Guide to the local administrative units of England" Vol. 1 is unsatisfactory, but he was partially right about the parts of Frant parish in Tunbridge Wells USD & MB. In fact there were Kent AND Sussex parts of Frant in the USD before 1889 (as well as Kent and Sussex parts outside the USD). The 1888 Act transferred the Sussex part in the MB to Kent and both parts became Broadwater Down parish in 1894. The 1909 Ordnance Survey 1: 2500 plan (recently republished in the Alan Godfrey edition as Kent Sheet 60.16, Tunbridge Wells, SE) shows the pre-1889 and post-1889 county boundaries and the pre-1900 Broadwater Down parish clearly straddles the pre-1889 boundary. (The pre-1889 boundary is shown because it remained the parliamentary boundary until 1918). As you pointed out, the Kelly's 1891 entry is out of date.

Another omission from your list is Barnet. Before 1889 the USD consisted of part of Chipping Barnet parish (Herts.) and parts of South Mimms and Monken Hadley parishes (both Middlesex). The 1888 Act transferred the latter two areas to Herts. There are errors in Youngs' entries for South Mimms parish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Balrik vostog (talk • contribs) 19:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Probably best if we alter the list to indicate it lists some of the towns on county boundaries. There doesn't seem to a definitive list. I notice that Filey attracted the attention of the boundary commission and that's not in our list either... Lozleader (talk) 20:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. 'Census England and Wales 1891' could be cited as the source. Mr Youngs' book got the entry for Filey wrong also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Balrik vostog (talk • contribs) 20:08, 23 June 2009

County from 1889

What is the basis for including county names in brackets after "County borough"? Are they the counties listed in Schedule 3 to the Act? In which case, Bristol should be Gloucestershire and Somerset. But in any event, the counties listed in Schedule 3 were associated with county boroughs for limited purposes mentioned in the Act, which did not, I think, include USDs. I suggest they are better removed, unless someone can come up with another reason (sourced) for including them. --Mhockey (talk) 09:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps change the wording to (associated with x). The Act united these towns in one (statutory) county. We should list what that county was. MRSC (talk) 12:09, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Just realised this is already listed in an earlier section, so it is redundant here. MRSC (talk) 13:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. What you referring to when you say the Act united these towns in one statutory county? As I read it, that is only the case for those cities which were not previously counties corporate. Section 31 says that a CB shall be an "administrative county of itself", with a proviso that "for all other purposes a county borough shall continue to be part of the county (if any) (my italics) in which it is situate at the passing of this Act". I struggle to see what "if any" can mean except that the proviso did not apply to counties corporate. Section 100 says that "In this Act, if not inconsistent with the context,......the expression "county" does not include a county of a city or county of a town", but that does not really help because a county corporate was not part of any other county.--Mhockey (talk) 13:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, in answer to the original question, the counties were indeed those listed in Schedule 3. But anyway they seem to have been spirited away... Lozleader (talk) 15:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

What did it replace?

The article gives a good description of the act and the county government system it established. But what was the previous system of local government in the UK? Was there some form of non-elected county leadership? A few sentences contrasting the new system with the old would be really helpful for those of us outside the UK. --Amble (talk) 21:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Prior to 1889 county administration was in the hands of justices of the peace meeting in a "Court of Quarter Sessions"Quarter_sessions#Civil_jurisdiction. They were indeed unelected (they were appointed by the Crown on the advice of, I think, the Lord Lieutenant of the county). And yes there should be something in the article about it! Lozleader (talk) 08:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

56 councils in the original bill?

How do you get 56? There are 39 historic counties. Add 4 for the ridings/divisions of Yorkshire/Lincolnshire is 43. Including Montgomeryshire and London, plus the ten large cities equals 55. Yamor2 (talk) 16:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the figure is England and Wales and refers to county councils. 51 (39 English +12 Wales & Mon) + 4 (Ridings/Parts) + 1 (London) =56 Lozleader (talk) 08:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be 57 though? There are 12 historic counties in Wales without Montgomeryshire, so it's 39+12+Montgomeryshire+4 ridings/divisions+London=57.

Looking at the article, could it be 56 was not including London? However, it's certainly misleading and should be edited.

Yamor2 (talk) 14:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Monmouthshire I think you mean? Not sure where the number 56 came from... maybe me? If it's wrong we'll just change it :-) Lozleader (talk) 19:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, of course Monmouthshire, sorry!Yamor2 (talk) 20:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

5 Counties for other purposes

"The counties of Cambridgeshire, Lincolnshire, Northamptonshire, Suffolk, Sussex and Yorkshire were undivided so far as they were one county at the passing of the Act.[9] The three ridings of Yorkshire and the three parts of Lincolnshire therefore retained their status."

Does anyone else think this doesn't make sense?

What does the "therefore" refer back to>

Retaned their status as what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.108.89.77 (talk) 15:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)