Act of Parliament prevented me viewing census ......

[Gadget]

Sorry  - I  added to my previous post  - I checked the header info (no credits used! ) and that has just HTML code as well. I think that there's a whole duff section .


Gadget

[Polldoll]

 Oh

Sorry  - I  added to my previous post  - I checked the header info (no credits used! ) and that has just HTML code as well. I think that there's a whole duff section .


Gadget

What a shame Gadget ... I thought there was something really exciting going on preventing the image being shown etc .... and all it is, is probably someone making a hash of digitising these records ...   Drat .... thought I was on to something .. .
 Poll ....ever so slightly disappointed .... 

[Gadget]

yeah - We were a bit Holmes and Watson-ish 

Interestingly, they have been transcribed correctly on the only other site that \i have access to so  it looks like  an SP error for the whole book I would think - no way of really checking. I can't get the next page or previous page up, just the header info which, as I said, is also HTML code.

Amazing that it's still like that after over  4 years 

You could mention it to the lady

Gadget

[Polldoll]

 Yes I'll email them  ....

Just goes to show ... I look like I'm the only person researching this lot !!

[Redroger]

The "Incorporated by Act of Parliament" refers to a local government review conducted by the Boundary Commission (or a predessor) and refers only to the date when the Burgh came into being. It has no bearing on the census itself. No doubt census forms for other Royal Boroughs or Burghs may have similar annotations.

[Polldoll]

Thanks Roger ....It looks like the enumerator's writing too... maybe they were using the wrong stationery

[RJ_Paton]

Most burghs in Scotland were founded as Royal Burghs or Burghs of Barony  - Coatbridge is relatively unique in that its Burgh Status and the Rights that confers was conferred on it by a Private Act of Parliament. They weren't using the wrong stationery - it just didn't take this situation into account. (or it might just have been a pedantic Enumerator wanting to get every fact correct)

[Polldoll]

Hi Falkyrn....So  Coatbridge is  not  a Royal Burgh then?
 I meant the wrong stationery in that the  word Royal has been struck through....    but If Coatbridge is unique I can see that they wouldn't have stationery especially  printed  saying," Burgh incorporated by Act of Parliament"  for just one Burgh. Thanks  for that information Falkyrn ...  I'm fascinated as to why this happened though.... ?  I'll have to go investigate methinks ...
   What a great site this is .... so much expertise to hand.... and so much information to devour ...
Poll

[RJ_Paton]

There were other Parliamentary Burghs created at various periods but Coatbridge was created one by a Private Members Bill rather than a general Act of the Government of the day.

The whole Burgh situation became complicated in the late 19th and early 20th century with various Acts of Parliament reinforcing and creating new powers to be devolved to Burgh Councils. Many smaller towns tried to gain Burgh status to maintain their independance as larger Cities expanded their boundaries. In Glasgow, for instance, many of what are now considered suburbs of the City were once Burghs in their own right but were annexed as the City expanded.

In the 1930's Glasgow and the other main Cities in Scotland were removed from their respective Counties and became Counties of Cities - although try telling that to the Post Office today (or many mapping services) which still put Glasgow or any area with a Glasgow Postcode into Lanarkshire).

The Local Government Act of 1975 effectively did away with  Burgh status for all areas.