PURSUING BOROUGH STATUS:
The pursuit of borough status by town councils in the early 20th century reflects a moment of civic ambition and a desire for self-determination within growing communities. For towns like Newton-in-Makerfield, which lay between two industrial powerhouses, the application for incorporation as a borough in 1934 was not only about acquiring a charter but also about asserting its identity, securing greater autonomy, and enhancing its position within the wider region.
At the heart of this drive for borough status was the belief that such a change would bring numerous advantages—ranging from increased control over local services to a heightened sense of civic pride. Borough status would elevate the town’s prestige, allowing it to appoint a mayor, gain recognition in political spheres, and attract investment by demonstrating the stability and maturity of its local government. This ambition was grounded in the town’s growing population, its industrial significance, and its deep historical roots.
This group of newspaper articles traces the efforts of Newton-in-Makerfield’s council to secure borough status and explores the various factors that motivated this move, alongside the perceived benefits of autonomy, economic development, and civic representation. It also offers a glimpse into the challenges and objections faced during this process, and concerns that highlight the delicate balance between progress and fiscal responsibility, which is at the core of many such local government decisions.
1933: MOVE TO OBTAIN A CHARTER FOR NEWTON-IN-MAKERFIELD.
Newton and Earlestown Guardian – Friday 24 March 1933
If the dreams of Newton councillors materialise, the mantle of Fleetwood as the youngest municipal borough in Lancashire will fall on Newton-in-Makerfield. There is a general feeling among the councillors in favour of incorporation, and at Tuesday’s meeting of the General Purposes Committee, it was decided that a special meeting of the Council be called to consider applying to the King and Privy Council for incorporation.
In 1926, there was a public meeting in Earlestown Town Hall to discuss incorporation. At that time, the population of the area, according to the 1921 census, was under 20,000. By 1932, the population was estimated at 20,370, with the 1931 census showing figures of 20,150.
The total area of the district is 3,103 acres, with 6.72 miles of main roads and 29.0 miles of district roads. On April 1st, 1932, the unreduced rateable value was £108,351, and the reduced value was £83,422. Last year’s general rate was 13/4, and the water rate was 11d, making a total rate of 14/3. As is generally known, the town is midway between the great cities of Manchester and Liverpool and is in the heart of the coalfields. There are large works in the district, and the railway station is an important junction.
The various undertakings of the Council are in a satisfactory condition, and as Mr. C. Cole, the Clerk, remarked, there appears to be no obstacle to incorporation. Councillor A. Tully opened the discussion on Tuesday, noting that two other areas in Lancashire are currently applying for a charter. He understood that the County Council would place no obstacle in the way of incorporation, as the town now had over 20,000 people.
Councillor Tully believed Newton-in-Makerfield was well equipped and reminded the councillors that becoming a borough would add dignity to the town. There would also be many benefits, as the Council currently had to “beg” for many things. Councillor T. B. Ball supported Councillor Tully and suggested that Mr. Cole call a public meeting with incorporation in view. He thought Newton-in-Makerfield had a strong case for incorporation, noting that Fleetwood, which was not nearly as important without its fishing industry, had been granted a charter.
Councillor E. J. W. Mullins mentioned that he had intended to raise the matter himself. A few years ago, the County Council was not prepared to object, and large firms in the district were in favour of incorporation. For incorporation, the town would need a guarantee fund, but the odds were 100-1 against any objections. Mullins emphasized that the district’s prestige would be greatly enhanced and that there was no better time to pursue incorporation than the present. He did not think there was a need to fear increased rates, as Mr. Cole had already tabulated information that only needed updating.
Mr. Cole noted that there was no longer a need for a public meeting, as they only required a meeting of the Council and a majority in favour. A public petition would be needed, but there was no opposition. He added that this was an opportune time to take up the matter. As for the guarantee fund, it wasn’t absolutely necessary. If the Privy Council viewed the application favourably, it had the power not to charge the district for the cost. Incorporation would certainly raise the Council’s dignity, and Mr. Martin could even become Mayor (laughter).
Councillor E. C. Martin joked: “You’ll have to be quick.” Mr. Cole responded: “I cannot say if it will add to the rates.” Councillor S. B. Williams recalled that after the last incorporation effort, they had formed a special incorporation committee, and he suggested they form another one. Mr. Cole added that everything was much clearer now. He confirmed that they wouldn’t need to take over the police, and asking for education responsibilities would be too costly.
Councillor S. C. Gaskin expressed his gratitude to Mr. Tully for bringing the matter forward. He had been disappointed when they dropped the scheme before, but it had been explained at the time that they would contract out police and education services. He suggested the Council move forward with incorporation, as they had received more information than ever before. Gaskin moved that a special meeting of the Council be called at a very early date to consider making the application for incorporation as a borough.
Councillor Mrs. Crouchley seconded the motion, and Councillor Martin noted that Mr. Cole and himself had considered the matter just last Saturday.
1933: Petition for Incorporation of Newton to a Borough
Newton and Earlestown Guardian – Wednesday 6 November 1933
Council’s Unanimous Agreement
Clerk Assures Ratepayers: “I can assure you I cannot find the rates have gone up anywhere owing to incorporation as a borough,” said Mr C. Cole, Clerk to the Newton-in-Makerfield Urban Council, when replying to Councillor A.J. Lane, at Tuesday’s meeting of the Council.
Mr Cole had prepared a detailed draft petition for incorporation, and the Chairman, Councillor S.C. Gaskin, congratulated him on the capital petition. He said they were greatly indebted to Mr Cole, who had compiled all the details in his own time after his ordinary work. He had made out a splendid case for the Privy Council.
Councillor T.B. Ball said it was a very interesting report and gave one some idea of the importance of the district.
Mr Cole said not everyone in the town was agreeable to incorporation. The directors of the Earlestown Industrial Co-operative Society, Ltd., were unanimously in favour, but when they put the question to a poorly attended members’ meeting the members turned down the proposal. Only a small number voted at all and it was only a small minority against the incorporation. When objections were made to the privy Council Inspector they would have to be stated and frivolous objections would carry no weight. He did not think there was any real opposition.
Councillor T.B. Ball: I think if the same question arose at another Co-operative meeting the position would be reversed.
Councillor A.J. Lane: I have heard that the Ratepayers’ Association are likely to object.
The Clerk then read a letter from the local Property Owners’ and Ratepayers’ Association, in which they asked four questions. Mr Cole also read his answers to the questions.
He then announced that the Vulcan Foundry Co., Ltd., were not supporting the proposal.
Councillor lane (as representing the Company) congratulated Mr Cole on the report and said it was the finest he had ever seen.
The report referred to the creation of an extra ward in the district, and he would say that was the first he had heard about it.
Mr Cole said they had to have six wards because of the creation of aldermen.
Councillor lane, continuing, said that if they would have to have the objections put before an inspector, surely the best way was to try and remove the objections early.
“We all want to see the civic dignity of the district increased, he said “The great point is one of £ s d and ratepayers want to be satisfied that rates will not be increased. We are not as much interested in saving on future loans as saving on the present loans which amount to £588,000. Can we get terms on which we could foreclose those loans, and then there would be a chance of reducing the rates. Then, I should support it as a Councillor and representative of the Vulcan Foundry. My Board said to me “What shall we gain?” I have said “I cannot say, from my present knowledge.” If you can show them the rates will not go up they will support it and that will apply to the other works too. I do not think any of us want to take a leap in the dark.”
Mr Cole: I do not know what else I can do. This is not an experiment. I have reports here from other districts and if the Vulcan Foundry will not accept my word I can only ask them to write the other districts.
Councillor A. Tully: Do you not think, Mr Cole, that if we were a borough it would be an encouragement to new industries?
Mr Cole: Some large firms seem to think that if we are going to be a town the rates will go up. The rates are no more likely to go up as a borough than as an Urban District Council. I can assure you I cannot find any reason why the rates should go up owing to incorporation.
Councillor Lane: With all Mr Coles’ assurances that it is all right that is not a business proposition. We want it in black and white. If you proceed on these lines and get some assurance some of these debts can be met. Will officials’ salaries increase if we become a borough? All that will want weighing up.
Councillor E.J.W. Mullins: regarding the increase in salaries of officials there is no provision in the Whitley Council scale which necessitates increased salaries. Our township has not increased in size because we gain a higher status. The Rates Estimate Committee will still deal with expenditure as it has been done in the past. I do not see any reason for increasing expenditure. Why should we change our method of living because we become a borough instead of an Urban District Council? I do not see any reason for salaries to increase one iota. Regarding foreclosing of loans, steps have already been taken in connection with this. We are getting some splendid replies and reductions which will surprise you, but that is outside incorporation altogether. We have seen the time has come, apart from incorporation, to meet our loans. I think we should back this up.
“Regarding the Co-operative Society,” he continued, “three of us met the directors and they are still unanimous for incorporation.”
The Chairman: As the members of the Society were going into the meeting they were handed papers. There was not a big attendance out of the 5,000 members.
Councillor Mullins: And each member present did not vote. I think incorporation will be a great step forward for this district and I can see no liability for an increase in rates. We shall not change our ideas. I feel our freedom with regard to loans etc. is worth trying for and I hope the Vulcan Foundry will, after learning this, favour incorporation. I think the historical associations of the locality will count with the Privy Council.
Mr Cole: All I can say is that if the rates go up you gentlemen, who fix them, will be to blame.
Councillor Lane: We could not expect to foreclose on such good terms as with incorporation coming off. If you reduce the loan only one per cent. you save 1/6 on the rates. If you can show a reduction of only half per cent incorporation will reduce the rates.
The Chairman: We have three who are not objectors but who want further information. I think the figures can be got out for the Vulcan, the Ratepayers’ Association and regarding the Co-operative Society there was such a small majority and many did not vote. There were twenty or thirty of those present who voted against incorporation who would not have done so had they had the information they have now. We are pursuing the policy of applying for incorporation because we want more power to our elbow.
Councillor Tully: No one can give a guarantee that the rates will not go up, whether we become a borough or remain an Urban District. It rests with us.
Mr Cole: What is needed for a petition is a majority of the members of the Council. At the inquiry the inspector will say “Does this meet with the support of the majority of the inhabitants?” I shall say “Yes from the replies I have got” I have dealt with all sides. Unless people have good grounds for opposing the application it will carry no weight. The inspector will want to know where the evidence of objection is.
It was unanimously decided by the Council to forward the petition for incorporation as a borough.
1934: THE CHARTER QUESTION BY MR. ESSENHIGH.
Newton and Earlestown Guardian – Friday 30 November 1934
The Guardian” understands that on Thursday of last week, Couns. S. C. Gaskin and E. J. W. Mullins, and Mr. C. Cole (the Clerk) of the Newton-in- Makerfield Urban District Council, along with Lord Newton, met representatives of the Ministry of Health at Whitehall to try and ascertain reasons why the application for a Charter of Incorporation as a borough was refused.
On Tuesday night a sub-committee of the Urban Council discussed the matter and on Wednesday the “Guardian” was informed that there was nothing to report to the Press.
Mr. R. C. Essenhigh National Government M.P. for the Newton Division, tabled the following question in the House of Commons this week:-
| Name of Ward | Area in Acres | No of Houses 1894 | Estimated Population 1894 | Rateable Value £ |
| Town Hall | 416 | 522 | 2740 | 6342 0 0 |
| Viaduct | 152 | 896 | 4708 | 15826 10 0 |
| Wargrave | 652 | 363 | 1905 | 11684 10 0 |
| Newton | 1421 | 483 | 2535 | 16224 10 0 |
| Crow Lane | 462 | 420 | 2200 | 4988 10 0 |
| 3103 | 2684 | 14088 | £55066 0 0 |
To ask the Lord President of the Council if he can give the reasons why the recent petition presented by the Newton-in-Makerfield Urban District Council to be granted a Charter of Incorporation as a borough, was refused.”
In the House of Commons yesterday Captain the Right Hon. H. D. R. Margesson. M.C., M.P., replied to Mr. Essenhigh as follows:
I have been asked to reply to this question..
“I am not able to disclose the detailed grounds on which advice is tendered to His Majesty by the Privy Council. In the case to which my Hon. Friend refers, however, regard was had, among other considerations, to the administration of certain important local services, the standard in which fell short of that required in an area seeking borough status.”
1934: PETITION FOR INCORPORATION.
Earlestown Guardian – Friday April 27th, 1934
In support of the petition of the Newton Urban District Council for a Charter of Incorporation, Mr. C. Cole (Clerk to the Council) presented the following facts in his case for the application before Mr. H. W. Coales, a Ministry of Health Inspector, on Wednesday, at Earlestown Town Hall. (The proceedings are reported on another page of this issue).
In putting before you the case in support of the petition of the Council and certain inhabitant householders for the granting of a Charter of Incorporation, I may mention that the subject has been before the Council for some years. In 1926, a meeting of representatives of the various works, organisations, and other interests was held, when it was unanimously decided to approve of an application being made for a Charter and to hold the then necessary town’s meeting to consider the proposal.
Unfortunately, the coal stoppage took place, and as the granting of charters was suspended, the convening of the meeting was deferred sine die, and no further action was taken until last year. The population in 1926 was estimated by the Registrar General at 19,950, though this was probably excessive. On the 1931 Census disclosing that the population had increased to 20,152, the Council decided to revive the subject. After circularising the owners of works, organisations, etc., and ascertaining—sometimes after an interview—that the proposal was generally acceptable to the inhabitants of the district, as was the case in 1926, they decided to proceed with the petition.
| Name of Proposed Wards | Area in Acres | Houses 1931 census | Pop. 1931 | No. of L.G. Electors |
| Town Hall (revised) | 124 | 635 | 5215 | 1219 |
| Newton Common (new) | 350 | 548 | 1070 | |
| Viaduct (revised) | 215 | 933 | 3773 | 1933 |
| Wargrave (revised) | 531 | 1197 | 5273 | 2714 |
| Newton | 1421 | 678 | 2655 | 1403 |
| Crow Lane | 462 | 767 | 3236 | 1586 |
| 3103 | 4758 | 20152 | 9925 |
As all meetings of the committees and the Council are open to the public and the Press, the subject has been given every publicity in the local newspapers, and no objection has been received to the presentation of the petition. From information received as to whether incorporation led to increased rates, it appeared that incorporation has not done so, and there was no reason why rates in a municipal borough should be higher than in an urban district.
Municipal corporations and urban district councils are elected by one and the same set of voters, and the persons elected are drawn from the same people. With slight differences, each class of authority performs the same functions and exercises its duties under the same Statutes. It also appeared: (a) That loans can be obtained by a non-county borough council at a cheaper rate than by an urban district council; (b) that greater weight is given to the advantages that would follow the granting of a Charter.
A municipal borough would acquire improved status, dignity, and importance to which an urban district council can never attain. To the Council, this would prove invaluable in all future transactions or dealings with Parliament, the Government, the County Council, and neighbouring authorities. It is suggested that these bodies attach far more importance to a municipal borough, however small, than they do to an urban district, however large that urban district may be.
A municipal corporation is surrounded by an atmosphere of permanence and enjoys a freedom from attacks by neighbouring authorities that a district council does not possess. Moreover, Parliament does not interfere with their constitutions and privileges as it does with those of urban district councils, which have been differently constituted under many names—such as improvement commissioners, local boards of health, and lastly, urban district councils.
A municipal corporation can make byelaws for the good rule and government of the borough and the suppression of nuisances. Such matters as street cries, noisy instruments, obstructions in streets, and street refuse are often dealt with under this power. In an urban district other than a borough, this power rests with the county council.
I may add that no large capital expenditure is anticipated in the future, since the Council are the owners of all the public utility undertakings (save that of electricity, for which they are the distributors), and have recently completed their large sewage scheme at a cost of over £40,000.
It will be noticed later, when reference is made to the various activities of the Council, that the district is exceptionally well-equipped and progressive. It is not the desire of the petitioners that the administration of the police should be interfered with, nor that the administration of the Education Acts as regards elementary education should be other than in the hands of the County Council, who, I am pleased to add, support this petition.
As showing the past history of Newton-in-Makerfield and the activities of the Improvement Commissioners under the Newton District Improvement Act, 1855 (which it will be observed is a very early Act and older than many Charters of Incorporation), and the Urban District Council, who succeeded them in 1894, I will now refer to the petition itself:-
The Urban District of Newton-in-Makerfield (which contains the towns of Newton-le-Willows and Earlestown) is situate in the south-west of the County Palatine of Lancaster and is an industrial urban district. The Parish and Urban District are coterminous.
Historical.
In Saxon times, “Newton” was of sufficient importance to give name to one of the Hundreds of Lancashire. It occupies a site intermediate between Wigan and Winwick, and probably owes its origin to some temporary disaster which befell one or both of these places. Newton was a paramount manor, in the ‘‘Doomsday Book’” called the Hundred of Neweton, and now called the Fee of Makerfield, a territory of great extent comprising within its limits no less than 18 townships, all of which owed suit and service at the old Manor Courts. By succession from Oswald, King of Northumbria, Edward the Confessor was its lord. In the general distribution of the lands of this part of Lancashire to the soldiers and followers of William the Conqueror, the Fee of Makerfield fell to the share of a great warrior, Roger of Poictou, who, as a munificent patron of the Church, conferred the living of Winwick (in which ancient parish Newton was situate) on the Priory of Nostell in Yorkshire and the rest of his great Fee of Makerfield to one of his followers who had assisted him to win it, Robert Banastre, whose name occurs in the celebrated Roll of Battle Abbey.
From the Banastres, the barony descended (about 1296) by marriage to John de Langton (who was knighted by King Edward I) who was son of Robert, Lord of West Langton in the County of Leicester and brother of John Langton, Bishop of Chichester and Chancellor in the reigns of King Edward I, and King Edward II, at whose instance he obtained (14th February, 1301), a charter for markets, fairs, and free warren in Newton-in-Makerfield, From the Langton’s.
Newton passed in 1604 to Sir Richard Fleetwood, Bart., whose son sold the Manor, Borough and Barony of Newton, and Fee of Makerfield with all messages, etc., to Richard Legh, Having now acquired Newton, which, though a borough, had never been incorporated, being a close or proprietary borough, Mr. Legh gave it these arms (derived from his own crest), “Out of a ducal coronet a ram’s head holding in its mouth a laurel sprig.” It was this Mr. Legh who rebuilt the Newton Chapel in 1683.
By descent the Manor and Barony came down in 1857 to Mr. William John Legh, who sat in the House of Commons as Conservative representative for South Lancashire, 1839-1865, and for East Cheshire 1868-1885, and who, in 1892, was created Baron Newton, of Newton-in-Makerfield. On his death in 1898 he was succeeded by his son, the present Lord Newton. To the Parliament which met in the first year of the reign of Queen Elizabeth (28rd January, 1559), Newton was added (with Clitheroe) to the list of Lancashire boroughs returning members of Parliament, viz.: Preston, Wigan, Liverpool and Lancaster. With a brief exception – during the Commonwealth – this continued, with the county representation, to be the strength of Lancashire Parliamentary representation until the passing of the Reform Act, 1832, when Newton was disfranchised, and included in the South Lancashire Division.
The right of election for the Borough of Newton was exclusively vested in the freemen and burgesses of the borough, that is, of any person possessing a freehold estate therein of the value of 40 shillings a year or upwards, of whom the number in 1825 was about 60, Although by the Reform Act, 1832, Newton-in-Makerfield was included in the South Lancashire Division which under the Reform Act, 1867, was formed into two Divisions, South- East and South-West Lancashire, each returning two members, in the latter of which Divisions, Newton-in-Makerfield was placed, the return of members was continued (and still continues) to be made from Newton- in-Makerfield. By the Redistribution of Seats Act, 1805, Newton gives name to one of the Parliamentary Divisions of the county.
The population of Newton-in- Makerfield at the time of disfranchisement (1832) was 2,139, and, gradual increase is now estimated at 20,450, being thus one of the very few disfranchised boroughs in which a marked increase of population has taken place since the loss of the Parliamentary franchise, Although the name of the ancient parish is Newton-in-Makerfield, it was for centuries better known as Newton-le-Willows.
With the opening of the railway in 1830 and the “establishment of iron foundries, the industrial development of the parish took place particularly in the place now called Earlestown. Newton-le-Willows, although partly industrial, possesses an old-world charm, with its lake, its wide and paved main street planted with trees, its old thatched cottages, its stocks, and the brook, on the banks of which grow the willows from which the town derived its name. In Church Street there still remains the old cock-pit with its rows of seats for the spectators, though the pit itself is now covered over. In this street, also, standing under the churchyard wall, are still the two stone posts of the old parish stocks – the ancient method of punishment for minor offences. The Manor Courts have ceased to be held, and so have the markets and fairs which were formerly held in Newton streets. What now remains as a reminder of those days is the obelisk which stands in the centre of the Market Square at Earlestown, but which at one time stood near Newton Church, where it replaced the ancient and decayed market cross.
Notable Places.
There are (among others) the undermentioned historical places in Newton-in-Makerfield: –
Castle Hill – is the most important ancient structure in Newton-in-Makerfield, it is supposed to be a large Saxon barrow or Roman tumulus and is situated on the western side of Newton Lake.
The Bloody Stone – is a red stone lying at the edge of the Winwick Road footpath, and, traditionally, the place where some great person was killed, the marks of the supposed blood stains being still visible after a shower of rain, It has been suggested that the stone might be the place where the Welsh, knight who had usurped the Castle of Haigh and the Lady Mabel were killed by the real Lord, Sir William Bradshaugh, on his return from the Holy Land in the reign of King Elward I.
Red Bank – During the Wars of Commonwealth in 1648 a desperate engagement took place at the pass of Winwick, called Red Bank, between the rear of the Duke of Hamilton’s retreating Larmy, commanded by Lieut.-General Bailey, and the Parliamentary forces under Lieut.-General Cromwell, Here General Bailey was obliged to surrender himself and all his officers and soldiers as prisoners of war.
St. Oswald’s Well – is situate in a field adjoining Hermitage Green Lane. Hermitage Green doubtless obtained its designation from some hermit (probably one of the brethren of Hermit Friars – Augustine – of Warrington), where in return for a pater noster he might obtain alms from the many pilgrims who came to pay their orisons at St. Oswald’s Well.
Ancient Buildings.
There are many old buildings in Newton-in-Makerfield (some of which are still thatched), the principal ones being: –
Newton Hall – This is a picturesque black and white house and was erected in the year 1634 by Richard Blackburne. It is now a farm house.
Crow Hall – This is probably the oldest house in Newton-in-Makerfield and was occupied by the Sergeants of the Manor Court early in the 16th century. Some years ago, it was converted into several dwellings.
Dean School – Its environment isolated and picturesque, in Rob Lane, bears a plaque showing that John Stirrup gave it in 1677 as a school. In the same lane is an early 17th century cottage having the letters B.Y.H. on the gable end.
Old Hey Hall – This house (now a farmhouse) is a fine example of the 17th century style of architecture and is built of thin red bricks, It will thus be seen that Newton-in- Makerfield is an urban district with a past as interesting and historical as that of any in the county of Lancashire. It is on the threshold of a new era possessing great possibilities. The mere fact that Newton was known as a borough for centuries, though without a Charter, being a close or proprietary borough, justifies the aspirations of the Council and the inhabitants to have restored to them that dignity and influence which with their past history and its growing prosperity and enterprise, the ancient “Borough” of Newton formerly possessed.
Constitution.
In the year 1855, Newton-in-Makerfield became an Improvement Act District by the Newton District Improvement Act, 1855, the preamble to which states, “Whereas it would be of great local and public advantage if the Town of Newton-in-Makerfield and the Neighbourhood thereof in the Parish of Newton-in-Makerfield in the County of Lancaster, were sufficiently paved, drained, cleansed, lighted and regulated and otherwise improved and effectually supplied with Sewers and Water but the Purposes aforesaid cannot be effected without the Authority of Parliament, etc.”
Under the provisions of the Local Government Act, 1894, the Improvement Act District became the Urban District Newton-in-Makerfield under the management and control of the Urban District Council of Newton-in-Makerfield consisting of 15 members.
Wards.
It was not until the year 1894 that the district was divided into wards when (on the 24th June, 1894) the Lancashire County Council issued an Order dividing it into five wards and fixing the number of representatives for each ward at three – one retiring each year – a total of 15 representatives. Prior to that year the number of representatives for the Improvement District was 10. The following particulars relate to the wards when fixed by the County Council in the year 1894, viz.: –
With a view to the creation of an additional ward, the Council have very carefully considered the well-defined boundaries of the existing five wards, the convenience of electors in attending at polling stations to record their votes, and the developments which are taking place in the several wards, and propose that the district should be divided into six wards, as under, and that the number of councillors to be assigned to each ward shall be three, viz:-
A map (No. 2) is submitted showing the proposed alteration in the boundaries of three of the existing five wards and the creation of an additional ward to be named the Newton Common Ward. The making of the existing Town Hall Ward into two wards presents the least difficulty and disturbance of boundaries, inasmuch as a separate Register of Elections has, for some years, been prepared in two divisions with defined boundaries, the number of electors in each of the two divisions being nearly equal.
The boundaries of the existing Viaduct Ward have been revised by the transference thereto of a portion of Wargrave Ward, it being more convenient for the electors in the portion transferred to record their votes in Viaduct Ward. It is also proposed that a small portion of Town Hall Ward be transferred to Viaduct Ward so as to give a better boundary.
No alteration in the Newton and Crow Lane Wards is proposed. Statements are appended giving full particulars of the existing and proposed wards. Since the date of the petition (August, 1933) the registers of electors show that the number of local government electors has increased from 9,631 to 9,925 – this increase occurring mainly in the Wargrave Ward.
The increase in the number of Parliamentary electors was 220 during the same period. The proposed representation of the borough will be six aldermen and 18 councillors, three councillors to be elected for each ward.
Acreage and Geographical Configuration.
The Urban District of Newton-in-Makerfield (hereinafter referred to as “the district”) has an area of 3,103 acres and extends from the County Borough of St. Helens on the west to the Leigh Rural District on the east. On the north lie the urban districts of Haydock and Golborne, and the Leigh Rural District, and on the south the Warrington Rural District. There are two centres of population – Newton-le-Willows being the older and Earlestown the larger – though with the recent housing developments they are now practically merged. A large portion of the district is agricultural land.
Earlestown is an important junction on the main Liverpool-Manchester line of the London Midland and Scottish Railway. The East Lancashire (Liverpool to Manchester) Main Arterial Road passes along and near the northern boundary of the district, to which it gives access by two important main roads that it crosses. The district is situated 6¼ miles south of Warrington, 8 miles north of Wigan, 4.5 miles west of St. Helens, and 6.75 miles east of Leigh.
Continuing, Mr. Cole pointed out that the progress of Newton-in-Makerfield since it became an Improvement Act district in 1855 has been steady. In that year, powers were obtained by the Local Act to establish gas and water works, a market, slaughterhouses, etc., by which many benefits have accrued to the district owing to the wisdom and foresight of the promoters of the Act.
In 1855, the estimated population was 4,090, the rateable value was £20,262, and the number of houses in the district was 832. By 1931, the population had increased to 20,152, the rateable value (as reduced by de-rating) to £83,090, and the number of houses to 4,837.
“At the present time, the estimated population is 20,450.” Mr. Cole said. “This has been arrived at by taking into account the natural increase, the additions to the lists of electors, and other factors; the reduced rateable value is £85,140, and the number of houses is 5,110.”
Building operations by private enterprise are being carried out in the district on a fairly large scale, and with the improvement in trade and industry – especially at the Vulcan Locomotive Works – the continued progress of the district is well assured. The total amount of loans raised by the Council and their predecessors up to the 31st of March 1934, was £911,669/7/4, and the amount outstanding at the same date was £626,905/16/-.
After referring to arrangements made to deal with Maternity and Child Welfare, and the recent acquiring of premises in Cross Lane, Mr. Cole detailed the various services carried on under the Health Department. He highlighted the provision made by the Council for the treatment of infectious diseases, the work of the Medical Officer of Health, and the accomplishments under the Housing Act of 1930 (Clearance Areas).
“In all probability,” he said, “other houses in the subsidence area will be affected, and it will be necessary for similar action to be taken. The Council has been and remains fully aware of their responsibilities under the Housing Act.”
The effect of the continuous pressure of the Council to bring the property in the industrial district up to the Council’s standard is reflected in the fall of infant mortality – from an average of 151 for the period 1892 to 1901, to 69 in 1933. It will be noticed that the structure of the Town Hall has also been affected by colliery subsidence, as it is in the line of a ‘fault.’
Roads and Streets.
In accordance with the provisions of various sections of the Local Government Act, the Council, as the urban authority, had retained the powers and duties of maintaining and repairing main roads within their district. They became the highway authority with respect to all roads, classified and unclassified, within their district from the 1st of April, 1932.
The district contained important through and cross-country traffic routes totaling 6.72 miles, which provided direct means of communication between neighboring towns and counties. These roads are in good order and capable of withstanding the heavy industrial traffic to which they are subjected.
Steps taken by the Council in regard to town planning were given in detail by Mr. Cole. Regarding drainage and sewage disposal, he said the district is well sewered, and the sewage is efficiently treated at the two sewage works. The process at the Central Sewage Works is by precipitation and filtration. At these Central Works, a sum of over £40,000 has recently been sanctioned and expended on their improvement.
With the exception of a few outlying farms and houses, the sewage from the whole of the district is now being dealt with. A report has been obtained from the Council’s consulting engineers on the Surveyor’s scheme for the sewering of the low-lying areas so that when the land is developed for building purposes, the treatment of the sewage may be effected.
Mr. Cole then proceeded to outline the advantage taken of powers to provide open spaces, mentioning the laying out of Mesnes Park and St. John’s Playground. He also referred to the gift in 1908 by Lord Newton of 11 acres of land on Newton Common.
Progressive Housing Policy.
Regarding the Council’s progressive housing policy, he said: “The Council has pursued a progressive policy in the provision of houses for the working classes, having provided 797 postwar houses, and a further 100 houses recently approved by the Ministry of Health are practically completed.
“For the purpose of re-housing the persons to be displaced from the clearance areas, six additional houses have been provided, and steps have been taken for the erection of a further five houses. The cost of the houses (including land, streets, and sewers) erected by the Council under the Housing Acts amounts approximately to £441,255.
“The Council has also granted subsidies to private builders under the Housing, etc., Act of 1923, in respect of 321 houses, amounting to £27,970, and has made 357 advances for the purchase of houses by individuals intending to live in them.”
Referring to education, Mr. Cole said there are seven non-provided and two provided elementary schools in the district, with accommodation for 4,245 children. The actual number on the books in 1933 was 3,379, with 2,919 in average attendance.
A Technical School was erected in 1911, where evening classes are held under an efficient staff. In 1918, daytime classes were also established there for junior scholars. During the 1933-34 session, 325 students attended the evening classes, and 43 attended the junior classes.
A Secondary School for the area of Newton-in-Makerfield and surrounding districts was erected by the Lancashire County Council and opened in October 1930, with 85 scholars, 40 of whom had gained County Council scholarships from the elementary schools. At present, the number of scholars is 242, of whom 111 are County Council scholarship holders. The Secondary School has accommodation for 250 mixed scholars, with provision for extension for 170 additional scholars.
Public Libraries.
The district has a well-equipped public library, maintainable by the Council, the site of which was presented by Lord Newton in 1908,” he said. “The cost of erecting the building was met out of a grant of £4,000 made by the late Mr. Andrew Carnegie. It was opened in July, 1909, “They have also a branch library at the Vulcan Village (opened in 1932). “The sum of £1,487 was expended out of the General Rate on library services during the financial year ended on the 31st March, 1933, being equal to a rate of 4.57 pence in the £.
Good Water Supply.
“The whole of the district, with the exception of one or two outlying farms and houses, is supplied by the Council from their pumping station with water of excellent quality from a deep well and two boreholes (all connected by headings which were extended in 1931) sunk by them in the year 1909, which yield an abundant supply sufficient to provide for all purposes without further extensions of the adits, for a number of years. The water undertaking also includes a large tower, capable of holding 310,000 gallons, which was erected for the purpose of supplying by gravitation the higher parts of the district. At the present time, a duplicate set of electrically-driven pumps is being installed to replace the old steam driven pumps. The total capital cost of this undertaking has been £64,183, of which £19,348/8/7 only remains unpaid to the lenders of the money borrowed.
Gas Supply.
“In the year 1861 the Improvement Commissioners (the predecessors of the Council) acquired a small gas works connected with a glass works, and after putting the premises into repair, commenced to make and distribute gas in Newton-in-Makerfield, and at various times extended their Gas Works to meet the growing demands for gas until 1914, when they acquired an engineering works in connection with which there was a railway siding. “These premises they reconstructed and adapted for gas making by the modern method of using vertical retorts. There they have made excellent progress. The capital cost of this undertaking has been £53,356, of which borrowed money only £14,161 9/6 yet remains unpaid.
Electricity Undertaking.
“Under their Electric Lighting Order of 1914, the Council obtained the permission of the Electricity Commissioners, in March, 1924, to proceed with their scheme, and loans amounting to £57,006, of which sum £43,718/16/10 remains unpaid, have been sanctioned by them and borrowed for the laying of cables, erection of two sub-stations and plant for distributing electricity obtained in bulk from the Lancashire Electric Power Company. A very large supply of current for power purposes is provided to the L.M. & S. Railway Wagon Works at Earlestown, and to other large works in the district, and arrangements are also being made for large power supplies to other works. With these large consumers and the increasing supply for the lighting of shops, houses, etc., the financial success of the undertaking has been assured. The provision of cheap gas and electricity offers every inducement for the establishment of new industries in and consequent development of Newton-in-Makerfield.
Financial.
“It will readily be recognised,” he concluded, “that progress to a large extent depends upon the financial capacity of the Council combined with wise spending. Although the General Rate is not low, there are compensating benefits accruing to ratepayers and householders, inasmuch as the charges for gas, water, and electricity in the district are particularly low. The probable result is that the total amount payable by ratepayers in rates and other charges is less than in many districts with a lower General Rate.”
Referring to the grounds for the petition, Mr. Cole said: “The petition praying for the granting of a Charter was signed by every member of the Council at that time, with the exception of one, who was seriously ill and subsequently died. It is supported by organisations representing practically the whole of the householders in the district. It is also supported by large employers of labour, whose works represent a rateable value (reduced) of over £7,000.”
The investigation of the petitioners’ claim is welcomed, as the Council feels that the record of public administration in the district is one of which any local authority may justly feel proud. There may still be people who believe that the granting of a Charter leads to an increase in local rates, but this belief has proved erroneous. As previously stated, I fail to see how the cost of administration of a municipal borough is greater than that of an urban district, as the powers of both authorities are practically the same.
What does happen is that a new sense of public spirit is created, and a change in status often attracts greater interest in local government.
His final summing-up was: “I trust that I have been able to show that the district of Newton-in-Makerfield, during its 79 years of existence as an Improvement Act district and as an urban district, has proved itself most progressive in public administration. There is strong evidence of a good civic character and of efficient local government.
“The petitioners believe that the granting of a Charter of Incorporation would be to the great advantage of Newton-in-Makerfield. It would promote its interests by giving it a higher and more efficient form of local government and ensure the stability of all its institutions. This would foster a civic spirit in the town and encourage the more willing and efficient performance of public duties, both by the inhabitants and their elected representatives. It would also restore the dignity and influence that its past history, as a borough up to the Reform Acts of 1832, its growing prosperity, and its enterprise would appear to justify.”
1934: M.P. AND CHARTER.
Newton and Earlestown Guardian – Friday 23 November 1934
It is announced to-day that Mr. R. C. Essenhigh, M.P., is to ask the Minister of Health if he can give the reasons why the recent petition presented by the Newton-in-Makerfield Urban Council for a charter of incorporation as a borough was refused.
1934: THE CHARTER QUESTION BY MR. ESSENHIGH.
Newton and Earlestown Guardian – Friday 30 November 1934
The Guardian” understands that on Thursday of last week, Couns. S. C. Gaskin and E. J. W. Mullins, and Mr. C. Cole (the Clerk) of the Newton-in- Makerfield Urban District Council, along with Lord Newton, met representatives of the Ministry of Health at Whitehall to try and ascertain reasons why the application for a Charter of Incorporation as a borough was refused.
On Tuesday night a sub-committee of the Urban Council discussed the matter and on Wednesday the “Guardian” was informed that there was nothing to report to the Press.
Mr. R. C. Essenhigh National Government M.P. for the Newton Division, tabled the following question in the House of Commons this week:-
To ask the Lord President of the Council if he can give the reasons why the recent petition presented by the Newton-in-Makerfield Urban District Council to be granted a Charter of Incorporation as a borough, was refused.”
In the House of Commons yesterday Captain the Right Hon. H. D. R. Margesson. M.C., M.P., replied to Mr. Essenhigh as follows:
“I have been asked to reply to this question..”
“I am not able to disclose the detailed grounds on which advice is tendered to His Majesty by the Privy Council. In the case to which my Hon. Friend refers, however, regard was had, among other considerations, to the administration of certain important local services, the standard in which fell short of that required in an area seeking borough status.”
1934WHY CHARTER WAS REFUSED.
Newton and Earlestown Guardian – Friday 07 December 1934
NEW APPLICATION FORESHADOWED.
Provided the Newton-in-Makerfield Urban District Council makes good progress with the conversion to the water carriage system in certain of the older houses in the district, there seems no reason why a charter of incorporation should not be granted within the next two years.
This was revealed at Tuesday’s meeting of the Council when the reasons for the Privy Council’s re- cent refusal to grant the application were made public for the first time.
The Council Chairman, Councillor S. C. Gaskin, told the “Guardian” that when headway had been made with the conversion scheme the Council would certainly make an- other application for a charter.
Before the reasons for the refusal were given, Councillor Gaskin (presiding) said the Council had decided to make the reasons public, in view of reports in newspapers which were not absolutely accurate. It was the Council’s intention to give a full report that night. The deputation which went to London recently consisted of Councillor E. J. Mullins, Mr. Cole, Lord Newton, and the Chairman of the Council.
Councillor Findlay said he did not think the matter should be given to the Press If the councillors were settled in their own minds that they might get a true report he might agree.
The Chairman said Councillor Findlay should realise many of the reports he (Councillor Gaskin) referred to concerning the charter had been reported from Manchester and other areas. He was not blaming the local press particularly. The councillors had to be very guarded over this matter. There had appeared an air of secrecy about the question, and it was in the interests of the public the matter should be made public.
The Clerk (Mr. Cole) then read the following report, specially prepared for publication: –
With reference to the communication received from the Privy Council that h Petition for a Charter incorporating Newton-in-Makerfield had not been grant. ed for the reason “that the standards maintained in certain important local services fell short of those required in an area seeking to acquire Borough status,” the Council asked for an inter- view with the Ministry of Health for the purpose of ascertaining in what respect these services fell short, which interview was readily granted.
At the interview, the Council were represented by the Chairman (Councillor Gaskin) and the Chairman of the Finance Committee (Councillor Mullins), and the Clerk, and Lord Newton having been approached, he kindly promised to attend to render all the assistance he could to the Council.
It appeared that the points which had adversely affected the granting of the Charter were: –
FIVE POINTS.
(a) The delay in converting a few privy middens and a number of pail closets to the water closet system, and the method of dealing with house refuse at the tips.
(b) That the fire engine was kept in the same building as the ambulance, and that the brigade (although admittedly efficient) was not under trained officer. There was no fire escape.
(e) The state of the Town Hall building (owing to subsidence) and the need of further accommodation.
(d) That the District was short of adequate public open spaces.
(e) That there were no Public Baths and Washhouses in the district.
As regards (a) it was explained by the Deputation that wholesale conversions could not possibly be made until there was a sufficiency of water and the sew- age works extended, that as both these schemes had been recently completed the Council would now proceed to have the privies and pails converted to water closets.
(b) That the fire brigade was a very efficient one, that they were regularly complimented for their quickness in turning out to fires, and for their work thereat, that they had won prizes at Fire Brigade Competitions, that the housing of he fire engine and ambulance in one building did not interfere with the speedy use of either vehicle, and that there was no tall building in the district for which a fire escape was needed.
(c) That the state of the Town Hall was admittedly unsatisfactory owing to mining subsidence, but the Council did not consider it opportune at the present time to erect a new building, although the matter of extension was under con- sideration. The recent removal of the Health and the Maternity and Child Wel- fare Offices to Latham House now gave more accommodating at the Town Hall.
(d) That the provision of more Public Open Spaces would be considered.
(e) That no suitable site for Baths and Washhouses, free from the risk of mining subsidence, could be found, except on the eastern boundary of the district, a long way from populated parts.
The Council a few years ago (in 1925) suggested a site in Victoria Road, but this did not meet with the approval of the Ministry of Health.
The Deputation pointed out that apart from the privy and pail closet conversion which could not be done until pro- vision had been made for the treatment of the sewage there appeared to be but little in the Ministry of Health’s objections and had the granting of the Charter been deferred for a few months doubtless any defect would have been wholly or partially remedied.
The Minister’s Official then stated that the Council could renew their application for a Charter after they had made headway with the privy and pail closet conversions.
Councillor Johnson moved the Press be asked to publish that report, as having been read, and said it was due to the public that they be acquainted with what was going on.
The Chairman said the Ministry of Health received the deputation with every courtesy, and it was intimated to the members that provided they do as suggested by the Ministry, there was no earthly reason why they should not have the charter of incorporation in the next two years.
The councillors did not want to do anything which might act adversely to them in the matter. Personally, he had been surprised by the number of enquiries from residents regretting that. the charter had not been granted.
In 1934, a town council in the UK might seek a charter to become a borough for several reasons. Some of the key advantages would include:
1. Increased Autonomy and Local Control
– Self-governance: Borough status allowed a town to gain greater independence from the county authorities, giving the town more control over its local affairs. The town council would have enhanced authority to make decisions tailored to the town’s needs.
– More Responsibilities: Boroughs could often assume responsibility for additional local services, including public health, sanitation, education, housing, and infrastructure improvements.
2. Civic Prestige and Status
– Prestige of Borough Status: Becoming a borough was a mark of civic pride and status. It gave the town an elevated position compared to other non-borough towns, signifying its importance, history, or growing size. Boroughs were often seen as more significant in the eyes of outsiders.
– Mayoralty: Borough status allowed the town to have a mayor. This figurehead would play an important ceremonial role, adding to the town’s prestige and identity.
3. Economic and Development Benefits
– Attracting Investment: With borough status came a sense of credibility and stability, potentially making the town more attractive to investors and businesses. This could promote local economic development, as businesses might prefer to operate in an area with a well-defined governance structure.
– Development and Infrastructure: Boroughs often had more say over urban planning, allowing the town council to better plan and control development in ways that suited local needs, possibly accelerating modernization and infrastructure improvements.
4. Representation and Influence
– Enhanced Representation: Boroughs often had more representation in both local and national political structures. Borough councillors or the mayor could represent the town’s interests more effectively.
– Influence in County Decisions: As a borough, the town could have a stronger voice in county-level decisions, particularly on issues that affect multiple towns or regions.
5. Access to Government Funding and Support
– Grants and Assistance: Boroughs could often access special grants or financial assistance from central government, particularly for housing, education, and health-related projects, which might be more difficult for a non-borough town to secure.
In summary, applying for a charter to become a borough in 1934 would have offered a town enhanced autonomy, greater prestige, more economic opportunities, increased representation, and better access to resources for local improvements. These factors combined to make borough status highly desirable for towns seeking to grow and develop.
