Latest comment: 18 years ago28 comments3 people in discussion
It *seems* that the counties corporate survived the 1889 Act. I think they were the boroughs and cities that appointed sheriffs themselves. I think they lost their administrative functions - Section 48 merged all liberties and franchises were to form part of the "county of which it forms part for parliamentary elections" - but they may have kept some judicial independence. In the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act 1907, includes the section:
Hmm. But boroughs didn't form part of a county for parliamentary elections, no - or does that mean something more subtle?
Right. You're right. Was a borough although independent parliamematarily (is that a word?) actually "associated" with a county? The more I learn, the less I know Lozleader 21:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
" The expression "county" means a county or riding of a county for which a lieutenant is appointed and includes the City of London; and each county of a city or county of a town in the second schedule shall be deemed to be part of the county..."
The Counties of Cities or Towns listed were Chester, Exeter, Poole, Gloucester, Bristol, Canterbury, Lincoln, Norwich, Newcastle on Tyne, Berwick upon Tweed, Nottingham, Southampton, Lichfield, Worcester, York (included in the West Riding in the Act), Kingston upon Hull, Carmarthen and Haverfordwest.
The Lord Lieutenant was president of the "Territorial Association" for each county.
Berwick-Upon-Tweed, Canterbury, Carmarthen, Chester, Gloucester, Haverfordwest, Lichfield, Lincoln, Norwich, Nottingham, Oxford, Poole Southampton and York still appoint sherriffs - not sure if Oxford was ever a county corporate.
Also, in 1966, when Haverfordwest was granted arms, the grant was to the Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the Borough of the Town and County of Haverfordwest.
Before 1974 Poole was officially "The Borough and County of the Town of Poole". It officially regained this title in 1997, after becoming unitary.
Lozleader 20:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
Interesting. So from 1907 to 1974, Bristol wasn't in that list so got a Lieutenant itself because and only because it was still a county corporate that hadn't been "deemed" to be part of a county. Prior to 1907 there was presumably no statutory basis for this, all being done under the royal prerogative? Morwen - Talk 21:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
No, hang on - Bristol is in the list???? Morwen - Talk 21:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
It was entirely included in Gloucestershire. In the 1888 Act it was in Glos and som, but as far as I can figure, was regarded as entirely in Glos from 1896 - this was when the various civil parishes in the City, some in Glos, some in Som, were merged.Lozleader 21:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
So does the Reserve Forces Act actually say Bristol should have a Lord Lieutenant? I'm confused by this. Morwen - Talk 21:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
No, it seems to be in under Gloucestershire... Did Bristol have a LL from 1889 -1974. This person [1] doesn't think so..Lozleader 21:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
Curious. [2] has someone born in 1900 be Lord Lieutenant of Bristol. [3] sheds a bit of light onto it by noting that "I think that it is right for Bristol to have a separate lord lieutenant, even though in the past, when it did, it was usually held in plurality with the lord lieutenancy of Gloucestershire. It has in the past also been held in plurality with the lord lieutenancy of Somerset, which would not be a bad idea now."
Aha! "Held in Plurality" eh? That may explain why I couldn't find LL of Bristol by searching the London Gazzette archives. Although I gave up after a while as their search engine isn't great. Lozleader 22:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
Yep. This is all rather curious and it seems to be something that sources differ on, so may as well put this on back burner at moment. Morwen - Talk 22:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
Talking of Lords Lieutenant - the Constable of the Tower of London was also the Lord Lieutenant and Custos Roturlarum of the Tower Hamlets. I'm not sure what the area of the Hamlets was (the same as the Tower Division of Ossulstone?) but the this [4] talks of the "seventeen several hamlets belonging to the Tower of London" in 1642. An 1868 gazetteer entry on Middlesex states "Exclusive of the 105 parishes comprised within the cities of London and Westminster, there are 90 parishes and 23 extra parochial places or liberties, some of which belong to the Duchy of Lancaster or the Lieutenant of the Tower of London, who exercise separate jurisdiction" [5].
I think the seperate jurisdiction must have lasted until 1889. For instance the Tower Hamlets Rifle Volunteers were raised in the 1850s, and these corps were organised on a county basis with the officers commissioned by the appropriate Lord Lieutenant. The Tower Hamlets Militia also existed in Victorian times.
The 1888 Act stated that the counties in the act were to be used for all purposes, and the Constable of the Tower presumably lost this jurisdiction at that date. He is not mentioned in the the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act 1908, where the Lord Mayor of London and Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports get a mention as LL equivalents. Lozleader 21:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
Did we figure out whether there was any statutory basis before 1908 for Lieuetenacy, or whether that was just a royal prerogative thingy? Morwen - Talk 03:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
Nope that's still up for further investigation... Lozleader 12:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
Having done a bit of Googling, it appears that LLs were a Tudor innovation, and were regulated by the Militia Act 1882 prior to 1908, and were also effected by the Regulation of Forces Act 1871, which I shall seek out in the V near future... Lozleader 13:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
Aha! This [6] gives 1550 as the date for the statutory origin of lieutenantcies. Not sure how to check that Lozleader 13:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC) and see also [7]Lozleader 13:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
More confusion, some clarity... Looking at the directories on historicaldirectories.org, there is no mention of a LL of Bristol in 1897, 1902 or 1914, just one of Gloucestershire. On consulting the London Gazzette archives I have the following:
Whitehall 17th July, 1911
The KING has been pleased, by warrant under His Majesty's Royal sign manual, bearing date the 17th instant, to appoint the Right Honorable William, Earl Beauchamp, KCMG, to be Lieutenant and Custos Roturolrum of and in the said county of Gloucester, in the room of the Right Honorable Henry John, Earl of Ducie, GCVO, resigned.
Whitehall, November 9th, 1931
The KING has been pleased, by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm, bearing date the 6th instant, to appoint the Henry Hugh Arthur Fitzroy, Duke of Beaufort, GCVO, to be His Majesty's Lieutenant of and in the County of Gloucester, the City of Bristol and County of the same and the City of Gloucester and County of the same, in the room of the Right Honorable William, Earl Beauchamp, KG, KCMG, resigned.
Which makes one wonder why they didn't mention the two counties and cities in 1911. Interesting that is now done by Letters Patent rather than warrant. So one would assume that all the towns and cities of counties were held "in plurality" with the county lieutenantcies, except in the same gazzette is: 7th November, 1931
The KING has been pleased to accept the resignation of Lord Kylsart, GCMG, from the office of Lord Lieutenant of Haverfordwest.
The terms "Lieutenant of and in the county", "His Majesty's Lieutenant of and in the county" and "Lord Lieutenant of" seem to be interchangable. Lozleader 17:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
This [8] claims that the Haverfordwest Lieutenancy dated to 1761. However, right at the top of this section it is claimed that Haverfordwest was deemed to be part of Pembrokeshire - which is a bit confusing. Haverfordwest and Bristol seem to be in a sort of weird limbo. Morwen - Talk 19:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
Great. I spent a couple of hours in the reference library, and unearhed the Militia Act 1882, and it was all we could have hoped.
For instance:
Section 5 "all jurisdictions, powers, duties, commands and privileges over, or in respect of, or in relation to the militias ...exercisable by the lieutenants of counties, or by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, ...shall be exercised by Her Majesty, through a Secretary of State..."
Section 29: Her Majesty shall from time to time appoint lieutenants for the several counties in the United Kingdom.
Which seems to reestablish the lieutenancies on a new basis, lasting until 1974/1975.
As far as the areas of the lieutenancies are concerened:
Section 48(1) The expression "county" shall, unless the context otherwise requires, mean a county at large, with the exception that each each riding of the county of York shall be a separate county.
Section 48(2) Each county of a city, county of a town, or place mentioned in ...the first schedule... shall be deemed to form part of the county...
Section 48(3) All other places locally situate within a county as above defined shall be deemed to form part of that county.
Section 48(4) Every place declared by this section to form part of a county shall (save as otherwise expressly provided) be subject to the jurisdiction and authority of the lieutenant, deputy lieutenants, and other officers of the said county.
Section 49 dealt with the exceptions:
Section 49(1) The Governor of the Isle of Wight was permitted to appoint deputies (a power apparently never used)
Section 49(2) The Militia Acts shall apply to the liberty or district of the Tower Division in the county of Middlesex, commonly known by the name of Tower Hamlets, as if it were a separate county. [Another question answered!]
Section 49(3) concerned the Cinque Ports being a separate county for Militia purposes.
Section 49(4) It shall be lawful for Her Majesty to appoint a lieutenant for the county of the town of Haverfordwest in like manner as if it were a separate county, and he may appoint deputy lieutenants under this Act.
Schedule 1 lists the various counties corporate and the counties to which they were to be included. Bristol was to be in Gloucestershire.
Haverfordwest was listed as being part of Pembrokeshire.
Section 49(4) says HM may appoint a lieutenant "in like manner as if it were a separate county" so presumably it was a ceremonial function? It was the only place so listed. It seems fairly clear that the the lieutenacies for the counties corporate were effectively merged with the counties, but I guess they could use the titles together or separately?
Lozleader 17:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
Very interesting. So it looks like ceremonial counties of England needs a bit of a rewrite, now we have the Bristol question answered, or possibly it needs splitting and the post-1996 content detaching from the pre-1974 statutory county (to coin a phrase) information - ceremonial county gets to be a poorer name for the counties used for Lieutenancy the further back you go, as they have become increasingly ceremonial with time. The creation of a Lord Lieutenant for the county of London would therefore have been automatic given that wording and the very strong wording in the 1888 act splitting it from the other counties.
I would read that as 49(4) is just explicitly undeeming the deeming done elsewhere, for the avoidance of doubt. This also explains why the article unreformed House of Commons treats Cinque Ports as a county. So did this imply county Lieutenants for Ireland? Morwen - Talk 23:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
Yes the act applied to Ireland. Lieutenants were to be appointed to each county [Section 53(1)] and also the the counties of the cities of Cork, Dublin and Limerick [Section 53(2)], while the county of the city of Waterford and the county of the town of Galway could have lieutenants "in like manner as if such city and town were respectively counties" - i.e. like Haverfordwest. The other Irish counties corporate (Kilkenny, Drogheda and interestingly Londonderry were to go with the appropriate counties. So Londonderry and Belfast city lieutenancies must be a post 1921 innovation.
The Irish situation was slightly different in that the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland exercised HM's powers to appoint lieutenants through the Chief Secretary or Under Secretary.
I checked a directory of Munster for 1886, and the title used was "Her Majesty's Lieutenant of the County and Custos Rotulorum".
The only "Lord Lieutenant" in the whole Act is the Irish one.
Scotland is only mentioned as having the same system except the "chief magistrate" of the county and city of Edinburgh could appoint deputy lieutenants when there was a vacancy in the lieutenancy. It doexsn't mention the Lord Provosts being LLs - I wonder if this was already established or came in with one of the Local Government reforms?
Oh, and the City of London of course was a separate county. There was also a clause about the Lord warden of the Stannaries being allowed to act as a lieutenant in the raising of a corps of miners in Devon and Cornwall. This role was reduced to being permitted to be an ex officio member of Devon and/or Cornwall associations in the 1907 Act. This was more or less repeated in the Reserve Forces Act 1996.
Another random thought. Did the county lieutenancies explicitly get abolished in the Irish Free State? Morwen - Talk 13:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
Don't think so. But as they were appointed by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (who exercised the royal prerogative in "anything in relation to lieutenants or deputy lieutenants, if authorised or required to be done by, to or before Her Majesty.. may ... be done by, to or before the Lord Lieutenant"), whose office was abolished in 1922, I think when he went so did they Lozleader 16:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
I'm sorry to butt in here, but could I ask a question here. What exactly was the status of the county corporates? 'Cause I cant find any obvious answer to whether they were considered to be 'real' counties, in the geographic sense, i.e having the same status as say Warwickshire or Gloucestershire. Or were they still considered to be geographically part of their 'host' county. Because according to the ABC, several court judgements found that the CC's were not counties 'in the normal sense' whatever that means (see the county corporate article) although they give no references to this. Can anyone shed any light on this subject. G-Man* 20:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
Hmmm. Good question. I notice the county corporate article says they were abolished in 1888, but I think they actually hung on until 1974, so that may need rewriting. I have read things like "a county of itself, locally situate in the county of" which fudges the issue nicely. Administratively, judically etc they were separate, but would anyone seriously say York wasn't in Yorkshire? I'd love to find the court refences...Lozleader 22:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
They weren't usually shown in large-scale geographic maps, but then neither were enclaves (not consistently, anyway). I daresay the court judgements are just things striking down overly-literal interpretations of contracts. Morwen - Talk 22:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
I suppose it depends on your viewpoint - if your view is that counties are legal entities created for a number of practical purposes (judicial, administrative, military whatever) then they definitely were counties in the full sense, but lost these functions incrementally over the nineteenth and twentieth century until all they practically had was the title. If you take the mystical view that counties have an indivisible spiritual existence untouchable by the law of man (as the more extreme traditional county advocates sometimes seem to say), then they weren't. Lozleader 22:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
Here's the ABC page which mentions county corporates [9]. Although It doesn't give any references for its assertions. To be honest I dont trust anything the ABC says. G-Man* 22:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I'd just been reading bits of the ABC site when I made my post above - with explains its intemperence - I found some of the content infuriating. I find the information on thir site to be selective - as it is obscure and hard to get at it really ought to be referenced so the reader can make up their mind. If they could demonstrate the truth behind their argument, I might be convinced. Lozleader 22:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Just found this in Youngs Vol 2... (in a footnote)
"In 1536 (27 Henry VIII, c. 26) Oswestry Hundred created in Salop comprised of marcher lordships of Oswestry, Knockin, Maesbrook, previously in Marches; a parish in the Marches included thereafter in Salop (Ellesmere in Pimhill Hundred), area of Down (not separate later civilly) transferred to Chirbury Hundred; Salop parish transferred to Marches (Clun); In 1543 (34 & 35 Henry VIII, c. 26) part Llanyblodwel (Aber Tanat) transferred from Montgomeryshire to Salop; In 1546 (37 Henry VIII, c.xxxii) Clun tansferred back from Montgomeryshire to Salop; for these changes and for uncertain inclusion and changes see VCH Salop III, 41-42"
Latest comment: 18 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion
OK..., this is the text of the 1844 Act I jotted down (as I say no list):
"From the tenth day of October Eighteen Hundred and Forty Four every part of every county in England and Wales which is detached from the main body of the county shall be considered for all purposes as forming part of that county of which it is considered part for the purposes of the election of members to serve as Knights of the Shire
...[the parts transferred shall be incorporated in an existing] hundred, wapentake, rape, lathe or other like divisions unless the Justices of the County declare it to be a new hundred or division."
Lozleader 22:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
Interesting - I wonder how we could find out which detached parts formed part of which county for elections? Warofdreamstalk 23:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
This would have been a Reform Act 1832 thingy (as I think was mentioned on my talk page). Morwen - Talk 23:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
That was my thought, but it doesn't seem to be covered [10]. Warofdreamstalk 23:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
I wouldn't expect to see such trivia on a selective quotation thingy. ;) Morwen - Talk 23:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
Yay. I note there's an odd bit going on with the last line in Buckinghamshire - to or from? I think I'll go linking every of the parishes and townships after you're finished with it. Morwen - Talk 22:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
Oops! Yes it got in the wrong place. Link and stub away - most of these "chapelries", "townships" etc became civil parishes Lozleader 22:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
also there was a random parish of Flintshire in Denbigshire apart from this, apparently all the way up to 1974.
There was a block of about 6 parishes of Derbyshire including Measham locally in Leicestershire, and a couple of "bits" around Ashby de la Zouch. I had to figure that out when I went looking for my family roots (both sides of the border).
There was a detached bit of Caernarvonshire (Llysfaen) until the 1920s I think. I'll check it.
Swineshead was more or less detached from Huntingdonshire (Some maps show it just touching, others slightly apart).
Oh yeah, Fwthog in Cwmyoy - a bit of Herefordshire in Monmouthshire (don't know why they didn't straighten that in 1844.
Incidentally, Dudley County Borough was moved to Staffordshire in 1966 - I presume because after boundary changes (absorbing a lot of surrounding Staffs councils) it was more Staffs than Worcs!
Was Newmarket ever detached from Suffolk? There is currently an isthmus of Suffolk at one point only about a a couple of hundred metres wide stopping it from being an exclave. Morwen - Talk 12:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
Visionofbritain.org.uk claims Newmarket St Mary was in Cambridgeshire and Newmarket All Saints/Exning were in Suffolk - I think this might make All Saints/Exning an exclave although its hard to tell with their maps. I remember reading somewhere about a campaign to try to get Newmarket put into Cambridgeshire for '74. Morwen - Talk 12:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
I'm pretty sure it was always attached - Exning and and most of All Saints were the salient, with half the town in Cambridgeshire (St Mary's and a bit of St Mary's) until 1889 when the rest of the USD was transferred to Suffolk. In every map I've seen there is a narrow join, although it's really just the corner of a diamond. The county boundary went doewn the middle of the High Street.
See [11] (one of many useful maps at the site)
Lozleader 22:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
It has an approximation, but it only notes the change to the 195x-2000 situation, not enough to reconstruct the boundaries. Morwen - Talk 02:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
"(1A) With respect to the Acts shown in subsection (1B) below, the Metropolitan Police district is defined by the area shown in (1) above and the following areas:
(a) in the county of Essex, in the district of Epping Forest--
the area of the former urban district of Chigwell
the parish of Waltham Abbey;
(b) in the county of Hertfordshire--
in the borough of Broxbourne, the area of the former urban district of Cheshunt
the district of Hertsmere
in the district of Welwyn Hatfield, the parish of Northaw;
(c) in the county of Surrey--
in the borough of Elmbridge, the area of the former urban district of Esher
the boroughs of Epsom and Ewell and Spelthorne
in the district of Reigate and Banstead, the area of the former district of Banstead." Warofdreamstalk 11:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
Just re the 1965 boundary change, this [13] mentions in passing that "Hornchurch Urban District and the Borough of Romford from 1st April 1965... were incorporated in the Metropolitan Police District."
Lozleader 12:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
By a process of working backwards, the MPD 1946 - 1965 would have been:
Aldenham seems a bit suspicious, especially as the change in 194x was to bring districts wholly within the border. When they split Watford RD did they say "oh, that parish is in the met police district so lets put it in Hertsmere, and stick the stuff that isn't in Three Rivers?" I think its more likely Aldenham was added to the MPD in 1974. Morwen - Talk 13:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
Actually, having looked at the borders I think Aldenham being part of MPD from 46 onwards is more likely. Morwen - Talk 13:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
We have independent confirmation of this from [14]
This might throw some light:[15]Lozleader 22:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
That day is today Lozleader 20:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
Oh joy! At [16] are some downloadable sample PDFs of historical London bus maps, which show the MPD boundary at different dates. I've checked the 1940 map [17] and the 1952 map [18] and the boundary has indeed been adjusted.
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Received this e-mail from Berkshire County Record Office this morning:
"The Letters Patent granting Berkshire the style 'Royal County' date from
1974. However, Royal approval had been given in 1957/8 when the Queen
agreed to permit the style 'Royal County of Berkshire' recognising that the
term had been used for many years. The Letters Patent of 1974 merely
confirmed their existing usage. The status applies to the county of
Berkshire, not the County Council.
In December 1957, the Berkshire County Council minutes refer to the style
'going back more than 75 years', before the council was established. This
is confirmed by references to the 'Royal County' in two histories of
Berkshire: Cooper King's 'A History of Berkshire', 1887 and the Victoria
County History of Berkshire, 1906.
The origin of Berkshire's status as a royal county can be traced to the
royal connection which goes back to William the Conqueror and the building
of Windsor Castle in the eleventh century. By the nineteenth century, this
style was widely accepted and the royal status acknowledged. The Queen's
actions in 1957/8 and 1974 can be seen as first acknowledging and then
formalising a practice that was already firmly in place."
Interesting. I think I tried emailing one of the district councils - West Berkshire I think - regarding the same thing but didn't get anything back. Morwen - Talk 10:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
It seems that "Ancient Counties" were just the same as the lieutenantcy counties - admin counties plus county boroughs grouped together. Beds, Bucks and Cornwall were all altered in 1844 but the ancient and admin counties appaear to be identical.
Lozleader 13:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
Aha. Interesting. /me wonders what the Berkshire difference is. Oh areas. Yes. That would make it Reading. Morwen - Talk 14:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
What you say also implies it would have included the 1889 changes to include towns entirely within one county or another? Can you see if that works - like is eastern Banbury included in the Oxfordshire figure? Morwen - Talk 14:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
Hmmm Oxfordshire Ancient 483,614; Admin 480,608, which tells us nothing as Oxford was a county borough...
I'm looking for a better example.. Of all the counties that weren't divided or lacking county boroughs, two have different areas:
The Hunts difference presumably involves the bit of Peterborough City in Hunts? The Herts difference - I think might be in the East Barnet and Barnet areas where some exchanges took place. *If* this is true, then the "ancient county" was the pre 1889 entity. To find out we'd need the areas of all the county boroughs at 1891, which i don't have.
Inbcidentally I'm getting my information from: [19]Lozleader 17:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
Aha! An 1895 gazzetteer transcribed at [20] says: "The area of the administrative county includes part of tha civil parish of Fletton and part of the civil parish of Woodstone, in the ancient county of Huntingdon, but excludes part of the civil parishes of Warkwith, St Martin, Stamford Baron, and Little Bowden, which are included in the administrative counties of Oxford, Leicester and Lincoln respectively has an area of 639,541 acres" and gives the area of the ancient county as 641,992 acres. The ancient county area agrees with the 1891 table. Lozleader 17:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
Hmm. It's very annoying as the further pages (that it doesn't have the scan of) would have the areas of the county boroughs! We do get a few county borough areas here, but not enough to be useful. Bath's area was 3,383 acres. Admin Somerset's was given as 1,039,106, whilst ancient Somerset was 1,043,485. This leaves 996 acres unaccounted for - presumably the part of Bristol south of the Avon? Morwen - Talk 18:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
OK, having had a think about it. It would seem, in summary, that Ancient Counties:
Appeared in the census reports of 1891, 1901 and 1911 only
Were used to define the boundaries of parliamentary constituencies in 1885. These constituencies were not changed until redistribution of seats in 1918
I would assert that the reason for their listing in the three censuses was that they still had an existence for parliamentary reasons. That they were dropped after the parliamentary boundaries were realigned to administrative counties supports this theory.
Youngs, in his Guide to Administrative Units states that ancient counties were "supplanted" by administrative counties in 1889.
From this it would seem that "Ancient County" was a term coined in 1889 to refer to the 1844 boundaries which still defined constituencies. The term became obsolete in 1918 as the "ancient" counties no longer had any practical function.
There remains the mystery of how these relate to *traditional* counties.
To which I might add I have yet to find one *official* reference to the term "Ancient and Geographical County". I suspect it was a term invented by ABC, and then used by its followers, who took their word for it. But I'm open to seeing evidence Lozleader 11:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
I have today issued a direction to the Local Government Commission for England for it to carry out a review of local government arrangements in the metropolitan borough of Sefton. The commission should submit its final report to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State by 25 November 1997. The direction requires the commission to have regard to policy and procedure guidance on the conduct of the review. My Department is also issuing, jointly with the commission, a statement setting out local government arrangements which we consider that the commission could recommend under the law, given the geographical scope of the direction.
This was in response to calls from Matthew Banks, the then-MP for Southport.
Now, it appears this review did indeed complete. Obviously there was a new goverment in May 1997. However, Ronnie Fearn, the new LibDem MP for Southport, talks at length about what happened [22], although he is likely not entirely fairly representing what happened, particularly with respect to context.
there was indeed a review
provisional recommendations were to create a Southport/Formby unitary in early 1997?
or it may merely have included this as one of the options
the final recommendation said Sefton to continue as is
