Boroughs, Districts and Cities – How local government structure was shaped.
Paul Millward. President of the National Association of Civic Officers
Much of the modern structure of local government can be traced back to two major local government Acts – 1888 and 1972. That is not to say that other Acts haven’t changed structures, but, as you will see, these Acts were instrumental in much of our current structure – and with it, Mayors, Chairs and Sheriffs. Before 1888 there were two kinds of county: 'counties at large' and 'counties corporate'.
Counties corporate were small towns which claimed the status of county, by charter or prescription, and which had their own sheriffs. They could hold their own courts, collect taxes, and enjoy other rights of self-government. The two other characteristics, which gradually became accepted as criteria were the existence of a corporation and the foundation of borough privileges in a Royal Charter, or presumed charter. In addition to the two types of counties above, roughly a hundred boroughs were outside of the county system and these had a further degree of constitutional separation recognised in the case of counties corporate. In the 1888 Local Government reorganisation, 61 county boroughs were constituted, all with populations of above 50,000 as a way to tackle the growing problems associated with urbanisation.
County districts were also established. These were the urban and rural districts which had not been given borough status. Prior to 1972, Borough status was distinct in that the chairman of the council was styled the mayor; the clerk became the town clerk; the council was expanded to include a proportion of aldermen (as with County Councils); the borough council had the right to acquire and hold corporate property not earmarked for a specific statutory purpose; the right to elect honorary Freemen; and proposals for the alteration of wards were dealt with by the Home Office and not the County Council. The Local Government Act 1972 reorganisation took the preservation of dignities and privileges granted to boroughs seriously. Boroughs derived their status from a royal charter which constituted the area of the borough and incorporated all the inhabitants. In other types of authority the body corporate was the council, not the whole collective body of inhabitants. Originally the practical purpose of a borough charter had been to grant the town some element of self-government and exemption from the jurisdiction of the county sheriff, but by 1972 borough status was prized as a mark of distinction. It made no practical difference to the administration of services as the functions of all types of authorities had come within the arrangements laid down by statute. At the time of the reorganisation, it was decided that borough status should continue to depend on the grant of a royal charter, but while retaining this ancient element, the Government proposed ways in which the boroughs could be accommodated within the new system.
It proposed that all executive units within counties would be defined for statutory purposes as districts but, once elected, all district councils would have the right to petition for a charter. The charter would turn the district into a borough - the council chairman would be the mayor, and the clerk the town clerk. The charter may retain any previously granted rights connected with ceremonial matters or offices of dignity (e.g. appointment of sheriff but would no longer deal with anything else: wards, corporate property, any previous charter powers. It was left for the council of the new district to petition separately for the renewal of grants formerly made outside the scope of charters e.g. city status and the right of mayor to the title Lord Mayor.
The proposals aimed only at preserving the ceremonial aspects of borough status. There were no rules regarding minimum population. These proposals worked well for large towns which would be changed into new districts without any loss of identity, but did not suit small and medium sized boroughs who wished to retain some element of their former incorporated state. During the Bill's passage through Parliament it was amended to preserve the former dignities, notably the office of mayor, of towns now included in larger districts. The case for doing this was clearly accepted in the case of very small boroughs they would be given 'successor parish' status. Members of the former borough council were to remain in office as parish councillors and an elected body would represent the community. These bodies would be able to adopt the titles of town council and town mayor, for the chairman of the council.
For intermediate sized towns which were too large for successor parish councils and too small to become districts, the outcome depend on whether the new district council petitioned for borough status for the district as a whole. If it did then the existing borough would be merged in a new and larger borough. However, if the district council did not ask for a borough charter and chose to remain instead a district, then the device of 'charter trustees' was employed. This innovation created a representative body to support the office of mayor in towns which had formerly been boroughs. The members of the district council elected for the area of the former borough constituted a body corporate known as charter trustees - they were entitled to elect one of their number to act as town or city mayor and to hold
historic and ceremonial property - particularly charters, insignia and plate of the former borough or city.
Retention of Borough and City Status - Procedure 1972. As a result of the Local Government Act 1972 The Home Office & the Privy Council Office decided that reorganised authorities which wished to retain their ceremonial rights, privileges and insignia should adopt the following procedure. They could apply to:
a. the Privv Council Office, for a grant of borough status, which should be done by way of petition as referred to in section 245 of the Local Government Act 1972; and b. the Home Office for a grant of letters patent. To ensure that the status of the City and the rights and privileges it enjoyed extended to cover the whole of the new authority. There was no provision made for transfers of borough status from abolished authorities to successor authorities. As a new authority a local authority needed to seek a charter granting borough status in the normal manner. Section 245(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 allowed the 'shadow' district councils to make a petition to the Queen for borough status, before their coming into effect on 1 April 1974. In this case, if "it is signified on behalf of Her Majesty before that date that She proposes to accede" to the request then, the style of borough could be used immediately from 1 April 1974, despite the fact that the charter would be presented only later. Section 246(1) provides that generally the rights and privileges that go with City status will continue to belong to the citizens of the area of the City after the restructuring of the 1st April 1974. Where the area of the City became a parish, the ceremonial functions of the corporation of the City would transfer to the parish council by charter. Where the area of the City was not parished, the powers would transfer to "the Charter Trustees of the City" under s246(4).
So, that’s how we have, still largely intact, the main structure of Counties, District, Boroughs and Cities and why some areas are Boroughs and some are Districts. There have been some further updating of these structures (LGA1992 being one example) but essentially it is the LGA1972 that continues to shape our civic landscape.
I’m grateful for the use of a former DCLG civil servant Maggie Crosby for her notes on the above issues.
Paul Millward
NACO President