CACrown ArchivesThe cinema collection
EN/FR
Search
Menu
Research dossier · History & Society

1897 Petersfield by-election

by-election to determine the MP for Petersfield, England

Layered newspapers, civic records and oral-history reels arranged as chronological evidence
History and societyInterpretive dossier study · Crown Archives visual atlas
Record originEnglish Wikipedia
Text licenseCC BY-SA 4.0
Source revisionMar 7, 2026
Entity authorityQ24993478 ↗
Source-derived summary

The 1897 Petersfield by-election was held on 8 June 1897 after the death of the incumbent Conservative MP William Wickham. The seat was retained by the Conservative candidate William Graham Nicholson.

Editorial summary

The public source identifies “1897 Petersfield by-election” as by-election to determine the MP for Petersfield, England. This brief keeps that definition visible, then builds a research path around Petersfield, by-election and determine.

Editorial reviewA useful synthesis for locating the documentary relationships between formal authority, participants and affected communities. The current lead gives the account dated anchors—1897—that can be checked directly. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. Its value is orientation rather than verdict, with Petersfield, by-election and determine providing the first useful test.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

A short description can identify a subject without explaining its stakes. For “1897 Petersfield by-election”, the useful work is to connect “by-election to determine the MP for Petersfield, England” to the records capable of establishing context and consequence.

Evidence profile

Contemporary correspondence, administrative files and participant testimony can test how later narratives organized the event or institution. The source revision retrieved here is dated Mar 7, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q24993478. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1897.

Critical limits

Institutional narratives can privilege the records that survived while minimizing voices that were never formally collected. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.

How to read it

Compare institutional narratives with records created by participants and affected communities. Dates and formal titles are useful anchors, but not substitutes for context.

Best used for
  • Event chronology
  • Institutional context
  • Locating named record creators
Verify next

Contemporary correspondence, government or organizational records, oral histories and cited historical scholarship.

Three-step research path

  1. Establish the record: confirm the title “1897 Petersfield by-election”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow 1897 Petersfield by-election primary sources, 1897 Petersfield by-election archive and Petersfield research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
  3. Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.

Questions for further research

  1. Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “1897 Petersfield by-election”?
  2. What chronology connects this entry to wider political or social change?
  3. Which voices are present, absent or mediated by the institution?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from “1897 Petersfield by-election” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.