Traditional counties of England
The neutrality of this article is disputed.The traditional Counties (or historic Counties) of England are historical and geographical subdivisions of the country. They currently no longer used for administrative purposes, the newer administrative counties of England being used instead, which were largely defined in 1972, coming into effect in 1974, with later changes occuring in the 1990s
Some supporters of the traditional county boundaries argue that they have never ceased to exist. They exist in no form currently utilised by the government - they are no longer used for administrative purposes (althought also see registration counties) and they are not marked on most modern maps (specifically Ordnance Survey).
However, some people prefer to use traditional counties for geographic purposes rather than administrative ones, given the frequent changes associated with the latter.
| Table of contents |
|
2 Supporters 3 Responses to criticsm of traditional counties 4 See also |
The traditional counties of England usually included in lists are:
List of the traditional counties
Other counties occasionally included are Monmouthshire and the County of Bristol. Some of the traditional counties replaced earlier Saxon counties, such as Cravenshire and Hallamshire.
Many of these counties had outliers of varying sizes, some even lying in Wales. Equally, some Welsh border counties had outliers in England. These outliers were frequently altered and finally abolished in 1844.
Some of the traditional counties have major subdivisions. Cambrigeshire was divided into Cambridge and the Isle of Ely. The Isle of Wight was a division of Hampshire. Kent was divided into East Kent and West Kent, and Lincolnshire into Parts of Holland, Parts of Kesteven and Parts of Lindsey. Northamptonshire was divided into Northampton and the Soke of Peterborough, and Yorkshire into the East Riding of Yorkshire, North Riding of Yorkshire and West Riding of Yorkshire.
Major changes to the traditional counties in 1888 split Suffolk into East Suffolk and West Suffolk, and Sussex into East Sussex and West Sussex.
Smaller subdivisions also existed. Most English counties were traditionally subdivided into hundredss, while Nottinghamshire, Yorkshire and Lincolnshire were divided into wapentakes, Sussex into rapess and Durham, Cumberland and Westmoreland into wards. Kent also had an intermediate level between its East and West divisions and its hundreds, lathess.
Hundreds or their equivalents were divided into tithings and parishes (the only one of these divisions still used administratively), which in turn were divided into townshipss and manors.
Supporters of the historic Counties maintain that the counties are geographic and cultural entities too important to be changed every time there is a local government reorganisation. They also assert the the traditional counties provide a far better basis for geography due to their unchanging status, which contrasts sharply with the frequent reviews and alterations that the administrative counties are subject to.
More significantly, the legal argument is made that the legislation of 1888, which introduced new counties and altered some county borders, referred to these as "administrative counties" and specifically provided for the continuation of the traditional county boundaries. Traditionalists point out that all subsequent legislation altered not the traditional counties, but the "administrative counties" created by the 1888 Act, even if subsequent Acts simply referred to them as "counties".
At the time of the massive local government reorganisation of 1974 the Government made the following statement:
Given frequent confusion regarding the status of historic counties, many societies and lobby groups have been formed in their defence. These include Yorkshire's White Rose Society, the Campaign for real Warwickshire, and the Huntingdonshire Society. The campaigns for Rutland, Peterborough and Herefordshire to be made once more administrative counties did succeed and these areas were made independent of Leicestershire, Cambridgeshire and Hereford and Worcester.
Critics point out that the 1974 disclaimer was merely a government statement, and thus had no legal effect. The 1972 legislation doesn't use the term "administrative counties" used in the 1888 Act, except in order to define the borders of the new administrative divisions called "counties" (with reference to existing administrative counties and county boroughs). It repealed the 1888 Act and created new "counties" instead of the "administrative counties".
Not only is there no room for traditional counties in the new scheme, but the part of the 1888 Act that preserved the traditional counties has long been repealed (though there is no specific abolition of the traditional counties themselves).
The ABC however claim that it is "manifest" that the 1888 counties were being abolished, and that the repeal of the Act had no effect whatsoever on the historic counties.
Further, the idea that historic counties are 'immutable' is claimed to be spurious by some critics. For example, Parliament passed an Act in 1844 which reverted some exclaves to their host territories. Supporters of the ABC point to the wording, which states that the exclaves in question "shall be considered for all purposes" part of the county in which they locally lie. They put forward the opinion that this is not an equvical statement, and draw a distinction between 'considered for all purposes' and 'real'.
They claim that this change was nothing more than an administrative convenience, the only "purposes" referred to by the Act being those concerned with administration; they assert that the real status of these exclaves as being part of their historic county is unchanged, and that the 1844 Act was merely for the purposes of government. This places the 'administrative counties' back in time 44 years before they were specifically created by the 1988 Act. Further examples can be found, for example, the assertion that Bristol merely became an 'administrative county' in 1373.
Another argument that critics put forward is that in many places administrative counties, not traditional counties, are the default geographic and cultural reference points of the local population. They point especially to the metropolitan counties such as West Midlands and Greater Manchester, where people have much more in common with each other than they do with those in the rump county. Certainly the majority of councils in such conurbations quote their address as being in the administrative county. For example Birmingham is nearly always referred to as being in the West Midlands, rather than Warwickshire; certainly most Birmingham residents would not regard their city as being in Warwickshire.
However, this is by no means universally the case, supporters of traditional counties are quick put forward. In addition, supporters point out that metropolitan areas have always been used as a basis for geography, and someone from Birmigham is just as likely to simply say he is "from Birmigham" than "from the West Midlands". This in no way contradicts the assertion that traditional counties are a very widely used basis for popular geography in all places that are not already huge cities in themselves, they argue.Traditional subdivisions
Supporters
Supporters of historic counties point out that there are many examples of towns and villages which have stated unequivocably their presence in their historic County. Responses to criticsm of traditional counties