Imperial Parliament STV Constituencies

[Brainbin]

I assume the three counties of NE Connaught just aren't large enough to justify their own single member seats?

Let's have a look at Ireland, shall we?

Ireland - 4,456,546 - 59 MIPs. This is the third-largest delegation (tied with Scotland) behind England (with or without Wales) and Canada.

Province of Connaught - 649,635 - 9 MIPs
County Galway - 192,146 - 3 MIPs
County Leitrim - 69,201 - 1 MIP
County Mayo - 202,627 - 3 MIPs
County Roscommon - 101,639 - 1 MIP
County Sligo - 84,022 - 1 MIP

Province of Munster - 1,076,188 - 14 MIPs
County Clare - 112,129 - 2 MIPs (adjusted upward from 1 MIP due to rounding error)
County Cork - 404,813 - 5 MIPs
County Kerry - 165,331 - 2 MIPs
County Limerick - 146,018 - 2 MIPs
County Tipperary (North Riding) - 68,527 - 1 MIP
County Tipperary (South Riding) - 91,227 - 1 MIP
County Waterford - 87,030 - 1 MIP

Province of Leinster - 1,150,485 - 15 MIPs
County Carlow - 37,723 - 0 MIPs (yes, another Rutland on our hands)
County Dublin - 447,266 - 6 MIPs
County Kildare - 63,649 - 1 MIP
County Kilkenny - 78,821 - 1 MIP
King's County - 60,129 - 1 MIP
County Longford - 46,581 - 0 MIPs (yes, yet another one)
County Louth - 65,741 - 1 MIP
County Meath - 67,463 - 1 MIP
Queen's County - 57,226 - 1 MIP
County Westmeath - 61,527 - 1 MIP
County Wexford - 103,860 - 1 MIP
County Wicklow - 60,679 - 1 MIP

Province of Ulster - 1,581,351 - 21 MIPs
County Antrim - 461,240 - 6 MIPs
County Armagh - 125,238 - 2 MIPs
County Cavan - 97,368 - 1 MIP
County Donegal - 173,625 - 2 MIPs
County Down - 289,335 - 4 MIPs
County Fermanagh - 65,243 - 1 MIP
County Londonderry - 144,329 - 2 MIPs
County Monaghan - 74,505 - 1 MIP
County Tyrone - 150,468 - 2 MIPs

So as you can see, most Irish counties can support only one or two MIPs, if that. The problem, of course, is that Ireland is (as everyone knows) deeply sectarian, and I suspect one thing that would actually manage to unite the Catholics and the Protestants is for the STV system to allow their brothers in minority (Catholics in Ulster, Protestants everywhere else) to be given a voice. That is virtually impossible with one-seat constituencies. Even two-seat constituencies would make things difficult. But three? That means only 25% + 1 of the votes are needed to get your candidate elected. That's enough in a healthy chunk of Ireland. And four or five? Well, you're off to the races.

For that reason I like combining counties, although there wouldn't be any constituencies which split counties (there being no need for them) - except (most likely) Counties Dublin and Antrim, since Belfast and Dublin are the only two cities in Ireland capable of supporting their own constituency all by themselves - but the rest of Dublin and Antrim can't quite turn the same trick.

You could always go the Scottish route and just call it 'Leitrim, Roscommon and Sligo', or Leitrim — Roscommon — Sligo for the Canadian version.

Celtic solidarity, I should think. The Canadian emdashes (despite being Canadian myself) always did give me pause. Besides, Scotland will almost certainly be combining counties into constituencies as well.

It's a stretch especially given that Maori had disproportionatly few seats compared to others when electorates were drawn up, but maybe there could be a Maori seat created... Another option might be a Maori politician with a Pākeha name and ancestry slipping through the net. He might not be that sympathetic to the global indiginous cause though...

I was going to suggest New Zealand following through on their woman voters to elect a female MIP - but to my surprise New Zealand didn't allow women to run for office until 1919 IOTL, and the first wasn't elected until 1933 - with Ireland (1918), the UK (1919), and Canada (1921) all beating her to the punch. In addition, according to my cursory research, Australia (which didn't seat its first female MP until 1943) did allow women to stand for election from 1903 - in other words, before the First Assembly of the Parliament of the Imperial Federation. That could be the Aussie contribution to civil rights in the Imperial franchise. But I do think racially, the Kiwi delegation will be lily-white, I'm afraid.

This looks great, I'm not familiar with the 1901 boundaries, I am surprised that County Durham has over a million people, I can only guess it includes that Sunderland/Gateshead/ Middlebourgh as part of it, which would explain my Northumbria is quite small

Thank you! The boundaries are taken from those of the 1889-1974 administrative counties. Despite lasting almost a century, they're not the historic county lines and so are little remembered today in the wake of the controversial (and far more radical) 1970s reforms. I can't help but be reminded of the Third French Republic...

Hope you don't mind, but I think I've got a 4:4 Derbyshire North/South split that's pretty workable:

Derbyshire North: Bakewell Urban, Baslow and Bubnell, Blackwall, Bolsover, Bonsall, Brampton and Walton, Buxton, Chesterfield Urban, Clay Cross, Dronfield, Fairfield, Glossop, Matlock, Matlock Bath and Scarthin Nick, Newbold and Dunston, New Mills, North Darley, South Darley, Whittington, Wirksworth, Bakwell Rural, Blackwell, Chapel-en-le-Frith, Chesterfield Rural, Clowne, Glossop Dale, Hayfield, Norton, Sudbury: Population: 292,822

Derbyshire South: Alfreton, Alvaston and Boulton, Ashbourne Urban, Belper Uban, Derby, Heage, Heanor, Ilkeston, Long Eaton, Ripley, Swadlincote, Ashbourne Rural, Belper Rural, Hartshorne and Seals, Repton, Shardlow, Basford (Notts administration): Population: 317,700

I don't mind, in the least. Very, very, far from it. Thank you so much for doing this legwork for me. Please don't hesitate to continue as the mood strikes you. Now I did have a follow-up question.

Are you in a position to be able to tell how closely Derbyshire North's lines hew to the boundaries of the 1832-68 constituency of North Derbyshire, or the 1868-85 constituencies of North Derbyshire and East Derbyshire? Likewise, how closely do the boundaries of Derbyshire South match those of South Derbyshire and the city of Derby during the same period?

This is very interesting.

Thank you!

That strikes me as very plausible, far more than those ideas of malapportioning Indian seats or of the white ruling class just letting India have a majority of seats.

Thank you, and I'm inclined to agree. India just can't be kept a part of the Empire in any even remotely democratic scenario. At least, not without it becoming a truly Indian Empire.

But just a thought on that idea - how does decolonization go? Judging by how India’s own nationalist movement has more or less achieved its 1920s goals, that would probably embolden other nationalist movements. It strikes me that any India would have strong sympathies towards the independence movements, strong enough that sharing a head of state may be seen as tacit acceptance of the colonial order. So, even a less messy Indian independence is, in my view, bound to end up with friction between India and its former colonial masters, which may very well be enough for India to become a republic.

That's likely going to the subject of dozens of TL posts, so I really can't go into detail. I will say that I think any TL with a successful Imperial Federation will completely change the tenor of decolonization. And not just for the British colonies, either.

 

[Alex Richards]

I don't mind, in the least. Very, very, far from it. Thank you so much for doing this legwork for me. Please don't hesitate to continue as the mood strikes you. Now I did have a follow-up question.

Are you in a position to be able to tell how closely Derbyshire North's lines hew to the boundaries of the 1832-68 constituency of North Derbyshire, or the 1868-85 constituencies of North Derbyshire and East Derbyshire? Likewise, how closely do the boundaries of Derbyshire South match those of South Derbyshire and the city of Derby during the same period?

To a first approximation, South Derbyshire is basically the modern City of Derby, Amber Valley, Erewash and South Derbyshire, along with Ashbourne Urban/Rural from the '1931' map online. There may be some minor border adjustments from that, but it's probably close enough.

EDIT: In fact, just use the northern boundary of Ashbourne Rural/Belper Rural/Alfreton from that map and you're basically there.

 

[Dan1988]

Canada's top-level division will be the provinces. (The territories - as is the case during this time on the federal level - will not be represented in the Imperial Parliament.) I've already crunched the numbers on this and the only two provinces which will return more than 7 MIPs based on the 1901 census are Ontario and Quebec. (Ontario will return 28 MIPs, and Quebec will return 21 MIPs.) Using Quebec's Senate designations is actually a really clever idea... if only there weren't more of them (24) than the number of MIPs Quebec will be sending to the Assembly.

Makes sense. As for Québec - well, we'll just have to be, well, creative in how we allocate them. Apart from that - so far, lookin' good!

 

[Brainbin]

No more maps or charts tonight - feeling a bit under the weather. Thanks again everyone for your continued interest!

To a first approximation, South Derbyshire is basically the modern City of Derby, Amber Valley, Erewash and South Derbyshire, along with Ashbourne Urban/Rural from the '1931' map online. There may be some minor border adjustments from that, but it's probably close enough.

EDIT: In fact, just use the northern boundary of Ashbourne Rural/Belper Rural/Alfreton from that map and you're basically there.

That's great, thank you so much. I know I'm probably harping on this and I do apologize - those who know me can tell you I'm not satisfied I've gotten a point across unless I've driven it into your skull, but even if the North-South Derbyshire divide was say 5:3 instead of an even 4:4, they would still go with that if it matched the old electoral boundaries. Fortunately it does appear as though Derbyshire was divided perfectly.

Makes sense. As for Québec - well, we'll just have to be, well, creative in how we allocate them. Apart from that - so far, lookin' good!

Thanks, Dan Loathe as I am to admit it, the most practical way to carve up Ontario and Quebec is to form "regions" not dissimilar to the ones that emerged IOTL by connecting the census divisions until sufficient populations are reached to comprise three-member constituencies. That means no more than seven ridings for Quebec, and no more than nine ridings for Ontario. As is the case in Ireland, the two largest cities (Toronto and Montreal) can form their own constituencies - all other cities would need to be subsumed within regional constituencies.

 

[Alex Richards]

I've drive it into your skull, but even if the North-South Derbyshire divide was say 5:3 instead of an even 4:4, they would still go with that if it matched the old electoral boundaries. Fortunately it does appear as though Derbyshire was divided perfectly.

Hmm. The border followed the old division between the Bakwell and Ashbourne sessions, so the Wirksworth/Matlock/Matlock Bath/North Darley/South Darley area might be in South rather than North (though I can't find any actual boundaries for the division), but the problem there is that it tips the numbers to something almost like a 4.5/3.5 split in terms of population.

 

[Brainbin]

Hmm. The border followed the old division between the Bakwell and Ashbourne sessions, so the Wirksworth/Matlock/Matlock Bath/North Darley/South Darley area might be in South rather than North (though I can't find any actual boundaries for the division), but the problem there is that it tips the numbers to something almost like a 4.5/3.5 split in terms of population.

Do you have the new population figures for the two constituencies on you? I can run it through my spreadsheet.

 

[Alex Richards]

Do you have the new population figures for the two constituencies on you? I can run it through my spreadsheet.

Not for 1901 no, the North/South division was abolished in 1885. Unless you mean the suggested new one which IIRC is a transfer of 16,302 people from North to South.

Oh wait, I've just spotted that a boundary change in 1868 reduced North Derbyshire to High Peak and Wirksworth (with East Derbyshire being the Hundred of Scarsdale), so the immediately existing precedent is for Matlock to be included with Bakewell, though the last time a constituency covering all of North Derbyshire existed it didn't.

In any case, compared to the 1901 situation you're still splitting up the West Derbyshire Parliamentary constituency either way.

 

[Dan1988]

Thanks, Dan Loathe as I am to admit it, the most practical way to carve up Ontario and Quebec is to form "regions" not dissimilar to the ones that emerged IOTL by connecting the census divisions until sufficient populations are reached to comprise three-member constituencies. That means no more than seven ridings for Quebec, and no more than nine ridings for Ontario. As is the case in Ireland, the two largest cities (Toronto and Montreal) can form their own constituencies - all other cities would need to be subsumed within regional constituencies.

But of course. (If you want to move this side discussion to PM, I've got something I want to share but not right away - maybe later today, perhaps?) As long as you know what you ultimately want, which is most important.

 

[Brainbin]

Not for 1901 no, the North/South division was abolished in 1885. Unless you mean the suggested new one which IIRC is a transfer of 16,302 people from North to South.

Oh wait, I've just spotted that a boundary change in 1868 reduced North Derbyshire to High Peak and Wirksworth (with East Derbyshire being the Hundred of Scarsdale), so the immediately existing precedent is for Matlock to be included with Bakewell, though the last time a constituency covering all of North Derbyshire existed it didn't.

In any case, compared to the 1901 situation you're still splitting up the West Derbyshire Parliamentary constituency either way.

I'm going to approach Derbyshire (or Darbjjshire as I keep wanting to call it - @Thande will get this joke if nobody else does) logically as a microcosm for how to approach all of the English counties. Again, I really want to thank you for the attention to detail you're giving this. I'm basically using it as a jumping-off point to determine a "magic formula" for apportionment.

1. Can the entire county comprise a single constituency with 7 MIPs or less?
   No, Derbyshire will return 8 MIPs. There must be at least one division.
2. How many constituencies can be formed within the county?
   Two - 8 divided by 3 is 2.66..., rounded down is two.
3. Can the largest settlement within the county comprise a constituency with 3 or more MIPs?
   No, the Town of Derby would form a constituency which would return only 2 MIPs. (Therefore, the largest settlement must be subsumed within a broader constituency - in this case South Derbyshire.)
4. When did the county last have the number of constituencies equal to or less than the maximum?
   Before 1832. Derbyshire and Derby.
5. Was one of those constituencies a borough constituency insufficiently populous to form an Assembly Constituency?
   Yes.
6. When did the county last have the number of constituencies equal to or less than the maximum, plus one to account for the borough constituency?
   From 1832 to 1868 - three constituencies.
7. Did one constituency completely surround or abut the borough constituency?
   Yes - South Derbyshire.
8. Then add the borough constituency to the abutting constituency. Does this create the maximum number of constituencies, each with no more than seven but no less than three MIPs?
   Yes.
9. Then use those boundaries.

So there you have it - as closely as possible, Derbyshire North and Derbyshire South should hew to the 1832-68 boundaries - without violating the modern-day lines of rural and urban districts. That is how constituency planning in England shall be done.

But enough about the English - let's talk about Bonnie Scotland!

Scotland - population 4,472,103 - 59 MIPs. Scotland forms the third-largest delegation (tied with Ireland) to the Assembly, behind England (with or without Wales) and Canada.

The 1901 census proved revelatory: it divides Scotland into eight divisions which are then divided into its 33 administrative shires. Therefore, those eight divisions will be the top-level divisions for Scotland. They are as follows:

Northern Scotland, consisting of the counties of Shetland, Orkney, Caithness, and Sutherland. Population 112,292. Combined these would return only 1 MIP - but its extreme remoteness probably justifies meriting its own constituency.

North-Western Scotland, consisting of the counties of Ross & Cromarty and Inverness. Population 166,603. Combined these would return 2 MIPs.

North-Eastern Scotland, consisting of the counties of Nairn, Moray (then known as Elgin), Banff, Aberdeen, and Kincardine. Population 460,924. Combined these would return 6 MIPs - within the Goldilocks zone. Aberdeenshire dominates this division, with two-thirds of its population.

East-Midland, consisting of the counties of Angus (then known as Forfar), Perth, Fife, Kinross, and Clacknannan. Population 665,162. Combined these would return 9 MIPs - too many for a single constituency. In fact, Angus alone would return 4 MIPs and Fife would return 3 MIPs.

West-Midland, consisting of the counties of Stirling, Dunbarton, Argyll, and Bute. Population 348,659. Combined these would return 5 MIPs - our second trip to the Goldilocks zone on our tour through Bonnie Scotland.

South-Western, consisting of the counties of Renfrew, Ayr, and Lanark. Population 1,862,659. Combined these would return 24 MIPs (down from 25 due to rounding error), more than any Irish province. This is largely due to the presence of Glasgow within Lanarkshire. Glasgow alone is too populous to form a single constituency - with 735,906 people, a Glasgow constituency would return 10 MIPs. (Impressively enough, the rest of Lanarkshire is still too populous to form a single constituency without Glasgow - though just barely, as it would elect 18 MIPs alone.)

South-Eastern, consisting of the counties of Linlithgow (West Lothian), Edinburgh (Midlothian), Haddington (East Lothian), Berwick, Peebles, and Selkirk. Population 662,229. Combined these would return 9 MIPs. This part of Scotland is dominated by the capital, Edinburgh, which would return 4 MIPs on its own (with a population of 316,479), the only other city in Scotland besides Glasgow which could support a three-member constituency.

Southern, consisting of the counties of Roxburgh, Dumfries, Kirkcudbright, and Wigtown. Population 193,452. It would return 3 MIPs. So instead of three bears, we have three Goldilocks divisions!

 

[Alex Richards]

1. Can the entire county comprise a single constituency with 7 MIPs or less?
   No, Derbyshire will return 8 MIPs. There must be at least one division.
2. How many constituencies can be formed within the county?
   Two - 8 divided by 3 is 2.66..., rounded down is two.
3. Can the largest settlement within the county comprise a constituency with 3 or more MIPs?
   No, the Town of Derby would form a constituency which would return only 2 MIPs. (Therefore, the largest settlement must be subsumed within a broader constituency - in this case South Derbyshire.)
4. When did the county last have the number of constituencies equal to or less than the maximum?
   Before 1832. Derbyshire and Derby.
5. Was one of those constituencies a borough constituency insufficiently populous to form an Assembly Constituency?
   Yes.
6. When did the county last have the number of constituencies equal to or less than the maximum, plus one to account for the borough constituency?
   From 1832 to 1868 - three constituencies.
7. Did one constituency completely surround or abut the borough constituency?
   Yes - South Derbyshire.
8. Then add the borough constituency to the abutting constituency. Does this create the maximum number of constituencies, each with no more than seven but no less than three MIPs?
   Yes.
9. Then use those boundaries.

So there you have it - as closely as possible, Derbyshire North and Derbyshire South should hew to the 1832-68 boundaries - without violating the modern-day lines of rural and urban districts. That is how constituency planning in England shall be done.

OK, I've done some digging (thanks to this excellent site for 1851) and I think that Wirksworth and Bonsall Urban Districts (all of the 1931 map Wirksworth, part of Matlock) would be in South but the rest of the Matlock area would be in north.

Bear in mind that detailed maps of the constituency boundaries (or even detailed lists of what was in each constituency) wouldn't necessarily have been readily available in 1901.

East-Midland, consisting of the counties of Angus (then known as Forfar), Perth, Fife, Kinross, and Clacknannan. Population 665,162. Combined these would return 9 MIPs - too many for a single constituency. In fact, Angus alone would return 4 MIPs and Fife would return 3 MIPs.

Fife seems the more logical one to split off, perhaps with Kinross and Clackannan?

 

[Brainbin]

In honour of ABBA finally recording new music, I feel a song coming on:

I was sick and tired of everything, when I called you last night from...

Glasgow is an interesting case. According to the 1901 census, it was divided into 25 wards - and since 1885 it has formed seven constituencies, far too many for just 10 MIPs. So I can't follow the example of London, unfortunately - I'll just have to crudely divide Glasgow along ward boundaries to come up with two or three constituencies. I can't help but notice that the River Clyde - as is the case with the rivers traversing many cities - rather neatly bisects it. So - Glasgow North and Glasgow South? But maps of the wards of "Old Glasgow" are thin on the ground, so I had to search keywords for each ward (fortunately all 25 were named, not just numbered, in the 1901 census) to see if that general area was north or south of the river. My findings were not promising, but I'll open them up to the thread since perhaps some of my readers either are Glaswegians or know Glasgow.

As near as I can ascertain only a handful of 25 wards are Southside - and by my initial calculations, just enough for 2 of the 10 MIPs to be represented in a Southside constituency.

The wards of Glasgow at the turn of the 20th century are as follows:

1. Dalmarnock
2. Calton
3. Mile-End
4. Whitevale
5. Dennistoun
6. Springburn
7. Cowlairs
8. Townhead
9. Blackfriars
10. Exchange
11. Blythswood
12. Broomielaw
13. Anderston
14. Sandyford
15. Park (I didn't even bother trying to look for this one).
16. Cowcaddens
17. Woodside
18. Hutchesontown
19. Gorbals
20. Kingston
21. Govanhill
22. Langside
23. Pollokshields
24. Kelvinside
25. Maryhill

Of those 25 wards, I identified only five (Gorbals, Kingston, Govanhill, Langside, and Pollokshields) as South Side. If this holds it means a constituency is going to have to cross the Clyde, which will displease me greatly. The Clyde seemed a natural boundary since it seems no wards cross it.

OK, I've done some digging (thanks to this excellent site for 1851) and I think that Wirksworth and Bonsall Urban Districts (all of the 1931 map Wirksworth, part of Matlock) would be in South but the rest of the Matlock area would be in north.

Bear in mind that detailed maps of the constituency boundaries (or even detailed lists of what was in each constituency) wouldn't necessarily have been readily available in 1901.

Thank you again for doing the hard work on Derbyshire, and also for another great link. It's so dense, every single has so many things going on...

In any event, I think we now have enough information to "call" the shape of Derbyshire North and Derbyshire South!

You raise a good point, but don't forget in the first decade of the 19th century, even the 1832-68 boundaries will be within living memory of the old fogies who are doing the planning. Not to mention they have full access to the relevant laws passed by Parliament which go into excruciating detail about the boundaries. And presumably some of these old fogey campaigners must have some maps lying around somewhere, right?

Fife seems the more logical one to split off, perhaps with Kinross and Clackannan?

I see what you're going for there, having one of the constituencies fall within the orbit of Edinburgh. I'm of two minds about the possibility:

1. On the one hand, Dundee is Scotland's third-largest city and almost large enough for a three-member constituency of its own, so centering a constituency on Forfar/Angus gives Dundee more pull within its own constituency. Also, the entire division is north of the Forth - the ancient boundary between North and South in Scotland - despite much of it being in close proximity to Edinburgh.
2. On the other, as noted, Fife (and Kinross and Clackannan) are firmly within the orbit of Edinburgh, and includes the historic town of St. Andrews, home of the university and the birthplace of golf.

Whichever seat is the smaller, the larger I should like to give a poetic name, either "Albany" or "Gowrie", since both Albany and Gowrie do traditionally refer to that approximate part of Scotland.

 

[Dom]

Our three Scottish Bears @Fletch @RyanF and @The Red may be able to help in those areas that Goldilocks fears to tread.

 

[Turquoise Blue]

This is set around 1900 or so

I realised that and deleted the post in question.

 

[Alex Richards]

The wards of Glasgow at the turn of the 20th century are as follows:

1. Dalmarnock
2. Calton
3. Mile-End
4. Whitevale
5. Dennistoun
6. Springburn
7. Cowlairs
8. Townhead
9. Blackfriars
10. Exchange
11. Blythswood
12. Broomielaw
13. Anderston
14. Sandyford
15. Park (I didn't even bother trying to look for this one).
16. Cowcaddens
17. Woodside
18. Hutchesontown
19. Gorbals
20. Kingston
21. Govanhill
22. Langside
23. Pollokshields
24. Kelvinside
25. Maryhill

Of those 25 wards, I identified only five (Gorbals, Kingston, Govanhill, Langside, and Pollokshields) as South Side. If this holds it means a constituency is going to have to cross the Clyde, which will displease me greatly. The Clyde seemed a natural boundary since it seems no wards cross it.

I have just found a map of Glasgow in 1913 here. Based on this, it looks like Hutchesontown through Pollockshields are south, the rest are north.

 

[Ìleach]

While you're doing Glasgow you might want to take into account that Govan, Kinning Park & Partick were, in 1901, still separate from the city. If you can find the numbers for Govan & Kinning Park that may jump the Southside up a seat. Although I should also point out that the wards may not have been equally populated, I'll see if I can't find some numbers in an old copies of the Herald for you.

"Park" probably refers to Park Circus, in the west end.

 

[Alex Richards]

While you're doing Glasgow you might want to take into account that Govan, Kinning Park & Partick were, in 1901, still separate from the city. If you can find the numbers for Govan & Kinning Park that may jump the Southside up a seat. Although I should also point out that the wards may not have been equally populated, I'll see if I can't find some numbers in an old copies of the Herald for you.

"Park" probably refers to Park Circus, in the west end.

IIRC I found it up near the University, does that tally with that area?

 

[Ìleach]

IIRC I found it up near the University, does that tally with that area?

Indeed it does, they're right next to each other, although having looked at it park circus is right on the edge of that area.

 

[Brainbin]

Thank you all for answering the clarion call re: Glasgow. I have to admit the breakdown of the constituencies in the Second City of the Empire are of particular importance since one of them is going to return one of the most important MIPs in the First Assembly, Mr Bonar Law (Unionist). So it's good for him and for me to know where he'll be sitting.

Our three Scottish Bears @Fletch @RyanF and @The Red may be able to help in those areas that Goldilocks fears to tread.

That is one the best sentences I have read recently, and you deserve a like for that. And a thank you for the summons.

I have just found a map of Glasgow in 1913 here. Based on this, it looks like Hutchesontown through Pollockshields are south, the rest are north.

You appear to be correct. The Lanarkshire 1896 map showed a lot of promise but sadly it does appear that the wards were renumbered between 1896 and 1901 because some of them don't seem to match. Or maybe I'm just reading the map wrong. I've been spoiled by modern-day trends in cartographic comprehension.

While you're doing Glasgow you might want to take into account that Govan, Kinning Park & Partick were, in 1901, still separate from the city. If you can find the numbers for Govan & Kinning Park that may jump the Southside up a seat. Although I should also point out that the wards may not have been equally populated, I'll see if I can't find some numbers in an old copies of the Herald for you.

First of all, thank you very much for offering to find the numbers for me. I've been looking through the census information and I'm more confused now than I was when I started. It does theoretically have a list of the wards and their populations but there are notes saying the wards include portions of neighbouring towns? And the annexations are another matter entirely. The implication I got reading about Glasgow is that it apparently lost territory through the 20th century, I did not know it was still expanding after 1900.

This is where it gets interesting. I checked Kinning Park, which was annexed by Glasgow in 1905, so that's definitely in. Govan and Partick are more tenuous. They were annexed by Glasgow in 1912, and although I don't have a fixed date yet I was hoping that the first Imperial elections would have been held by then. Tentatively the year is 1911, which is what I like to call the year the newly-crowned George V "played Empire": his coronation, the Delhi Durbar in India (the only one attended by the sovereign) and the first true Imperial (as opposed to Colonial) Conference was held that year. It's the perfect year for the Imperial Parliament to begin sitting. So tentatively I will say Govan and Partick are still outside of Glasgow. But assuming those six wards @Alex Richards found are indeed Southside, those plus Kinning Park should bring us to 3 MIPs. I might fudge if I have to, it should be close. As for the Northside, I might have to divide it between North West and North East, with the Kelvin as the boundary, assuming the wards play nice.

ETA: Although the Imperial Parliament first sits in 1911 in my estimation, I do want to point out that the POD is considerably earlier. 1900, in fact. So it's the culmination of 11 years of butterflies. (And Royal Commissions, and Conferences, and Parliamentary debates, and legislation.)

"Park" probably refers to Park Circus, in the west end.

Thank you very much for clarifying that

 

[Ìleach]

First of all, thank you very much for offering to find the numbers for me. I've been looking through the census information and I'm more confused now than I was when I started. It does theoretically have a list of the wards and their populations but there are notes saying the wards include portions of neighbouring towns? And the annexations are another matter entirely. The implication I got reading about Glasgow is that it apparently lost territory through the 20th century, I did not know it was still expanding after 1900.

Do you have link to the census data? The neighbouring towns may be due to ongoing expansion, see for instance how Scotstoun was technically built on land owned by Renfrew.

 

[Brainbin]

Here is the directory for the 1901 census:
http://histpop.org/ohpr/servlet/Bro...(by date)/1901/Scotland&active=yes&titlepos=0

The population of Glasgow (or rather the "Royal and Municipal Burgh of Glasgow") is given in the preliminary report as 735,906:
http://histpop.org/ohpr/servlet/Pag...&display=tables&display=pagetitles&pageseq=43

The population of Glasgow as the sum of the twenty-five municipal wards is given in the detail report as 760,468, but there are notes at the bottom of the page talking about how some of those wards are outside of the parish of Glasgow:
http://histpop.org/ohpr/servlet/Pag...display=tables&display=pagetitles&pageseq=260