Northumberland South

Economic and social profile

The maritime county of Northumberland, bounded on the east by the North sea, and lying between the rivers Tyne and Tweed, was noted for its extensive coal resources, which formed one third of England’s great Northern coalfield. Shipping, lead mines and corn also contributed to the county’s prosperity. While the northern division was almost entirely agricultural, Northumberland South contained more varied economic interests. The rapidly expanding mining industry, dominated by the Beaumont, Blackett and Ridley families, was located in the south-east corner of the constituency, while its arable land produced wheat, oats, barley beans and turnips. The mixed character of the constituency was enhanced by its numerous urban residents, chiefly in the city of Newcastle-upon-Tyne but also in Tynemouth, who accounted for over half the population in 1832, a figure that rose steadily throughout the period. The division was traversed by the Newcastle and Carlisle Railway, which opened in 1838, and the York, Newcastle and Berwick Railway, which opened in 1847.1N. Ridley, Portrait of Northumberland (1965), 17-18; Dod’s electoral facts, impartially stated, ed. H.J. Hanham (1972), 232-3.

Electoral history

Represented by two members since 1298, the county of Northumberland remained unpolled, 1774-1826, with changes in its representation being determined by compromises between the dominant landowners: the Percys, dukes of Northumberland; the earls of Carlisle and dukes of Portland; the earls of Tankerville; and the Greys of Howick. Their preference for bipartisan representation, with one member at least from among their ranks, was for many years ‘generally heeded’.2HP Commons, 1820-32, ii. 765. The arrangement broke down spectacularly at the 1826 general election, however, when four candidates came forward to contest the county. A vitriolic campaign ensued, in which one of the candidates, Thomas Wentworth Beaumont, fought a bloodless duel on Bamburgh sands against John Lambton, the son-in-law of Lord Grey. The excessive cost of this election, which totalled almost £250,000, arguably coloured the subsequent electoral history of the county, for the major interests appeared reluctant to sanction any further contests.3N. McCord and A.E. Carrick, ‘Northumberland in the General Election of 1852’, Northern History, i (1966), 93-4. Shared representation was restored at the 1830 general election, but after a formidable campaign, two Reformers were returned unopposed the next year.

The electorate of the new southern division, which polled at Bellingham, Haltwhistle, Newcastle, Stamfordham, North Shields, and the election town of Hexham, was mainly comprised of freeholders and occupying tenants. These two groups accounted for around 90 per cent of registered voters in 1836, a proportion that remained stable throughout this period.4PP 1837-8 (329), xliv. 567; PP 1860 (277), lv. 91. With the duke of Northumberland’s interests now mainly in the north of the county, influence shifted to the Beaumonts, Lord Hastings of Seaton-Delaval, Sir Charles Monk of Belsay Castle, Sir Matthew White Ridley, and the Brandlings of Gosforth.5Dod’s electoral facts, 232. As families such as the Beaumonts and Ridleys were not only leading members of the landed gentry but also at the forefront of developing the mineral resources, railways and banks of the region, the mixed interests of the constituency were largely represented, and there were only two contested elections in Northumberland South between the first and second Reform Acts. Significantly, urban freeholders totalled nearly half the electorate, a high proportion for a county at this time. In 1852, 2,367 of the constituency’s 5,271 voters were registered for property in Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Tynemouth, a figure that had fallen only slightly by 1858.6PP 1852 (4), xliii. 306; PP 1857-58 (108), xlvi. 575. With the majority of these voters residing in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, historians have suggested that the strength of radicalism in this borough represented a threat to the status quo in the county, as a second Liberal candidate could be brought forward if the nominee of the gentry appeared too moderate.7McCord and Carrick, ‘Northumberland in the general election of 1852’, 102. However, although this scenario was actualised in 1852 and threatened in 1859, the strength of Radical county voters resident in Newcastle-upon-Tyne has arguably been overstated.

Prior to its division, the sitting members for Northumberland were viscount Howick, the son of earl Grey, the prime minister, and Thomas Wentworth Beaumont, who had represented the county, 1818-26, and 1830-32. Beaumont, who had entered Parliament as a Tory before converting to the Whigs in 1820, had come into full possession of the Blackett mines upon the death of his mother in 1831, and was reputed to be one of the wealthiest commoners in England. With Howick making a pact with the moderate Conservative Ossulston to secure their unopposed return for Northumberland North, Beaumont entered into a coalition with the politically more advanced William Ord, who had sat for Morpeth since 1802. The agreement was announced in December 1831, directly after the disenfranchisement of Morpeth’s second seat was known. The Conservative Matthew Bell, who had sat for the county, 1826-31, before his reputation as an anti-reformer had eroded his popularity and led him to retire at the dissolution, announced his candidature in June 1832. In many ways, Bell epitomised the diverse economic interests of the constituency. He possessed a sizeable landed estate, was a deputy lieutenant for the county, and had inherited collieries. Sir Charles Monck, Tory member for the county, 1812-20, and an established supporter of parliamentary reform, also announced his candidacy, but he withdrew at the end of the month when his criticism of the Reform Act’s attack on nomination boroughs proved to be unpopular with the new voters, a decision that strengthened Bell’s prospects.8M. Kilburn, ‘Monck, Sir Charles Miles Lambert (1779-1867)’. www.oxforddnb.com.

The coalition of Ord and Beaumont initiated a bitter campaign at the 1832 general election. In an attempt to manufacture tensions between the rural and urban interest, Bell described his opponents’ pact as the ‘dictation’ of ‘a knot of Whigs and Radicals of the town of Newcastle’.9Poll book of the contested election for the southern division of Northumberland, 1832 (1833), 14. His supporters also attacked Ord for his son’s alleged links with the Northern Political Union. This issue was given more prominence when Beaumont, at the Northern Counties Reform dinner, attacked political unions, calling them ‘illegal and unconstitutional’. In protest against these remarks, Thomas Doubleday, the secretary of the Northern Political Union, resigned from the coalition’s election committee, exposing the uneasy alliance between the Whig gentry and urban Radicals.10Ibid., 33-4. At the hustings, Ord championed church reform, the abolition of colonial slavery and free trade, the latter policy being described by Bell as ‘most impolitic and unjust’. James Losh, a Unitarian lawyer and chair of Beaumont and Ord’s election committee, launched a scathing attack on Bell’s political principles, particularly his opposition to the reform bill, prompting the Conservative candidate to claim that he had been assailed with ‘volumes of falsehood and slander’.11Newcastle Courant, 29 Dec. 1832.

To the surprise of many, Bell, who received 1,814 plumpers, defeated Ord and finished in second place. Beaumont, who shared 2,091 split votes with Ord, topped the poll. The fact that Bell shared 408 split votes with Beaumont but only 222 with Ord suggested that the latter’s more advanced principles were ultimately a weakness.12W.W. Bean, The parliamentary representation of the six northern counties of England (1890), 483. Yet it would be wrong to view Ord’s candidature as a reflection of the advanced Liberalism of the Newcastle urban freeholders. Bell polled 1,343 votes in the Newcastle district, while Beaumont and Ord received only 980 and 956 respectively, indicating that county voters resident in the borough were far from staunchly Liberal in their political allegiance. At the declaration, James Losh made an extensive speech, alleging that corruption had secured Bell’s success, and a petition was subsequently launched by Beaumont and Ord’s election committee against Bell’s return, with Ord claiming the seat, 19 Feb. 1833.13Poll book of the contested election, 65-7. The next day, a group of resident freeholders petitioned against Beaumont and Ord for various corrupt acts and undue influence. Both petitions were discharged, however, when no counsel or agent appeared in their support, 28 Mar. 1833.14Ibid., 102-5. It later emerged that the petition against Bell’s return had been abandoned on condition that the freeholders dropped their petition against Beaumont and paid the costs of the petition against Bell. According to Losh, Beaumont’s conduct in this affair was ‘by no means creditable to him’, and his popularity was certainly damaged by the episode. Losh, a resident of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, also criticised the ‘shabby’ Whig gentry of the county, underlining the fact that beneath Beaumont and Ord’s coalition lay a difficult alliance between rural and urban Liberalism.15Diaries and correspondence of James Losh, ed. E. Hughes (1963), ii. 149-51.

At the 1835 general election, when Beaumont and Bell sough re-election, it was reported that ‘we have seldom witnessed an election at which the good humour and good feeling seemed more generally to actuate the candidates and their supporters’.16Newcastle Courant, 17 Jan. 1835. There was some source of tension, however, when Beaumont came under pressure to validate his reformist credentials, despite his publication of an address that stated ‘down with the Conservatives!’17Durham Chronicle, 26 Dec. 1834. On a lively hustings, he was questioned about his voting record and forced to defend his support for Irish coercion and his opposition to an inquiry into the pension list. Bell, a popular candidate, launched a vociferous defence of the corn laws, stating that their repeal would be ‘a death-blow to the independence and prosperity of the country’, and attacked Irish church appropriation. Although there had been rumours of opposition, they proved to be groundless and both men were returned unopposed.18Newcastle Courant, 17 Jan. 1835.

With his popularity dwindling amongst his constituents, Beaumont resigned on health grounds at the general election of 1837, rather than risk defeat. Although Sir Charles Monck was expected to come forward to succeed him, no address appeared, and Christopher Blackett, owner of Wylam colliery in the south of the county, offered in the Liberal interest. More advanced than Beaumont, Blackett’s address called for the ‘granting of equal laws and equal justice to our Irish fellow-subjects’. 19Ibid., 28 July 1837. He did not participate in the campaign, however, due to influenza.20Ibid., 4 Aug. 1837. The Conservative campaign was orchestrated for the first time by Sir Matthew White Ridley. Following the death in July 1836 of his father of the same name, the sitting MP for Newcastle, Ridley had abandoned his family’s interest in that borough, breaking their 89 years of uninterrupted representation, in order to take over the management of Conservative candidates for the county.21T.J. Nossiter, Influence, opinion and political idioms in Reformed England: Case Studies from the North-east, 1832-74 (1975), 108-9. With no opposition forthcoming, Ridley’s first task, to secure the re-election of Bell, was a straightforward one. In contrast to Blackett’s support for Irish reforms, Bell spoke out against municipal reform in Ireland, and maintained his opposition to appropriation. He also attacked the late Melbourne ministry over the new poor law, arguing that as the old one was well administered in Northumberland, there was ‘no need for the complex machinery’ of the new system.22Newcastle Courant, 4 Aug. 1837. With Blackett absent from the platform, the nomination passed without incident, and both men were returned unopposed.

During the 1840s, the corn law debates failed to arouse a great interest in Northumberland. As the dominant landowners were principally reliant on their significant coal assets, there was little zealous campaigning against repeal. An Agricultural Protection Society was formed in the region in 1844, but it gained few members.23Nossiter, Influence, opinion and political idioms, 32-4. Bell had presented petitions to parliament against alteration in the corn laws, but Blackett had also submitted petitions from ‘agricultural districts’ for its immediate repeal. Indeed, opposition to export duties on coal was arguably a more prominent focal point for local protest, as this united the constituency’s varied economic interests. This lack of excitement was evident at the 1841 general election when, following Blackett’s retirement due to ill-health, Saville Ogle, a London-based barrister, came forward in the Liberal interest. Ogle’s father, the Rev. John Saville Ogle, was a canon of Durham cathedral and a mainstay of the county’s Liberal election committees. Although stressing his support for the agricultural interest and his own family’s ‘stake in the soil’, Ogle called for a ‘great change’ in the commercial system. Bell, meanwhile, maintained his opposition to repeal.24Newcastle Courant, 9 July 1841. However, with no contest, there was nothing at stake. The competing views of the candidates largely reflected the mixed economic interests of the county’s dominant families, and both men were returned without opposition.

Reform of the navigation laws did generate more feeling than the corn laws in the county, but there was no electoral impact in the southern division. The nominations at the 1847 general election, where both members were re-elected unopposed, were attended by ‘remarkably few’. Ogle insisted that the adoption of free trade measures meant that it was ‘idle to expect that the navigation laws could be preserved in their present shape’, while Bell declared that he would never consent to any alteration that would ‘endanger our naval supremacy’, although he admitted that the existing laws needed to be examined.25Ibid. Bell’s equivocal stance did little to disguise the fact that the maritime protectionist movement in the region was far from successful in 1847, with John Wawn, a free-trade shipowner, being returned at South Shields, and Ralph Grey, a Liberal, coming in unopposed at Tynemouth. Underlining the weakness of the protectionists, Bell had softened his attitude towards the repeal of the corn laws, stating that he was ‘now prepared to give those measures a fair trial, and to support the present government’.26Daily News, 6 Aug. 1847. Indeed, a meeting of the Hexham Farmers’ Club in 1850, where representatives of the county’s agricultural interests championed free trade and the reform of the navigation laws, suggests that a consensus was emerging among local leaders on economic questions.27Newcastle Courant, 11 Jan. 1850.

With Bell and Ogle both retiring on health grounds, two new candidates were required at the 1852 general election. Wentworth Blackett Beaumont, the son of Thomas, was first to come forward. A strong candidate, only twenty-three years of age and possessing a vast landed estate and numerous collieries, his Liberal principles were decidedly moderate. After a lengthy search for a suitable Conservative candidate, Henry Liddell, who was also connected to the local agricultural and mining interest, was brought forward by Sir Matthew White Ridley in the late summer of 1851 and a ‘leisurely canvass’ ensued.28McCord and Carrick, ‘Northumberland in the General Election of 1852’, 101. The peace was shattered, however, when, at the behest of a group of urban freeholders dismayed at the gentry’s choice of Beaumont, George Ridley entered the fray. Ridley’s candidature shocked his elder brother, Sir Matthew, who later noted that ‘George, very improperly, stood on the Radical interest for the Southern Division. … He did not consult me at all’.29Quotation taken from Ibid. 102.

Ridley’s appearance injected urgency into proceedings. Sir Matthew, with the help of Hugh Taylor, a leading shipping magnate and Conservative candidate for neighbouring Tynemouth, attempted to build a coalition of landowners aggrieved at the repeal of the corn laws and shipowners upset at the repeal of the navigation laws.30Ibid., 102. His efforts to secure the support of the gentry, meanwhile, reveal the nature of influence in the county. Brooksbank of Acomb, a small landowner, informed Ridley that he would support Liddell, but only if Allgood of Nunwick, head of an eminent county landed family, had no objections,31Ibid., 101. suggesting that rather than the landlords seeking to direct votes, the voters themselves sought guidance.

At the nomination, Liddell, a forceful public speaker, teased Beaumont about his youth and attacked free trade, though he was not in favour of a duty on food. Ridley, in contrast, declared himself a ‘free trader in its fullest meaning’, and urged further parliamentary reform. Although Beaumont also championed free trade, he maintained that he was ‘neutral’ and showed no enthusiasm for a coalition with Ridley.32Daily News, 1 July 1852. Nevertheless, after a closely fought contest, Beaumont, who topped the poll, gained 1,856 split votes with Ridley. Liddell received 1,627 plump votes, and a decisive 357 split votes with Beaumont. Although it has been stated that ‘the fact that more than half of Ridley’s votes [were] cast at Newcastle and North Shields’ was ‘a reflection of the comparative strength of the radicals in Newcastle’, a closer examination of the polling reveals a slightly different picture.33McCord and Carrick, ‘Northumberland in the General Election of 1852’, 102. With 887 votes, Ridley did poll the highest at Newcastle, but only marginally, as Liddell and Beaumont secured 863 and 856 respectively. Liddell also gained 335 votes in North Shields, compared to Ridley’s 271. Ridley’s strong showing, therefore, was more a reflection of the overall proportion of the county electorate with property in the boroughs, which was 45 per cent of all voters in 1852, rather than the ‘comparative’ strength of the advanced Liberal vote in Newcastle-upon-Tyne.

There was a return to the usual pattern at the 1857 general election, when Beaumont and Liddell were returned without opposition, the only clear division between the candidates being the latter’s greater hostility to Palmerston’s foreign policy.34Newcastle Courant, 3 Apr. 1857. The general election of 1859 promised to be more eventful. Beaumont’s and Liddell’s support for the Derby ministry’s reform bill, which proposed to disenfranchise 40s. freeholders resident in boroughs, had caused expressions of indignation among the urban freeholders of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, and, in early April, it was reported that a contest ‘appeared certain’.35Lloyd’s Weekly Newspaper, 10 Apr. 1859. By the middle of the month, however, both candidates were insisting that they had ‘objected’ to that portion of the bill, and the expected opposition did not arrive.36Bradford Observer, 14 Apr. 1859. Nevertheless, Liddell told his audience at the nomination that ‘the power exercised upon the county by the borough freeholders is an exaggerated power’.37Newcastle Courant, 6 May 1857. Indeed, by 1858 the urban freeholders comprised just over 40 per cent of the electorate.38PP 1857-58 (108), xlivi. 575. However, as the 1852 election suggested, this did not necessarily translate into disproportionate Liberal strength.

The 1865 general election ‘excited comparatively little interest’ in the constituency.39Newcastle Courant, 21 July 1865. Indeed, the lines of division between the two candidates appeared to have eroded even further. Liddell had softened his attitude towards Palmerston and praised his ministry for securing a commercial treaty with France. Beaumont, meanwhile, had reneged on his earlier support for the £10 county franchise and had voted with Disraeli against Edward Baines’ borough franchise bill, suggesting that his hustings statement that his ‘heart and soul were Liberal’ was mere persiflage.40Ibid. In front of a small crowd, both candidates were returned unopposed.

Liddell and Beaumont continued to sit unchallenged at the general elections of 1868 and 1874, and the division’s first contest for over a quarter of a century took place in April 1878, when Liddell’s succession to his father’s seat in the Lords caused a by-election. Two of the county’s dominant families contested the seat, but the Liberal candidate, Albert Grey, gained the same number of votes as his Conservative opponent, Edward Ridley. Although the high sheriff declared a double return, the Liberals chose not to incur the expense of a scrutiny and Grey withdrew. He subsequently defeated Ridley, however, at the 1880 general election when he was returned alongside Beaumont. The southern and northern constituencies of the county were abolished in 1885 and replaced by the single-member divisions of Wansbeck, Tyneside and Hexham. Berwick-on-Tweed, previously a double-member borough, provided the county’s fourth single member seat, which greatly extended the county’s northern boundary.41PP 1884-5 (258), lxiii. 309-15. The four divisions were always contested up to 1910, with Gladstonian Liberals dominant. Northumberland South, which experienced only four contests in its fifty-three year existence, and enjoyed bipartisan representation for all but its last two years, has received little attention from historians, though the wider region is analysed in T.J. Nossiter’s formative Influence, Opinion and Political Idioms in Reformed England: Case Studies from the North-east, 1832-74.