Subject: Constituency History - To: MP From: Neil Johnston Reference: 2011/1/66-PCC Date: 31 January 2011

You asked for a constituency history of the Cheltenham constituency, with reference to the five parishes that surround the centre of Cheltenham – , , Prestbury, Swindon and .

Below is the constituency history (which will be published on the Library’s intranet in due course). The introduction gives a summary of the main changes. As you know, parish and ward boundaries are not static and I have done my best to detail the changes. It has been difficult to be precise on occasions as the maps provided for older Parliamentary Boundary Commission reports vary in their detail. Also I have no access to any maps that detail parish boundary changes in the period between the two World Wards.

I hope this helps. I can photocopy the maps that I have if it would be useful. Let me know if that is the case and I can forward them in the post.

1 Contents

1 Introduction 3

2 Early Representation 4

3 Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Century Changes 5 3.1 Great Reform Act of 1832 5 3.2 Boundary Commission Review 1868 6 3.3 Boundary Commission Review 1885 7 3.4 Boundary Commission Review 1917 7

4 Boundary Commission Periodical Reviews 8 4.1 First Periodical Review 9 4.2 Second Periodical Review 9 4.3 Third Periodical Review 9 4.4 Fourth Periodical Review 10 4.5 Fifth Periodical Review 11

5 Previous Members 13

6 Maiden Speeches 16

7 Selected Bibliography 17

Appendix 1 19

Appendix 2 20

2 1 Introduction Cheltenham is a borough constituency in and is comprised of all but two of the borough of Cheltenham wards. The two northern wards not included in the constituency, Prestbury and , form part of the Tewkesbury constituency. Swindon Village has never formed part of the Cheltenham constituency but Prestbury was included in the seat between 1983 and 1997.

The current boundaries of the borough of Cheltenham were formed in 1991, following changes that transferred parts of surrounding parishes, including Swindon, Prestbury, Leckhampton and Up Hatherley from the borough of Tewkesbury to the borough of Cheltenham. Charlton Kings had already been included in the borough in 1974 when local government reorganisation in and Wales was implemented. Before 1974 Charlton Kings was a separate parish and urban district.

From 1832 until 1868 the borough constituency of Cheltenham comprised only the parish of the same name. Surrounding parishes, Charlton Kings, Up Hatherley, Leckhampton, Swindon and Prestbury were in the Eastern Gloucestershire county division. In 1868 part of the parish of Leckhampton was included within the Cheltenham constituency for the first time. The Boundary Commission proposed, at the time, to include parts of Charlton Kings in the Cheltenham seat but this was rejected by a Select Committee of the House of Commons.

In 1885 the boundaries of the Cheltenham constituency were extended again, this time to include Charlton Kings. Charlton Kings has been included in the Cheltenham constituency ever since. The surrounding parishes of Swindon, Prestbury, Up Hatherley and Leckhampton remained beyond the Cheltenham constituency boundary and were included in the Tewkesbury constituency, which encircled the Cheltenham seat at the time.

The next Parliamentary boundary changes occurred in 1918. In this review the parishes to the south of Cheltenham were included in the Stroud constituency and those to the north were included in the Tewkesbury seat, which was merged with the Cirencester seat and renamed. The constituency boundaries remained unchanged until 1950, although there were alterations to parish boundaries in the time between the 1918 and 1950 reviews.

In the first review of constituency boundaries after the Second World War the southern parishes were transferred back to the Cirencester and Tewkesbury seat and the constituency

3 once again encircled the Cheltenham seat. The Cheltenham constituency boundaries were then unchanged until the Third Periodical Review was implemented, in 1983. In this review the Cheltenham seat included all of the borough of Cheltenham, as it existed at the time (Cheltenham and Charlton Kings), and the wards covering Prestbury, Up Hatherley and Leckhampton even though they formed part of the borough of Tewkesbury.

Between 1983 and 1997 therefore the area of the current Cheltenham constituency was contained within the Cheltenham constituency as constituted by the Third Periodical Review of Parliamentary constituencies in England.

The Fourth Periodical Review, implemented at the 1997 general election, transferred Prestbury, Swindon, Up Hatherley and Leckhampton back to the Tewkesbury seat (which had once again been separated from Cirencester) even though most of those parishes had been incorporated into the borough of Cheltenham in 1991.

The latest constituency boundaries were implemented at the 2010 general election and followed the Fifth Periodical Review. This review took into account new ward boundaries, which had been incorporated in 2001, and transferred the area around Swindon Road (now included in the Swindon Village ward) from the Cheltenham seat to the Tewkesbury seat. There were also minor realignments of the northern boundary along the Prestbury ward boundary but these did not affect any electors.

In the south of the Cheltenham constituency the area that had been in the old Leckhampton with Up Hatherley ward (now split between the three new wards of Leckhampton, Up Hatherley, and Warden Hill) were transferred from the Tewkesbury seat to the Cheltenham seat. This made the southern constituency boundary coterminous with the borough boundary.

2 Early Representation The ancient county of Gloucestershire has been represented in Parliament by the knights of the shire since the thirteenth century. It was this period that saw the practice of returning two knights from the shire counties to Parliaments summoned by writ to meet. These were generally regarded as the first assemblies of representatives.1 At that time Westminster had yet to become the permanent home of Parliament. It was the King who decided when and where a Parliament should assemble, and although Westminster was the usual venue, sometimes special circumstances in this period meant Parliaments were summoned to other cities.

In this early period of Parliamentary history not all Parliaments summoned just shire Knights. Some also required the presence of two representatives of each city and borough. Bristol and Gloucester first returned MPs in 1295 and two other boroughs were granted the status of a Parliamentary borough, Cirencester in 1572 and Tewkesbury in 1614.

Cheltenham, which was an ancient market town which derived its importance from mineral springs discovered in the eighteenth century, had no separate Parliamentary representation before 1832 and would therefore have been represented by the two county MPs for Gloucestershire.

1 House of Commons Information Office, Factsheet G3 A Brief Chronology of the House of Commons

4 3 Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Century Changes 3.1 Great Reform Act of 1832 The Representation of the People Act 1832 reformed the distribution of seats in England and Wales. It introduced the principle of splitting the shire counties, including Gloucestershire, into divisions and returning two Members for each division rather than for the whole county. It also reformed the Parliamentary boroughs that were entitled to send Members to Parliament.2 For some counties it increased the number of Members to represent the whole of the county rather than dividing the county into divisions.

The Boundary Commission proposals that followed the Act, published in 1832, made recommendations relating to the boundaries of the Parliamentary boroughs and divisions of counties that had been divided.3 These recommendations were implemented by the Parliamentary Boundaries Act 1832.4

Gloucestershire retained all its existing Parliamentary boroughs and two new ones were created, Stroud and Cheltenham. Stroud returned two MPs, like the existing boroughs, but Cheltenham was granted the right to return a single MP. There was much debate in Parliament about which boroughs should receive representation and the relative merits of boroughs granted single or double representation. One MP stated that he:

would not trouble the House by endeavouring to discover on what principle it was that Representation was to be given in the one instance, to the manufacturing importance of Birmingham, and, in the second place, to the water-drinking and sea-bathing interests of Brighton and Cheltenham. It was impossible for him to comprehend why Representation was given to places of resort for fashionable loungers, and the rising sea ports of the kingdom were denied them.5

The Boundary Commission decided that the boundaries of the Parliamentary borough of Cheltenham should be the same as the parish of Cheltenham. The Commission noted that the town was entirely within the parish boundary and there was ample space for the probable expansion of the town, which was ‘very flourishing; and is rapidly increasing’.6

At this time Arle and were at the north end of the parish. The modern Old Bath Road marked the eastern boundary. A spur between Leckhampton Road and Old Bath Road was within the parish but the southern boundary extended from Tivoli to Grovefield. The Park and Up Hatherley were beyond the boundary at this time. The western boundary ran between where GCHQ is now located and Golden Valley, much as the modern borough boundary does.

It meant that although much of the modern Cheltenham constituency was included within the Parliamentary borough boundaries at this time, Charlton Kings, Leckhampton, Up Hatherley and Warden Hill were beyond the borough boundaries and were therefore represented by the county MPs. The area beyond the Parliamentary borough boundaries was in the new Eastern Gloucestershire division.

2 Representation of the People Act 1832, (2 Will 4, chapter 45) 3 Parliamentary Representation Boundary Reports in Eighteen Volumes, 1831-2 4 Parliamentary Boundaries Act 1832 (2 and 3 Will 4 chapter 64) 5 HC Deb 20 March 1832, c501 6 Parliamentary Representation Boundary Reports in Eighteen Volumes, 1831-2

5 3.2 Boundary Commission Review 1868 The 1868 review carried out by the Boundary Commission followed the Representation of the People Act 1867. This Act appointed the Commission to inquire into the boundaries of the new boroughs created by the Act; the counties the Act had newly divided, and to review all other existing boroughs that had not been disenfranchised by the Act. In inquiring into existing boroughs, the Commissioners had the power to recommend extension of borough boundaries if it thought this was appropriate. This Act also increased the number of Members representing the growing industrial cities of Birmingham, Leeds, Manchester and Liverpool, from two to three.7 The Commissioners conducted local inquiries and reported in 1868. 8

In Gloucestershire the county divisions were unchanged. Of the boroughs, Tewkesbury and Cirencester were reduced to single Member boroughs and the boundaries of some of the boroughs were altered, including Cheltenham.

The Boundary Commission recommended the extension of the boundaries of the Parliamentary borough of Cheltenham to include parts of the neighbouring parishes of Leckhampton and Charlton Kings because the Commission reported that the town of Cheltenham had expanded beyond the boundaries of the Cheltenham parish.9 This was strongly opposed locally and the Boundary Commission report was contentious in many boroughs where boundary changes were recommended.

To the annoyance of the government the protests of the towns and of influential Radicals in the House succeeded in bringing about the partial rejection of the Commission’s report. In the face of continuing hostility Disraeli finally suggested giving to a select committee the task of reconsidering the more contentious of the Commissioners’ findings.10

Evidence presented to the Select Committee, including petitions from residents of Cheltenham, Leckhampton and Charlton Kings, opposed the proposed extension of the boundaries of the Cheltenham seat. The residents of Leckhampton and Charlton Kings were concerned about the effect on the level of rates in the parishes if they were included within the Parliamentary borough. The petition from Charlton Kings also stated that the buildings near the parish boundary of Cheltenham and Prestbury had more in common with Cheltenham but that none of the parish of Prestbury was included in the proposed extension.

The people of Cheltenham, including the sitting Conservative MP, opposed the inclusion of what they saw as country villages of an agricultural character within the Parliamentary borough. The petition from Cheltenham also expressed concern that the residents eligible to vote in the proposed extensions paid no rates to Cheltenham and had different local interests. Reference was also made to the arbitrary nature of the new boundaries 11

7 Representation of the People Act 1867 (30 & 31 Vict chapter 102) 8 Report of the Boundary Commissioners for England and Wales, 3972, 1868 9 Ibid, pp71-2 10 House of Commons Background Paper, Parliamentary Boundary Commissions and the Redistribution of Seats, February 1983 11 House of Commons, Boundaries of boroughs. Return to an order of the Honourable the House of Commons, dated 5 June 1868;--for, copy "of all petitions, letters, papers, and memorials laid before the Select Committee on the Boundaries of Boroughs, together with the reports of the assistant commissioners, HC 318 1867/68

6 The Select Committee recommended that the area of the Leckhampton parish where Cheltenham had grown and crossed the parish boundary should be included but that no part of the Charlton Kings parish should be included in the Parliamentary borough.12

The area of Leckhampton included in the Parliamentary borough of Cheltenham was the area around The Park, including Tryes Road, Grafton Road, and Painswick Road. The area to the south between Moorend Park Road and Leckhampton Road was also included but at this time most of the area was Moorend Farm and few of the modern roads existed.

3.3 Boundary Commission Review 1885 The next review occurred in 1885. In major cities like Liverpool, Manchester and Birmingham there was a major change to the distribution of seats. Until now these had been Parliamentary boroughs returning multiple members. The Redistribution of Seats Bill made provision for larger boroughs to be divided into single Member divisions and county divisions to be divided into single member county constituencies. A Boundary Commission was established to recommend boundaries while the Bill was still going through Parliament. The Commission was appointed in November 1884 and reported in February 1885.13 The recommendations were incorporated into the Bill which became the Redistribution of Seats Act 1885.14

In this review Cirencester, Stroud and Tewkesbury were all abolished as Parliamentary boroughs and the names of the constituencies transferred to new county constituencies. The county at large was divided into five constituencies. Bristol was split into single member borough constituencies but Cheltenham and Gloucester continued to return one MP each representing the whole borough.

The boundaries of the Parliamentary borough of Cheltenham were extended to include “so much of the parish of Charlton Kings as lies to the north of the present railway leading from Cheltenham to .”15 The railway has since gone but it crossed the Cirencester Road next to the site of the Barcelo Cheltenham Park Hotel. This meant that the urban northern parts of the modern wards of Charlton Park and Charlton Kings were included in the Parliamentary borough along with the urban eastern part of the Battledown ward; the more rural parts to the south and west were still beyond the Parliamentary borough.

The areas not included in the Parliamentary borough of Cheltenham, which still included Swindon Village, Leckhampton village and Prestbury formed part of the new county constituency of Tewkesbury (which was also known as the Northern Gloucestershire division in the legislation). The Tewkesbury constituency covered most of the area of the modern equivalent but also extended as far south as Berkeley and Whitminster.

3.4 Boundary Commission Review 1917 The next Boundary Commission review reported in 1917,16 and the results were incorporated into the Representation of the People Act 1918.17 The Act made many changes to constituencies and elections in the UK.

12 House of Commons, Report from the Select Committee on Boundaries of Boroughs; with the proceedings of the committee, HC 311 1867/68 13 Boundary Commission for England and Wales Report, C 4287, 1885 14 Redistribution of Seats Act 1885 (48 & 49 Vict chapter 23) 15 Redistribution of Seats Act 1885 (48 & 49 Vict chapter 23), Schedule 5 16 Boundary Commission (England & Wales) Report and Appendices, Cd 8756, 1917

7 In Gloucestershire, Cheltenham retained its status as a borough constituency but its definition was that it comprised the municipal borough of Cheltenham and the urban district of Charlton Kings. There had been local government changes since the 1885 review and Charlton Kings had become a local government urban district and the Cheltenham parish had become a municipal borough (there had been boundary changes between the two parishes in 1894). Part of the Leckhampton parish had been transferred to the Cheltenham parish in 1894 but the village of Leckhampton and the parish of Up Hatherley were still separate from Cheltenham at this time. Swindon and Prestbury also remained separate parishes.18

The three parishes north of Cheltenham, Swindon, Prestbury and Uckington, formed an isolated part of the local government rural district of Cheltenham. The remaining parishes of the Cheltenham rural district were south of Cheltenham and included Leckhampton, Up Hatherley, Staverton, Coberley and Great Witcombe in the south.

The northern parishes were allocated to the Cirencester and Tewkesbury constituency (the Tewkesbury seat had been abolished and the northern parts transferred to the Cirencester seat but the Boundary Commission had not included Tewkesbury in the constituency name. This was added later as the Bill went through Parliament). The southern parishes formed part of the modified Stroud seat which gained much of the southern parts of the abolished Tewkesbury constituency.

4 Boundary Commission Periodical Reviews The regular reviews of Parliamentary constituencies have their origins in the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1944. This Act instructed the Boundary Commission for England to conduct an initial review of all seats with a view to keeping them under constant review. One of the Rules in this review was that all two Member boroughs should be divided and return a single Member for each division unless the Commission felt it “undesirable to divide it”. The recommendations of the initial review were published in 1947.19 This formed the basis of the Representation of the People Act 1948.20 The following year the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1949 was passed, which repealed the 1944 Act, but took the principle of periodic review forward and established the rules for the reviews. 21

The Cheltenham constituency remained defined as comprising the borough of Cheltenham and the urban district of Charlton Kings. There had been further alterations to the parish boundaries of Cheltenham, Charlton Kings and Leckhampton in 1935.22 The new constituency boundaries would therefore have reflected the changes in the local administrative boundaries but the maps and explanations included in the final Boundary Commission report were less detailed than the modern equivalents. It is therefore not possible to determine exactly which parts of Leckhampton were transferred to become part of Cheltenham and therefore part of the Cheltenham constituency.

17 Representation of the People Act 1918, (7 & 8 Geo V, chapter 64) 18 FA Youngs Jnr, Guide to Local Administrative Units of England, Vol I, 1980, pp159-92 19 Boundary Commission for England Constituted in accordance with the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seat) Act 1944 Initial Report, Cmd 7260, October 1947 20 Representation of the People Act 1948, (11 & 12 Geo 6, chapter 65) 21 The House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1949 (12 & 13 Geo 6 chapter 66) 22 FA Youngs Jnr, Guide to Local Administrative Units of England, Vol I, 1980, pp159-92

8 Prestbury and Swindon Village and the parishes to the south of Cheltenham continued to form part of the rural district of Cheltenham. The district now also included parts of the old rural districts of Tewkesbury and Winchcombe, which had both been abolished since the previous constituency boundary review.23 The rural district of Cheltenham was allocated to the Cirencester and Tewkesbury county constituency. The parishes south of Cheltenham were therefore transferred from the Stroud seat to the Cirencester and Tewkesbury seat and the Cirencester and Tewkesbury seat now encircled Cheltenham.

4.1 First Periodical Review The first full periodical review followed in 1953-4 with the report published in 1954.24 In this review the Cheltenham constituency was unaltered. The Tetbury area was transferred from the Cirencester and Tewkesbury constituency to the Stroud constituency but the rural district of Cheltenham remained in the Cirencester and Tewkesbury seat. These new boundaries were first used in the 1955 general election.

4.2 Second Periodical Review The Second Periodical Review was published in 1969, having commenced in February 1965.25 The 1969 recommendations were not implemented until after the 1970 general election, so the new boundaries were not used until the general elections of 1974 and continued to be used for the 1979 general election. For more detail see Research Paper 92/61 The Parliamentary Boundary Commissions and the Boundary Commissions Bill.

As with the previous review the Cheltenham constituency was unaltered. The Cirencester and Tewkesbury constituency was altered to take into account administrative boundary changes between the rural district of Cheltenham, Tewkesbury and the rural district of North Cotswold and along the northern boundary of the county. All three areas remained within the Cirencester and Tewkesbury constituency, which continued to encircle the Cheltenham constituency and included Prestbury, Swindon, Leckhampton and Up Hatherley.

4.3 Third Periodical Review The next periodical review commenced in 1976, and the report was published in 1983.26 This was the first periodical review following the local government reorganization of 1974. The major changes to local government and county boundaries resulting from the Local Government Act 1972 had created the new non-metropolitan county of Avon which included the southern part of the old county of Gloucestershire.27 The remainder of the county was constituted as the new county of Gloucestershire and one of the new local government districts within the county was the borough of Cheltenham which was created by merging Cheltenham and Charlton Kings. The rural district of Cheltenham, including Leckhampton, Up Hatherley, Prestbury and Swindon, was merged with the borough of Tewkesbury and the parts of the rural district of Gloucester to form the new district of Tewkesbury.28

The Boundary Commission allocated Gloucestershire five seats and kept the distribution of the seats broadly similar as before, making adjustments to take into account the new administrative boundaries. However, the Commission decided that although the

23 Ibid, pp605-12 24 Boundary Commission for England First Periodical Report, Cmd 9311, November 1954 25 Boundary Commission for England Second Periodical Report, Cmnd 4084, June 1969 26 Boundary Commission for England Third Periodical Report, Cmnd 8797, February 1983 27 Local Government Act 1972 (chapter 70) 28 English Non-metropolitan District (Definition) Order 1972 SI 1972/2039

9 constituency boundaries of the existing Cheltenham and Gloucester constituencies were coterminous with the new local government districts of Cheltenham and Gloucester, and they both had electorates close to the electoral quota set for the Third Review, in order to create appropriately sized seats across the rest of Gloucestershire both Cheltenham and Gloucester should include wards from neighbouring districts.

The Commission therefore recommended that the Cheltenham constituency should include three Tewkesbury wards south of the borough Cheltenham, Leckhampton and Up Hatherley, Crickley, and . Following a local inquiry this was altered. The Assistant Commissioner conducting the inquiry recommended accepting a counter-proposal submitted to the inquiry that the two wards covering Prestbury, to the north of Cheltenham, should be included instead of the Crickley and Shurdington wards. The Assistant Commissioner rejected a proposal that the Leckhampton and Up Hatherley ward should be excluded from the Cheltenham constituency because he considered “the ward to be more urbanised that the Crickley and Shurdington wards”.29

The Cheltenham constituency therefore comprised all the wards of the borough of Cheltenham (as they were then constituted) and the borough of Tewkesbury wards of Leckhampton and Up Hatherley, Prestbury St Mary’s and Prestbury St Nicholas. The new boundaries were implemented by order in 1983.30 They were used in the 1983, 1987 and 1992 general elections. This meant that between 1983 and 1997 all the areas currently in the Cheltenham seat were within the constituency boundaries even though the whole area was not within the borough boundary until 1991 (see below).

4.4 Fourth Periodical Review The Fourth Periodical Review commenced in February 1991 and reported to Parliament in June 1995.31 The Boundary Commission allocated Gloucestershire an extra seat in this review, making boundary changes inevitable. The extra seat was largely created by dividing the old Cirencester and Tewkesbury seat but the Commission also noted that “none of the seats could remain unchanged” because all five existing seats were significantly higher than the electoral quota set for the review.

Since the previous review the borough of Cheltenham had been extended. Parts of the parishes of Swindon, Prestbury, , Up Hatherley and Leckhampton were transferred to the borough of Cheltenham from the borough of Tewkesbury, with consequential changes made to parish boundaries. The Order also affected the Uckington, Southam and Shurdington parishes.32

The parts of Swindon and Prestbury that were transferred to Cheltenham retained their parish status and names (the rest of Cheltenham borough was unparished by this time) with the parts of the old parishes not transferred to Cheltenham transferred to the parishes of Bishop’s Cleeve and Southam respectively (which remained part of the borough of Tewkesbury).33 The parts of the parishes of Up Hatherley and Leckhampton which were

29 Boundary Commission for England Third Periodical Report, Cmnd 8797, February 1983, p106 30 Parliamentary Constituencies (England) Order 1983, SI 1983/417 31 Boundary Commission for England Fourth Periodical Report, Cm 433, 6 June 1995 32 The Gloucestershire (District Boundaries) Order 1991, SI 1991/ 281 33 Parishes originally had ecclesiastical and secular roles but as the two roles became separated the boundaries of the two types of parish started to diverge. As the structure of local government has changed over time the role of the civil parish changed and in many urban areas the civil parish ceased to exist. However, unparished areas now have the power to petition for community governance reviews to establish or alter parishes in any part of England, including London. (Paul Clayden, The Parish Councillor’s Guide, 2009, pp14-5).

10 transferred to Cheltenham also retained their parish status and names but the parts of both parishes not transferred to Cheltenham were transferred to the Shurdington parish and remained part of the borough of Tewkesbury. The part of the parish of Badgeworth transferred to Cheltenham (The Reddings) formed part of the unparished part of Cheltenham (see Appendix 2 for a guide map to the changes).

The subsequent alterations to Cheltenham borough wards required to include the new parts of the borough were implemented by the Gloucestershire Districts (Electoral Arrangements) Order 1991.34 The Boundary Commission had to take into account these changes when allocating constituency boundaries.

The electorate of the district of Tewkesbury was too small to form a Parliamentary constituency with boundaries coterminous with the local authority. The electorate of the enlarged borough of Cheltenham was too large to form a Parliamentary constituency. The Boundary Commission therefore decided to include the new Cheltenham wards of Swindon, Prestbury and Leckhampton with Up Hatherley to the new Tewkesbury constituency. This meant that although Swindon now formed part of the borough of Cheltenham it remained in the Tewkesbury seat and even though Prestbury and Leckhampton and Up Hatherley were now part of the borough, and had been included in the Cheltenham constituency since 1983, they were transferred to the Tewkesbury constituency.

The Cheltenham constituency therefore comprised 11 of the 14 wards of the borough of Cheltenham (as they were then constituted): All Saints’, Charlton Kings, College, Hatherley and The Reddings, , Lansdown, Park, Pittville, St Mark’s, St Paul’s, and St Peter’s.

4.5 Fifth Periodical Review The Fifth Periodical Review of constituencies in England commenced in February 2000 and was published in February 2007. The final recommendations adopted by the Commission and approved by Parliament were used for the first time at the 2010 general election.

The Boundary Commission decided to continue to allocate six constituencies to Gloucestershire. The wards in Cheltenham and across Gloucestershire had been reconstituted in 2001 and the Boundary Commission had to take into account new ward boundaries in allocating constituency boundaries.35 Six of Cheltenham borough’s wards were now divided between the Cheltenham constituency and the Tewkesbury constituency.

In its provisional recommendations the Boundary Commission realigned the constituency boundaries with the new ward boundaries. In doing so it allocated the four divided wards of Leckhampton, Oakley, Up Hatherley and Warden Hill wholly to the Cheltenham constituency and the divided wards of Prestbury and Swindon Village wholly to the Tewkesbury constituency. This meant that the Cheltenham constituency gained an area to the south of the constituency, around Warden Hill and Up Hatherley, which was transferred from the Tewkesbury constituency; and lost a small area, to the north of the constituency, in the Swindon Village ward, which was transferred to the Tewkesbury constituency. The Commission proposed no further changes to the Cheltenham constituency.

Following the publication of the Boundary Commission’s recommendations a local inquiry was held in Gloucestershire. One counter-proposal suggested that all six constituencies in

34 SI 1991/793 35 The Borough of Cheltenham (Electoral Changes) Order 2001 SI 2001/3882

11 Gloucestershire should be conterminous with their local government district boundaries. This would mean that the two Cheltenham Borough wards of Prestbury and Swindon Village, to the north of Cheltenham, would be transferred from the Tewkesbury constituency to the Cheltenham constituency. A separate proposal suggested that Gloucestershire should be allocated an extra, seventh, constituency. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the first counter-proposal as he deemed that it would result in unacceptable disparities between constituency electorates. He also rejected the second counter-proposal on the grounds that the size of the electorate in Gloucestershire meant it was not entitled to seven constituencies.

The Boundary Commission accepted the Assistant Commissioner’s recommendations in full. This meant that the final proposal submitted to Parliament for approval was the same as the Commission’s initial recommendations. Thus, the Cheltenham constituency was confirmed as comprising eighteen Borough of Cheltenham wards (see Appendix 1 for full list) and having an electorate, based on 2000 figures, of 73,330.

The draft Order approving the Boundary Commission’s final recommendations was laid before Parliament on 26 February 2007 and was subject to the affirmative procedure. The House of Commons considered the draft Order on 27 March 2007 in the Fourth Delegated Legislation Committee36 and it was formally approved by the House on 16 April 2007.37 The House of Lords approved the draft Order on 17 May 200738 with the approved Order being made on 13 June 2007 and coming into force 14 days after that.39 The full details of the provisional recommendations and the local inquiry can be viewed on an archive of the Boundary Commission website.40

36 SC Deb (4DLC) 27 March 2007 c3-26 37 HC Deb 16 April 2007, c131-2 38 HL Deb 17 May 2007, c380-3 39 Parliamentary Constituencies (England) Order SI 2007/1681 40http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100221151902/http://www.boundarycommissionforengland.org.uk/r eview.shtml

12 5 Previous Members The following lists give details of Members who have represented the Cheltenham constituency since 1832.41,42,43,44 For biographical details of Members pre-1979 see Stenton and Lees‘ various volumes. 45

1832-1885 Cheltenham (Parliamentary Borough with one seat) Dates Election Member Party

1832 General election Hon Craven Berkeley Liberal

1835 General election Hon Craven Berkeley Liberal

1837 General election Hon Craven Berkeley Liberal

1841 General election Hon Craven Berkeley Liberal

1847 General election Sir Willoughby Jones Conservative

1848 (June) By-election (1847 Election void Hon Craven Berkeley Liberal on petition)

1848 (Sept) By-election (1848 By-election Charles Berkeley Liberal void on petition)

1852 General election Hon Craven Berkeley Liberal

1855 By-election (CF Berkeley died) Charles Berkeley Liberal

1856 By-election (CL Berkeley Francis Berkeley Liberal resigned)

1857 General election Francis Berkeley Liberal

1859 General election Francis Berkeley Liberal

1865 General election Charles Schreiber Conservative

1868 General election Henry Samuelson Liberal

1874 General election James Agg-Gardner Conservative

1880 General election Baron Charles De Ferrieres Liberal

41 FWS Craig, British Parliamentary Election Results 1932 – 1885, 1977; British Parliamentary Results 1885- 1918, 1974; British Parliamentary Election Results 1918 - 1949, 1983; British Parliamentary Election Results 1950 – 1973, 1983; British Parliamentary Election Results 1974 – 1983, 1984 42 Rallings and Thrasher, British Parliamentary Election Results 1983 – 1997, 1999, Britain Votes 6: British Parliamentary Election Results, 1997, 1998 43 Electoral Commission, Election 2001: The Official Results, 2001 44 Times Guide to the House of Commons 2005, 2005 45 Stenton and Lees, Who’s Who of British Members of Parliament Volume I, 1832-1885, 1976; Who’s Who of British Members of Parliament Volume II 1886-1918, 1978;Who’s Who of British Members of Parliament Volume III 1919-1945, 1979 and Who’s Who of British Members of Parliament Volume IV1945-79, 1981

13 1885 – present Cheltenham (Single seat borough constituency) Dates Election Member Party Majority

1885 General election James Agg-Gardner Conservative 804

1886 General election James Agg-Gardner Conservative 1,063

1892 General election James Agg-Gardner Conservative 631

1895 General election Francis Russell Conservative 469

1900 General election James Agg-Gardner Conservative Unopposed

1906 General election John Sears Liberal 401

1910(Jan) General election Viscount Duncannon Conservative 138

1910(Dec) General election Richard Mathias Liberal 93

1911 By-election (Election James Agg-Gardner Conservative 4 declared void on petition)

1918 General election Sir James Agg-Gardner Conservative 3,285

1922 General election Sir James Agg-Gardner Conservative 3,146

1923 General election Sir James Agg-Gardner Conservative 1,344

1924 General election Rt Hon Sir James Agg- Conservative 2,763 Gardner

1928 By-election (Agg- Sir Walter Preston Conservative 3,760 Gardner died)

1929 General election Sir Walter Preston Conservative 6,746

1931 General election Sir Walter Preston Conservative 17,261

1935 General election Sir Walter Preston Conservative 10,790

1937 By-election (Preston Daniel Lipson Independent 339 resigns) Conservative

1945 General election Daniel Lipson National 4,986 Independent

1950 General election William Beach Conservative 4,982

1951 General election William Beach Conservative 5,897

1955 General election William Beach Conservative 7,621

14 1959 General election William Beach Conservative 9,272

1964 General election Douglas Dodds-Parker Conservative 5,240

1966 General election Douglas Dodds-Parker Conservative 2,915

1970 General election Douglas Dodds-Parker Conservative 8,610

1974(Feb) General election Sir Douglas Dodds-Parker Conservative 5,912

1974(Oct) General election Charles Irving Conservative 8,454

1979 General election Charles Irving Conservative 10,583

1983 General election Charles Irving Conservative 5,518

1987 General election Charles Irving Conservative 4,896

1992 General election Nigel Jones Liberal 1,668 Democrat

1997 General election Nigel Jones Liberal 6,645 Democrat

2001 General election Nigel Jones Liberal 5,255 Democrat

2005 General election Martin Horwood Liberal 2,303 Democrat

2010 General election Martin Horwood Liberal 4,920 Democrat

15 6 Maiden Speeches This table gives the Hansard references for the Maiden Speeches of MPs for the Cheltenham constituency since the Second World War. 46

Member Maiden Speech

Daniel Lipson HC Deb 27 October 1937, c121-6

William Beach HC Deb 21 April 1950, c517-9

Douglas Dodds-Parker* HC Deb 5 December 1945, c2418-22

Charles Irving HC Deb 11 December 1974, c566-9

Nigel Jones HC Deb 15 May 1992, 207 c877-9

Martin Horwood HC Deb 24 May 2005, 434 c627-30

*Dodds-Parker made his maiden speech as MP for Banbury

46 House of Commons Library, Maiden Speeches 1945 – 1979 http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/briefings/snpc-04587.pdf House of Commons Library, Maiden Speeches 1979 Onwards http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/briefings/snpc-04588.pdf accessed 26 January 2011.

16 7 Selected Bibliography The material listed is taken from a specialised bibliography, below, and from the catalogues of the Commons Library and others. For Members and those at Westminster, much of the material is held in the Commons Library, or can be borrowed. For those outside Westminster, material should be obtained from local libraries or through the British Library. 47

The bibliography is Janet Seaton’s English Constituency Histories 1265-1832: a guide to printed sources (House of Commons Library Document, 15. HMSO, 1986). It is being updated to include Scotland, Wales and Ireland, and material post-1832.

The list contains abbreviated references to the constituencies’ volumes of the History of Parliament Trust (H.O.P.T.) series about the House of Commons. There is more information on the Trust’s website.48 The series consists of

1386-1421, by J S Roskell, L Clark and C Rawcliffe. 4 vols. Alan Sutton, 1992. 1509-1558, by S T Bindoff. 3 vols. Secker & Warburg, 1982. 1558-1603, by P W Hasler. 3 vols. HMSO, 1981. 1660-1690, by B D Henning. 3 vols. Secker & Warburg, 1983. 1690-1715, by E Cruickshanks, S Handley and D W Hayton. 5 vols. Cambridge University Press, 2002. 1715-1754, by R Sedgwick. 2 vols. HMSO, 1970. 1754-1790, by Sir L Namier and J Brooke. 3 vols. HMSO, 1964. 1790-1820, by R G Thorne. 5 vols. Secker & Warburg, 1986.

The list also contains references to the Victoria County History, published for the University of London Institute of Historical Research. There is more information on the VCH website.49 Some are available to read via British History Online.4

Some works relating to pre- and post-reform representation in each constituency are

Oldfield, Thomas Hinton Burley. The representative history of Great Britain and Ireland. 6 vols. London: Baldwin, Cradock and Joy, 1816. Vols 3, 4 and 5: English constituencies.

Parliament. House of Commons. Return of the names of every Member returned to serve in each Parliament . . . London: HMSO, 1878-1891. Part 1. Parliaments of England 1213-1702 (HC69) Part 2. Parliaments of Great Britain 1705-1796; Parliaments of the 1801-1874. (HC69-I) Parts 3 and 4. Indexes, appendices and corrigenda (HC69-II and HC69-III)

Porritt, Edward. The unreformed House of Commons: Parliamentary representation before 1832. By Edward Porritt assisted by Annie G Porritt. 2 vols. Cambridge University Press, 1903 and 1909. (reprinted 1963). Vol 1: England and Wales.

Rankin, Michael Henry. Present state of representation in England and Wales ... London: Baldwin and Cradock, 1832. Describes each new constituency, its boundaries and franchise.

47 Selected Bibliography compiled by Sarah Pepin, House of Commons Library 48 http://www.histparl.ac.uk/ 3 http://www.victoriacountyhistory.ac.uk/NationalSite/Home/Main 4 http://www.british-history.ac.uk/Default.aspx

17 1. Hart, Gwen. A history of Cheltenham. Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1965. Ch. XVIII: Party politics and general elections.

2. Cannon, John. Gloucestershire politics 1750-1800. Bristol and Gloucestershire Arch. Soc. Trans., 79, 1960 p293-7. Gloucestershire county.

3. Gloucestershire elections of 1640. Gloucestershire Notes and Queries, (i) 1881 p410-4.

4. H.O.P.T. (Gloucestershire) 1386-1421 I, p398-403 1509-1558 I, p91-2 1559-1603 I, p162 1660-1690 I, p236-7 1690-1715 II, p202-9 1715-1754 I, p243-4 1754-1790 I, p281-3 1790-1820 II, p165-7

5. Howe, J. R. Corruption in British elections in the early twentieth century: some examples from Gloucestershire. Midlands History, V, 1979-80 p63-77.

Describes electioneering in Gloucester and Cheltenham and corrupt practices before 1914. Includes footnotes with bibliographic references.

6. Howe, J. R. Liberal Party organisation in Gloucestershire before 1914. Southern History, 9, 1987 p114-40.

Describes parliamentary as well as municipal elections and candidates. Includes table showing percentage poll of Liberal candidates in Gloucestershire general elections 1885-1910; includes footnotes with bibliographic references.

7. Howe, John. Liberals, Lib-Labs and Independent Labour in North Gloucestershire, 1890-1914. Midland History, XI, 1986 p117-37.

Early history of movement for independent Labour representation in Gloucestershire, describing county divisions and parliamentary boroughs, especially Forest of Dean. Includes footnotes with bibliographic references.

8. Hudleston, Christophe Roy. Gloucestershire voters in 1710, by C.R. Hudleston and R. Austin. Bristol and Gloucestershire Arch. Soc. Trans. for 1936, 58, 1937 p195-205.

9. Hyett, F. Members of Parliament for Gloucestershire and Bristol, by Sir F. Hyett and C. Wells. Transactions of the Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society, li, 1929. Members 1900-29.

10. Saul, Nigel. Knights and esquires: the Gloucestershire gentry in the fourteenth century. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981. Brief references to Parliamentary representation.

11. Smith, Brian S. A history of Bristol and Gloucestershire, by Brian S. Smith and Elizabeth Ralph. Beaconsfield: Darwen Finlayson. 1972. Ch.XXV: Parliamentary reform. Includes maps of representation in 1300, 1832 and 1885.

12. Williams, William Retlaw. The parliamentary history of the county of Gloucester ... 1213-1898. Hereford: Jakeman & Carver. 1898. Members discussed in chronological order of election.

18 Appendix 1

This appendix shows the composition of the Cheltenham constituency as defined by the Fifth Periodical Review.

Cheltenham Borough Wards

All Saints

Battledown

Benhall and The Reddings

Charlton Kings

Charlton Park

College

Hesters Way

Lansdown

Leckhampton

Oakley

Park

Pittville

St Mark’s

St Paul’s

St Peter’s

Springbank

Up Hatherley

Warden Hill

19 Appendix 2

Below is a reproduction of the explanatory notes to the The Gloucestershire (District Boundaries) Order 1991 (SI 1001/281) showing a general guide to the areas affected by borough and parish transfers in Gloucestershire in 1991 (see Section 4.4 above). The information is taken from the National Archives’ Legislation website and is subject to Crown Copyright.50

EXPLANATORY NOTE

(This note is not part of the Order)

This Order transfers areas in the county of Gloucestershire affecting the districts of Tewkesbury, Gloucester, Stroud, Cheltenham and Cotswold. Consequential changes to parishes are made.

The map following part of this note gives a general guide to the areas affected. Prints of the detailed boundary maps (described in article 2) may be inspected at all reasonable times at the offices of the district councils whose areas are affected by the Order and at the office of the Secretary of State for the Environment, 2 Marsham Street, London SW1P 3EB.

The following are the approximate area and population of the areas transferred–

Area (hectares) Population

Tewkesbury to Gloucester 66.46 1,000

Gloucester to Tewkesbury 6.07 11

Stroud to Gloucester 662.00 6,662

Tewkesbury to Cheltenham 1,225.70 16,700

Tewkesbury to Cotswold 2,281.00 600

The Local Government Area Changes Regulations 1976 contain general provisions regarding the effect of orders such as this one.

50 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ You may use and re-use the information featured on this website (not including logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence

20

21