Federation of Stoke-on-Trent

By the early 19th century, initial steps had been made to ensure greater co-operation between the Potteries towns over the issue of law and order.

In 1902, Hanley Council led attempts to form an expanded county borough, but disagreement over the complex financial issues of rates, assets and loans caused Fenton to pull out, quickly followed by Burslem and Stoke, and the proposal was abandoned in 1903.

The second and final federation process, between 1905 and 1910,[3] was instigated by Longton Town Council with support from Stoke and Hanley and opposition from Fenton, Tunstall and Burslem.

[3] Prior to the 19th century, local government remained largely based on the parochial and manorial systems in use since the Middle Ages.

4. c.cxxxi),[10][11] for Hanley and Burslem respectively, gave a board of commissioners control over policing and lighting along with the ability to levy rates for these purposes.

[15] Together with Stoke-upon-Trent itself, the parliamentary borough also comprised Burslem, Fenton, Hanley, Lane End,[b] Shelton, the hamlet of Sneyd, Rushton Grange and Tunstall.

[3] Shortly after the Reform Act came into effect, a Municipal Corporations Bill was introduced which proposed that the new parliamentary boroughs should be granted charters of incorporation.

[22] The same meeting revisited a topic raised pre–1820, the promotion of law and order in the Potteries, and called for the appointment of a stipendiary magistrate.

[26][27] This legislation created additional boards of commissioners for Fenton, Longton and Stoke, with the same powers given to Hanley and Burslem by the 1825 acts.

[22] Introduction of the Local Government Bill in March 1888 caused much debate in the Potteries about the position of the towns under the proposed council structure.

[36] The Local Government Act 1888 received royal assent on 13 August 1888 with Hanley listed among those places to be granted county borough status.

[38][39] In December 1900, Stoke Town Council proposed a meeting with "a view to federal action" and issued invitations to the boroughs of Burslem, Hanley, Longton, and Newcastle-under-Lyme; the urban districts of Audley, Fenton,[c] Kidsgrove, Smallthorne, and Tunstall;[d] and the rural districts of Stoke and Wolstanton.

[42] The meeting took place in February 1901 and resolved "that it was desirable in the interests of North Staffordshire to form a federation of local authorities",[43] thereby indicating a preference for implementation of the county plan.

[46] Only Longton council supported the idea as concurrently, Sir Hugh Owen, a former secretary to the Local Government Board, presented the six towns committee with a scheme of financial adjustment.

Conversely, towns contributing a value of net assets greater than their proportion of the overall sum would be able to set a lower general rate.

[49] Faced by such strong opposition, Hanley council felt compelled to withdraw its submission to the Local Government Board bringing the first attempt at federation in the twentieth century to an unsuccessful conclusion.

[56] The Staffordshire Advertiser described the events surrounding this poll with both proponents and opponents – chiefly the Association for Promoting the Federation of the Pottery Towns and the Burslem Anti-Federation League – making every effort to ensure their supporters voted.

[58] With Fenton, Tunstall and Burslem all opposing federation it was left to Hanley, Stoke and Longton to submit proposals to the Local Government Board.

[56] The walkout did not disrupt the hearing but left only Fenton and Staffordshire County Council opposed to the plan, with Tunstall neutral and Hanley, Stoke and Longton in favour.

The bulk of the inquiry examined rating schemes based largely on the Owen or Geen proposals from the previous federation attempt.

[61][62] On 23 February 1908, less than six weeks after the inquiry closed, the Local Government Board issued a draft provisional bill for the federation of the six towns.

The bill received its third reading on 31 July 1908 but had undergone significant amendment during its passage through the House of Commons, most notably in the introduction of a complex, differential rating system[f] for a period of 10 years.

[62][65] Few of the interested parties were pleased with the proposal and, although the differential system was welcomed, a period of 20 years was preferred with the complicated valuation required of all public assets proving unpopular.

[66] As a result, Tunstall withdrew its support for the order leaving only Hanley and Longton to promote the bill in the House of Lords.

Neither council was particularly in favour of the financial settlement but felt honour bound to promote the bill, having been the initial instigators of the scheme.

It reaffirmed that federation would benefit of the people of the Potteries, that a differential rating system for a fixed period was required, that asset valuation in each town should be abandoned, and that the committee reserved the right to decide a course of action should the parties not be able to reach agreement.