Natural Divisions of England Author(S): C

Home , Huntingdonshire

Natural Divisions of England Author(s): C. B. Fawcett Source: The Geographical Journal, Vol. 49, No. 2 (Feb., 1917), pp. 124-135 Published by: geographicalj Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1779341 Accessed: 26-06-2016 10:03 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://about.jstor.org/terms

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Wiley, The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers) are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Geographical Journal

This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Sun, 26 Jun 2016 10:03:30 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms I24 NATUIRAL DIVISIONS OF ENGLAND

side; and by the time you reach Szechwan the flora is purely southern and Himalayan, and only, I think, on the Tao-jo border of Kansu do you get a representative mixture of the two. It was remarkable in my first year that one found a mixture of the southern flora predominating; in the second year, in the higher, colder, bleaker Alps further up in the north, one had the northern flora, very much more limited, with fewer new species and altogether less interesting. With regard to the ethnological difference, I think nothing could be plainer; not only the difference between the Chinese inhabitants and the countless tribes called Tibetan, but also between the Chinese and Mohammedan inhabitants of the province. I had not the time to go into the ethnological difference between race and race, but the Tibetans as a family are, of course, entirely unmistakably different from the Chinese. Instead of being a small-boned, intellectual, refined, pale race, they are a large, very big-boned, very big-headed and round-skulled race, quite evidently, I should say, of a wholly different blood from the Chinese, with whom they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but live on terms of the strictest mutual intolerance, loathing and despising each other, and killing each other whenever it is possible to do so without fuss. The PRESIDENT: I am sure you will wish me to wind up the evening by moving a hearty vote of thanks to Mr. Farrer for his paper. We seldom have a traveller here who has a story to tell more full of adventure, or who is able to tell it in so vivid, eloquent, and dramatic a manner. It appears to me that for those who are in search of adventure when the war is over-and time will come when we shall again be in search of adventure-there is no place in the world which can offer more variety of peril than the backlands of China towards Tibet. To start with, there is at your back the White Wolf; when you get up into the mountains you meet with monks who are ready to murder without the slightest provocation. I was interested in hearing from Mr. Farrer that the Church owns all the gold in Tibet. The fact of there being gold in Tibet made an impression on one of our statesmen which, I believe, was partly the cause of the Indian border being so rigidly closed to all travellers. Lord Morley had it on his mind that there might be a rush into Tibet like the rush into Alaska. We shall all hope that Mr. Farrer will put his adventures into a book, where he will be able to give us more pictures of the wonderful flowers- pictures which will give them in their natural colours, the only thing one missed to night. I do not know whether you noticed in one of those slides that it showed the wonderful defensive protection, the prickles that were arranged all around the delicate blossoms. In the Himalayan flora we find plants protected by fluffy coats against the cold. What is the enemy against which these delicate creatures arm themselves ?

NATURAL DIVISIONS OF ENGLAND C. B. Fawcett, B.Litt., M.Sc. Map following p. I60. T HE steady persistence of the Irish demand for Home Rule, together with the existence and growth of strong national sentiments in Scotland and Wales and a growing tendency towards a similar demand in those countries, was a prominent fact of public life in Britain before the

This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Sun, 26 Jun 2016 10:03:30 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms NATURAL DIVISIONS OF ENGLAND I25 war, and, unless the war should leave us totally exhausted, these demands are likely to be much stronger after it. Parliament was already over- burdened with the double task of trying, on the one hand to govern the Empire, and on the other to provide for and control the internal and local government of the forty-five million people in these islands. Either task was enough to absorb its full time and energies. These facts led naturally to suggestions for lessening the work of the British Parliament by the devolution of some of its powers to a national parliament in each of the four countries: suggestions which were popularly summed up in the phrase "Home Rule All Round." In practice this would mean the transformation of the United Kingdom from a unified to a federal state, in which the subordinate parliaments would have such powers as the British Parliament delegated to them. To this suggestion as it stands one very serious objection is that one' of the partners would have three-fourths of the total population, and more than three-fourths of the total wealth, and hence would inevitably dominate the federation. The predominance of England would be increased if, as is probable, the British and English Parliaments sat in the same city; and there would be rivalry in prestige between the two. The position would be similar to that between the Prussian and the Imperial German Parliaments from I87I onwards. For such a position, and the many difficulties to which it would give rise, the obvious remedy is the division of England into several provinces each of which should have local self government on a par with Wales or Scotland. Such a division is also rendered desirable by the great variety of the problems of government in the different parts of England, and the magnitude of the task of providing for the local government of its thirty-four millions of inhabitants. It is probable that in an English parliament the congestion of business would soon resemble that which has been for many years the normal state of the British Parliament. Hence, when the question of the devolution of parliamentary powers again becomes urgent, that of the subdivision of England will naturally arise. If any such subdivision is to be satisfactory it must be based mainly on geographical considerations. Thus the question may be phrased as "What are the Natural Divisions of England ?" Apart from these considerations there are also the facts that the boundaries of the present local government areas of England are extremely complicated, and in many places obsolescent. All the historic counties date back to the Middle Ages. Their boundaries were gradually defined in accordance with the needs of the strongly localized life of an age when England was made up of a large number of almost self-sufficing districts. For their time these boundaries were, on the whole, satisfactory; but that time is past. Since the opening of the Industrial Period there has been an enormous increase in the population, great changes in its distribution over the country, and equally important changes in the ways and means of communication and in the problems and conditions of local government. In

This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Sun, 26 Jun 2016 10:03:30 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms I26 NATURAL DIVISIONS OF ENGLAND view of these changes it is not too much to say that very many of our local boundaries are now bad misfits. Yet, except for very numerous slight alterations of boundaries, the problem of the adjustment of the local government areas to the needs of the people, as they are distributed to-day, has been almost ignored. Certainly it has never been considered as a whole. Before setting out some definite suggestions as to what are the suitable divisions of England it seems desirable to state some of the considerations which ought to be taken into account in determining the limits of such major local government areas. The aim of such boundaries is to facilitate good local government-not to serve strategic ends, as is often the case with international frontiers. The chief of these considerations, approximately in the order of importance attached to them in this paper, are:- (I) The boundaries should be chosen so as to interfere as little as possible with the normal movements and activities of the people of each province. Ordinarily a man's residence and his workplace should be in the same province; for the division of interests which results when a man's workplace and his home are under different local authorities lessens the prospects of his taking an active interest in his local government. From this it follows that the boundary lines should not be drawn through areas of dense population, i.e. that in general an area of continuous dense population should be kept in one province. Suburban districts should not be severed from their focal town if it can be avoided, but in so small a country as England some of this division of interests is unavoidable. Hence the boundaries should be drawn as far as possible along the more thinly peopled tracts of the land. (The provincial boundaries here suggested should be compared throughout with a map showing the distribution of the population, e.g. Plate VIII. of Bartholomew's Atlas of England and Wales.) (2) The existence of a definite capital in each province is almost essential to the development of the provincial patriotism which is necessary for good government under democratic conditions. In this respect the whole problem is very much simplified by the fact that the last few genera- tions have witnessed the growth of a number of conurbations (to use the term of Prof. Geddes), each of which has already developed many of the characteristics of a regional capital. Of this development the area of which Birmingham is the nucleus is one of the best examples. Birmingham is distinctly the commercial, financial, shopping, social, and intellectual focus of its region; it has a well-marked regional individuality, and is not, in matters of public opinion, in any way subordinate to any other centre, a fact which is well illustrated by its Press and its public life. It is " Town" for its region. (3) The least of the provinces should contain a population sufficiently numerous to justify self-government. A minimum of a million may be suggested as a basis for discussion. This is very much more than is

This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Sun, 26 Jun 2016 10:03:30 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms NATURAL DIVISIONS OF ENGLAND I27 considered necessary for a province of the Canadian Dominion, or for a state of the Australian Commonwealth, or of the North American Union. It is probably not desirable to fix any rigid limit of this sort. (4) No one province should be so populous as to be able to dominate the Federation. This condition would be satisfied if the most populous province could be outvoted by a combination of the second and third, and so on. A considerable range of population is inevitable. (5) Since the vital functions of local government include such matters of public health as water-supply and drainage, the making and maintenance of roads, and the supply or control of trams, gas, and electricity, and since the lines of all these are most easily and naturally laid along the valleys, it will ordinarily be desirable that the whole of any valley should be included in one province. Hence the boundaries should be drawn near the watersheds. But in many cases it is by no means easy to determine the exact line of the water-parting; and it is often a very sinuous line. Also the uppermost end of a valley is least important from this point of view. Hence the watershed would only mark out the general trend of a boundary, and not govern its details. In some cases a provincial boundary must cut across a valley; but it can very rarely be justifiable to draw it along the middle of a small valley. (6) Any such divisions of England must to some extent supersede the ancient counties. Hence county patriotism must be taken into account. It is difficult to estimate the strength of this sentiment; but it appears to be stronger in those counties which approximate to natural regions, e.g. Yorkshire, than in those whose boundaries are less marked features, e.g. Hertfordshire. If this is correct it seems reasonable to hope that county patriotism may be merged into a wider patriotism of the province. Obviously local feeling must be respected; it would in many cases decide the exact position of a boundary-line. The amount of local patriotism connected with such divisions as the Registration Counties and the Poor Law Unions is apparently negligible; and the lack of it does much to lower the standard of government in such areas.

In marking out the provinces we start with the population map. Here we have at once five densely crowded urban regions in Greater London, and the conurbations on the coalfields of Durham-Northumberland, West Yorkshire, South Lancashire, and " The Black Country." Each of these is well suited to form the capital of one of our major local government divisions. To the south-west, on the smaller Bristol coalfield, the city of Bristol is the nucleus of a similar urban region. And though it has a less numerous population than any of those just mentioned, there is here a long tradition as the capital of the "West of England." Further to the south-west the Devonian peninsula is set apart by its distance from the large centres of population, and it has in its two counties just over a

This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Sun, 26 Jun 2016 10:03:30 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms I28 NATURAL DIVISIONS OF ENGLAND million inhabitants, a fourth of whom are grouped round Plymouth Sound. In the south there is the well-marked natural region known to geographers as the Hampshire Basin, to historians and literary men as the nucleus of the ancient Wessex and the Wessex of Thomas Hardy, and frequently to its inhabitants as the "South of England." Within the area drained by the rivers which flow to the Solent-Spithead depression there is a population of well over a million, with a rapidly growing urban focus about the harbour of Southampton Water, on which its valleys converge. The rest of the country, the Thames Valley and the eastern and south-eastern counties, is essentially Metropolitan England-dominated by London, on which city all its more important land- and waterways converge. It has a total population of over twelve millions; and hence it is too populous in relation to the rest to form a satisfactory province. Also outside Greater London it is mainly an agricultural region, and therefore differs from London in the life of its people and the problems of its internal government. We may tentatively suggest Greater London itself as one province, and divide the rest of this area into three provinces, respectively south, west and north-west, and north-east from London. The relations of these provinces to London would inevitably differ somewhat from those among the other provinces of the Kingdom.

North England. In suggesting boundaries for the provinces the North Country offers a convenient starting-place. Here the populous industrial area of the north- east coast is cut off from the rest of England by the thinly peopled North Riding. The suggested boundary is drawn along the North York Moors, so as to leave the Cleveland iron-mining district to the north, and thence westward between the Tees and the Swale, crossing the lowland a little north of Northallerton. The community of interests in the Tees Valley- both on Tees-side and in Teesdale-is such that this valley should fall as a whole into one province. In the west the boundary is drawn round the head of Edendale, along the Shap ridge, and thence along the high axis of the Cumbrian Mountains. This northern province, which may be called North England, has in Newcastle-on-Tyne a capital which has already in many ways taken its place as the focus of the life of the region. And for the one-ninth of its population living west of the Pennines Newcastle is the nearest large town.

Yorkshire. The ancient kingdom of York, except for the northern rim drained by the Tees, forms our second province. Only two other modifications of the shire are suggested. In the west Ribblesdale is left to Lancashire. In the south the boundary is extended to include the whole of the basin of the River Don; so that Chesterfield and its neighbours are grouped with

This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Sun, 26 Jun 2016 10:03:30 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms NATURAL DIVISIONS OF ENGLAND 129 the Sheffield conurbation, of which they are part, and the boundary between this and the Trent province crosses the band of dense population at its narrowest-between Sherwood Forest and the Derbyshire Moors- where the railway tunnels the dividing ridge south of Clay Cross. In this part of Yorkshire the best developed regional capital is undoubtedly Leeds, although the ancient capital of York and the southern urban region about Sheffield are in some respects rivals to it. Lancashire. The eastern boundary of the Lancashire Province has already been indicated as the western boundary of Yorkshire. To the south the Cheshire Plain is essentially one with the present Lancashire urban region, and the boundary is drawn so as to include Glossop, with the north-eastward valley of Derbyshire in which it is situated, and the Potteries. The part of the Upper Trent Valley about the Potteries is included because its economic relations are mainly with the Mersey towns, and it is on the same area of continuous dense population. The southern boundary is drawn along the relatively thinly peopled tract just to the south of the North Staffordshire coalfield, and thence westward along the watershed between the rivers Dee and Severn to the Welsh border. The northern boundary, which has already been referred to in dealing with North England, is so drawn as to include the Kendal Division of Westmorland and the Furness district in this province. As it is here delimited the Lancashire province consists essentially of the land which is drained to the Irish Sea between the Welsh and the Cumbrian Mountains. In it the two cities of Liverpool and Manchester are the western and eastern poles of a conurbation which already rivals Greater London itself in magnitude. Of the two Manchester is somewhat the more central; hence it is here marked as the probable capital.

Severn. Southward from Lancashire is the great conurbation of which Birming- ham is the focus. The densely peopled area occupies the high ground between the Trent and Severn Valleys from Cannock Chase southward to the edge of the Vale of the Stratford Avon. The influence of Birmingham as a regional capital extends eastward and south-eastward to the Cotswold scarp, so as to include practically the whole of Warwickshire. North- eastward the boundary is drawn along the present Leicester-Warwick county line on Watling Street, and thence, crossing the Trent just below the confluence of that river and the Tame, through Staffordshire by Need- wood Forest so as to leave Burton and Dovedale to the Trent province and the North Staffordshire industrial region to Lancashire. The northern boundary has already been marked as the south boundary of Lancashire. On the west this province naturally extends to the Welsh border, while its southern boundary will be more readily considered in dealing with the Bristol region, K

This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Sun, 26 Jun 2016 10:03:30 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms I30 NATURAI, DIVISIONS OF ENGLANI)

The boundaries of this Severn province cross the valleys to a considerable extent, because there is here a conurbation which centres on a watershed. The Birmingham district is almost unique in this respect, for practically all the other great cities of the world are either seaports, or valley towns, or are situated in the midst of open plains. A study of the population map of England shows that this area is the only important exception to the general rule that the denser populations are found in the valleys and on the lowlands, while the higher ground is usually more thinly peopled.

Trent. South of Yorkshire and north-east of the Severn province is the Trent province. Its remaining land-boundary is the continuation of the thinly inhabited Cotswold Upland beyond the source of the Stratford Avon, along the Northampton Heights (Rockingham Forest) to the edge of the Fenland between the valleys of the Welland and the Nen. In the flat Fenland the distinction between the valleys almost vanishes; the rivers are the dominant features and the chief obstacles to human movement. Hence the rest of this boundary follows the lower course of the Nen, along the south boundary of the Soke of Peterborough and the Holland Division of Lincolnshire.

Bristol Province. Bristol has already been referred to as the traditional capital of the "West of England" region of which it is the centre. This province is here defined as consisting approximately of the counties of Somerset and Gloucester, together with that part of Wiltshire which lies to the west and north of the chalk upland. Starting on the eastern part of Exmoor the boundary stretches round the Somerset Lowlands into Wiltshire, and along the north-western edge of the Salisbury Plain. Here it bends eastward round the Vale of Pewsey, whose market town of Devizes is almost on the watershed between the Bristol and Salisbury Avons and is distinctly within the sphere of influence of Bristol. Thence the line passes north-westward to the Cots- wolds along the divide between the Upper Thames Valley and that of the Bristol Avon. On the Cotswolds it is drawn to the high ground north-east of Cheltenham, so as to include that town. From here the line stretches westward across the Lower Severn, through the comparatively thinly peopled tracts between Gloucester and Tewkesbury, past the northern end of the Forest of Dean to meet the suggested Welsh border on the high ground west of the lower Wye. Thence it is drawn southward to the Bristol Channel along the western edge of the Wye Valley. This line is marked out so as to include in one province the densely peopled areas near the Lower Severn (about Bristol, Stroud, Gloucester, and the Forest of Dean), though in doing so it crosses the valleys of that river and the Wye, because all these are more closely connected with each other than with any other regional centre. The western part of Monmouth- shire, and the valley of the Usk, are placed with Wales; but with this

This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Sun, 26 Jun 2016 10:03:30 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms NATURAL DIVISIONS OF ENGLANI) I3I exception this province includes the English lowlands about the Bristol Channel. The name " West England" could be equally well claimed by the Severn province and the south-west peninsula; hence this province is here named after its capital and its sea.

Cornwall and Devon. The extreme south-western peninsula is naturally marked out as a separate province by its comparative remoteness. The boundary between it and the rest of England is nearly the present county boundary; but it differs slightly in favour of Devon by including therein the whole of the valleys of the rivers Exe and Axe. The population of this province is settled mainly in the valleys which open to the south coast. And near the middle of this coast is the cluster of the " three towns " on Plymouth Sound which is here suggested as the capital. It is the only large town in the peninsula.

Wessex. The part' of South England which is here termed Wessex is the long depression, partly submerged, which forms the axis of the Hampshire Basin, together with the land which slopes to it. This extends from the head of the valley of the Dorset Frome for eighty miles eastward through Bourne- mouth Bay and the channels between the Isle of Wight and the mainland. The corresponding coastal strip stretches from near Lyme Regis to Selsey Bill. On the land side the province is enclosed by a band of thinly peopled chalk uplands. The boundary starts just to the west of Lyme Regis, and thence stretches along the Dorset Heights past the headwaters of the Somerset R. Yeo. Thence it is drawn northward on the ridge between the valley of the Yeo and the Vale of Blackmore, and along the higher western edge of the Salisbury Plain. On the north the boundary is formed by the high Downs south of the Vale of Pewsey and the Kennet Valley almost as far east as Basingstoke. Thence it stretches southward between the valleys of the rivers Wey and Itchen, and further between the Meon Valley and that of the Rother about Petersfield, to the South Downs. Here it turns eastward along the Downs beyond the head of the little Lavant River in the Cocking Gap, and is then drawn southward to the sea a short distance east of Selsey Bill. It thus leaves to Wessex the valleys which drain to the group of inlets behind the Isle of Wight.

South-east England. The counties to the south of London are here marked off as a separate province, which may be spoken of as the South-eastern, or Weald, province, Its western limit is the east boundary of Wessex, which has just been referred to. Its northern boundary is drawn along the North Downs, at the southern edge of the London Basin, and reaches the Thames Estuary by the Isle of Sheppey. The province thus includes Kent and Surrey, except for the parts of those counties which are in Greater London, nearly

This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Sun, 26 Jun 2016 10:03:30 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 132 NATURAL DIVISIONS OF ENGLAND

all Sussex, and the Wealden valleys of the eastern edge of Hampshire. Its towns are the Channel ferry towns and outer residential suburbs of London. Brighton is the largest town; but the natural focus of this province is the capital beyond its northern border.

East England. To the north-east of London East Anglia and Essex, outside Greater London, are grouped with the counties of Cambridge and Huntingdon as a province of East England. This borders the Trent province along the lower course of the River Nen. Its western boundary is drawn on the low and thinly-peopled heights in the west of Huntingdonshire, and across the Great Ouse to the Chiltern Hills near the source of the Cam. Thence it stretches south-eastward across Essex south of the valley of the Chelmer to the estuary of the River Crouch, so as to leave Epping, Brentwood, and Southend in the London province. The more populous parts of this eastern province are the valleys opening to the east coast, and the inner valleys of the Cam and the Little Ouse. The low East Anglian Heights between are much more thinly peopled. There is no dominant or central city. The three chief towns are Norwich, Ipswich, and Cambridge; and of these the university town is here suggested as the capital.

Central England. Between the Cotswolds and the Chilterns the Oxford Plain forms the central part of the next province. This extends north-eastward to include the upper parts of the valleys of the Nen and the Great Ouse. Southward it is extended beyond the Goring Gap and the Berkshire Downs to include the western end of the London Basin. Across the Thames Valley the boundary between this province and London is drawn on the heaths of the eastern edge of Berkshire, across the river east of Henley, and thence directly to the crest of the Chiltern Hills. In this central province there are only five considerable towns-Northampton, Reading, Oxford, Swindon, and Bedford-none of which is really a large town. The most central of these, Oxford, is here marked as the capital.

London. The rest of the lower Thames Basin forms the London province. It includes the counties of London, Middlesex, and Hertfordshire, and parts of Essex, Kent, Surrey, and Buckinghamshire. Its boundaries have been drawn so as to include Greater London and the ports on the Thames Estuary.

Throughout this paper the importance of the regional capital has been emphasized. Without such a focus for the public life and interests of the province the prospects for the development of a strong regional patriotism, on which the local government must depend for its highest efficiency, are

This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Sun, 26 Jun 2016 10:03:30 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms NATURAL DIVISIONS OF ENGLAND I33

very slight. The sense of unity of a province is greatly increased by the possession of an active capital which is not at too great a distance from any part of it. In the divisions of England here suggested this require- ment is fairly well met, though not equally well in all cases, except in the provinces round London. These metropolitan provinces are dominated by London, and their capitals are subordinate to that city. Wessex, though somewhat further away and a much more distinct natural region, is also very much under the influence of the metropolis. The distribution of the ten universities and the four university colleges of England is of great interest in connection with the prospects of the development of a regional patriotism in each of the provinces. The value of such a focus of intellectual life as a university can be has been demonstrated to the present generation by the young universities in the populous cities. The distribution is such that in ten of our twelve provinces there is a university or university college at the town indicated as the capital; in one, Devon and Cornwall, the college is not at this town, and only one province, the south-eastern, is without such an institution. An unlooked-for result of this attempt to mark out England into provinces on some such definite principles as those stated in the early part of this paper is that the provinces so obtained consist mainly of groups of counties. Except round London only three of the ancient counties are cut up to any large extent, namely, Staffordshire, Westmorland and Wiltshire, although in very many places the boundaries are slightly moved, and the Soke of Peterborough is not placed in the same province as the County of Northampton. The most unsatisfactory of the boundaries of the ancient counties, under modern conditions, such as that along the Erewash Valley between Notts and Derbyshire and along the Mersey between Lancashire and Cheshire, disappear because the two counties fall into the same province. Such shifting of boundaries from the present county lines as is suggested is mainly from the line of a river to the margin of its valley, as from the Welland to the Northampton Heights and from the Dove to the western edge of Dovedale. In Stafford- shire the industrial development has been dual from its beginnings because of the existence of the two separate coalfields in the north and south respectively; and the placing of these into two distinct provinces is merely a recognition of existing facts. Also a small dale such as Dove- dale is so obviously a unit area that it is absurd to draw an important boundary along its stream. The division of Westmorland into the northern, or Appleby, division and the southern, or Kendal, division respectively on the northward and southward slopes from the Shap ridge, is already well established. In Wiltshire we have one of the oldest of the English shires. It became a shire when its valleys were still choked with forest and marsh, and human settlement was mainly on the open uplands. Its capital was long Old Sarum, on the chalk upland. It has

This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Sun, 26 Jun 2016 10:03:30 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms I34 NATURAL DIVISIONS OF ENGLAND remained a shire ever. since; but the clearing of the forest, and the conse- quent shifting of the population down into the valleys, has made the uplands the dividing areas, and the capital has long ago moved down to the valley bottom. In this respect Wiltshire epitomizes one of the great changes in human distribution-the upland areas which were once its populous centres are now relatively empty; while the valleys, which were almost deserted, are now the most populous districts. And from being barrier stretches of forest and swamp between the drier and more open uplands, the valleys have become the easiest routes of communication. Such a change surely justifies a corresponding change in local boundaries. One other boundary may be referred to before concluding. It has been frequently suggested, and it seems to be almost taken for granted, that in any rearrangement of the local government divisions of England the greater part of Monmouthshire would become part of Wales. It may also be suggested that at the same time some readjustment of the north- eastern boundary of the Principality would be desirable. The extension of the Welsh county of Flint beyond the Dee on to the Cheshire Plain may be justifiable on grounds of language distribution or of local sentiment; but it certainly cannot be supported by other geographical considerations, or on grounds of convenience or efficiency of administration. The same may be said of some of the smaller irregularities of the Anglo- Welsh border line. Hence the setting up of a Welsh Parliament should be made the opportunity for a rectification of this line-from which Wales would probably gain in territory, and both countries in the simplification of the boundary. In conclusion it may be said that this paper has been written in the hope of arousing some discussion on this question of what are the most suitable divisions of the country for the purposes of the local government of the people, as they are distributed to-day and in face of the modern problems of such government. To the general proposition that the present local government areas are not as well suited to the needs of our time as they might be there will probably be general assent. Of course the final position of any boundary line is a matter of more or less com- promise; but without some definite suggestions as to the divisions which might be adopted there can be no advance towards any real improve- ment. If this paper serves as a peg on which some such discussion can be hung it will have served its purpose.

The following table gives a summary of the provinces which have been suggested, with some approximate figures as to the area and population (in I91 ) of each. For the sake of completeness the other divisions of the United Kingdom have been added. All the figures are to be regarded as first approximations only.

This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Sun, 26 Jun 2016 10:03:30 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms NATURAL DIVISIONS OF ENGLAND: DISCUSSION I35

Province Population in Area in Iooo Persons per Ca ital millions. sq. miles. sq. mile. cP rC-a North England ... 27 5'4 500 Newcastle. ' ? Yorkshire ... 3-8 5'I 750 Leeds. o Lancashire ... 6'I 17'6 4' 4 25'I I390 Manchester. P X Severn ..... 29 4'7 620 Birmingham. Trent .. 21 5'5 380 Nottingham. - . Bristol 3...... I3 2-8 460 Bristol. g Cornwall and Devon I'o 36 4'I 9'8 240 Plymouth. c) : Wessex ...... I3 2-9 450 Southampton.

. l'South-east England I7 30 570 ? o = Central England I'2 4'I 290 Oxford. o 'b East England ... 6 6'o 5 270 Cambridge. X XLondon ...... 7'7 22 ) 3500 London.

Wales ... . 2'3 8'1 280 Cardiff. Scotland ...... 4'8 300 I60 Edinburgh. Ireland ... .. 4'4 32'6 130 Dublin.

Sir THOMAS HOLDICH: We are here this afternoon to listen to an interesting paper by Mr. Fawcett on the Natural Divisions of England, and without any further preliminaries I will ask him to read his paper.

Mr. Fawcett then read the paier i5rinted above and a discussion followed. Sir THOMAS HOLDICH: I am sure you will agree with me that Mr. Fawcett has given us what may be considered to be an ideal scheme for the redistribu- tion of provinces in England for the purposes of local administration. It would have been of very considerable interest to us all, I think, if he had extended his researches-which are evidently very considerable-a little further, to the dis- tressful country of Ireland. I have studied a similar question as regards Ireland, and I confess it seems to me that there are problems there which are almost incapable of solution. In partitioning up England as he has done he has observed what I have always considered to be a strictly scientific system of placing his boundaries; they are selected first of all with a full consideration of the sentiments and the idiosyncrasies of the people who are thus partitioned off, and they are plain and easily distinguishable, following fairly recognizable geographical features. But there must be gentlemen here who are far better acquainted with the subject than I am, and I hope that some of them will add to the interest of the afternoon by stating their views. Dr. UNSTEAD : I have hesitation in advancing criticisms, bearing in mind the necessity for much more study of the paper than I have had an opportunity of devoting to it; but I may say that after reading Mr. Fawcett's paper and listening to his exposition I find I am in very considerable agreement with him as regards the particular delimitations he has made. I question, however, several of the fundamental assumptions on which the delimitation is based. In the first place, it seems to me that the problem of the division of England into administrative areas is really not a geographical problem. The geographer may offer certain suggestions in regard to it, but it properly belongs to the sphere of public administration, in which much more than geographical considerations must be taken into account. The historian must be consulted, for a great many questions of the past are involved; the expert in administration who knows the advantages and disadvantages of working with certain types of boundaries and areas will have much to say ; others also should contribute, and then when all the contributions have been put together a solution may be

This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Sun, 26 Jun 2016 10:03:30 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 6 5 4f 3 2 1 55

55 r ,sa

Scal, t1 ~ ~ 'psrto N11]( Mes to / ~~ IP R~ ~ I X SE -y_': ~Oxfor4 431~~~~~~oi"d~~l rv2 sC$~a8 mP ' - S i~

s~~~~~~~~~~~m

hiverp Mih

a C~~oa

4 ~~~~~Abex-Dretwi t S -it to ij** .8 8~~~~~~kaih 52 ~ 51~Y/ 06v ~"o;"~lyiP~k~6~i~3~K]e ~i~8~c~i~ W

This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Sun, 26 Jun 2016 10:03:30 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms THE GEOGRAPHICAL JOURNAL FEB. 1917.

E NGLAND

Suggesteda Provinces by C.B. FAWCETT, B. Litt.,M. Sc.

Scale 1/2,500,000 or i Inch= 39-4 Statute Miles.

Miles to to -20 30 40 o0 60 Miles l -, - I- d | -

- Bonudawies of Sug.qested Proinces Oxford Sugaested Cpitals * Seat of VzT'ersies at Unwersiy CoUeges 3 -- Co4unty BotUdaries

Reference

2000 feet

Sea level

This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Sun, 26 Jun 2016 10:03:30 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms I dJ

50 C A

5 3 2 1

PubisheL by th RoyaL G&egraprwi Sociey.

This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Sun, 26 Jun 2016 10:03:30 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms E I if f

0 1

This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Sun, 26 Jun 2016 10:03:30 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms