Tynemouth and North Shields

Economic and social profile

Situated on the northern bank of the river Tyne, eight miles east north-east of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Tynemouth and North Shields was a seaport of considerable importance, with its inhabitants chiefly engaged in the coal and shipping trades. The centre of the borough’s industry was the Low Lights harbour at North Shields, which was connected by wagonway to the colliery at Cullercoats and the limestone quarry at Whitley. In 1848 the Shields harbour was constituted an independent customs port, with the custom house located at North Shields. The two Shields became separate ports in 1865. The local population were also engaged in shipbuilding, with the anchor and chain making factory of Pow and Fawcus being a major employer. The Tyneside industries of fishing and glass were also represented in the borough’s economy. The Newcastle to North Shields railway opened in June 1839 and was extended to Tynemouth village in 1847.1H.H.E. Craster, A history of Northumberland (1907), viii. 247-341; N. McCord, ‘The government of Tyneside, 1800-1850’, TRHS, 20 (1970), 5-30; Dod’s electoral facts, 1832-52, impartially stated, ed. H.J. Hanham, (1972), 318-9.

Electoral history

The borough of Tynemouth and North Shields was created by the 1832 Reform Act, having appeared in the original bill. Over half the voters resided in the township of Tynemouth, with North Shields accounting for a further quarter. The voters in the townships of Chirton, Preston and Cullercoats, which were more rural in character, completed the electorate.2PP 1854 (1729), xxxi. 539. The local shipping elite were sufficiently dominant to have a decisive impact on parliamentary elections, and although the duke of Northumberland, who owned substantial property in the town, had some electoral purchase, it was never paramount.3S. Palmer, Politics, Shipping and the Repeal of the Navigation Laws (1990), 27. Shipping issues naturally figured prominently in the election campaigns in this period, particularly during the late 1840s and early 1850s, when the protectionist campaign was at its height, and it was a candidate’s stance on free trade, rather than his party affiliation, that mattered most. Local knowledge was also expected, however, and all candidates supported the extension of the Low Lights dock at North Shields. Although the majority of local shipowners were inclined towards protectionism for British shipping, this did not preclude Liberal representation, as progressive candidates were able to moderate their free trade instincts and give rhetorical support to the plight of the British shipowner who was faced with foreign competition. The Liberal candidates most able to successfully do this were, not surprisingly, local shipowners themselves. The influence of local manufacturers, in addition to a small number of shipowners, who were sympathetic to the Liberal cause, ensured that all but three of the elections in this period were contested.

Tynemouth’s first parliamentary election witnessed a bitter contest between George Frederick Young, a London-based shipbuilder and nationally renowned spokesman on shipping issues, and Sanderson Ilderton, a local landowner who had been high sheriff of Northumberland in 1829, and a personal friend of the premier Lord Grey. Requested to come forward by a group comprised of local businessmen, including the Liberal shipowner Henry Mitcalfe, in December 1830, Ilderton began his canvass the following July. An advanced Reformer, he called for shorter parliaments, the ballot and the immediate abolition of slavery. His personal connections to members of the corporation at Newcastle-upon-Tyne, however, were seized upon by his opponents, who claimed that he was under ‘Newcastle influence’, and associated with the ‘corporate monopoly of Newcastle’ which was responsible for the ‘miserably neglected and obstructed Tyne’.4Election handbill, 19. Sept. 1831, from A collection of leaflets relating to parliamentary elections for the borough of Tynemouth during the years 1832-1841, British Library. When Ilderton resumed his canvass in June 1832, his opponents, marshalled by George Fawcus, a local manufacturer, produced a number of handbills alleging his ‘unfitness and incapacity’, which led to Ilderton personally confronting Fawcus on the hustings, only for the latter to repeat the charge.5‘Representation of Tynemouth’, 23 June 1832, Ibid.

Ilderton’s candidature was further undermined by his ambiguous support for the shipping interest. He declined to attack the reciprocity laws for British shipping, legislation that many local shipowners opposed on the grounds that it was a means to establish free trade, whilst his claim that it was ‘impossible to divide’ the interests of the ‘agriculturalists, the manufacturer and the commercialist’ did little to appease his opponents, who labelled him ‘utterly ignorant’ of maritime and commercial policy.6Election handbill, 20 June 1832, Ibid. Young, in contrast, was unequivocal in his support for protectionism, arguing that British shipowners were being placed in unfair competition with the ‘comparatively unburdened foreigner’. He also capitalised on Ilderton’s connections to the corporation at Newcastle-upon-Tyne, stating that ‘a great injustice had been done to the town of Shields by the refusal of the commercial facilities which they had demanded’, a clear reference to the continuing struggle between the two boroughs over control of the Shields’s harbours. 7Election handbill, 26 Sept. 1831, Ibid. Young’s shipping credentials, therefore, were beyond reproach, and Ilderton’s charge that he had previously opposed the reform bill did little to alter the course of the campaign. Young, who characterised himself as an ‘independent’ belonging to ‘no political party’, was able to garner cross-party support in the constituency and was comfortably returned.8Election handbill, 19 July 1831, Ibid.

In November 1834, it was rumoured that Sir Charles Grey, a former commissioner to Canada whose ancestors owned the Backworth estate just north of the township of Tynemouth, would come forward in the Liberal interest and oppose Young at the expected general election, but the following month he declined to contest the borough, whereupon Young’s election committee announced they would cease their canvass.9Election handbill, 3 Dec. 1834, Ibid. Unable to visit the constituency due to illness, Young nevertheless sent a number of missives to the electorate. Although he continued to stress his independent nature, claiming in his address that he ‘would never become a party man’ he did confirm that as a ‘reformer’, he would enter parliament ‘in opposition’ to Peel’s ministry.10Election handbill, 30 Dec. 1834, Tynemouth leaflets; Newcastle Courant, 19 Jan. 1837. The shipping interest continued to colour all of his statements, with one particularly laboured address announcing that he wished to ‘reform the beacon to warn from the rocks of revolution, and guide the vessel of state securely into harbour’.11Newcastle Chronicle, 17 Jan. 1835. He was duly re-elected without opposition in 1835.

Grey did come forward to oppose Young, however, at the 1837 general election, as a staunch defender of Melbourne’s ministry and a champion of free trade, claiming that he had been invited to stand by ‘men of all parties’, and citing his opponent’s inconsistent voting record in the Commons. Defending his conduct, Young admitted that he had been ‘occasionally favourable to the views of each party’, but insisted he had kept his own ‘undeviating course’.12Election handbill, 16 May 1837, Tynemouth leaflets. A close contest ensued, in which Young narrowly topped the poll, but Grey petitioned against the return, 21 Nov. 1837, on account of non-qualification of voters, personation, bribery, treating and undue influence.13The Times, 24 Feb. 1838. After a further petition against the return, 4 Dec. 1837, an election committee determined that Young’s majority was composed of voters who, since their registration, had moved house, thus making their votes ineligible, and Grey was duly elected, 23 Feb. 1838.14Ibid. Young, who called the petition a ‘legal quibble against substantial justice’, had hoped that his return would stand as the voters in question had moved to premises of equal or greater value.15Handbill, 8 Aug. 1837, Tynemouth leaflets. The committee, however, rejected this defence, and Young, citing heavy expenditure, did not oppose the outcome. In a lengthy retiring address to the Tynemouth electors, he defending his parliamentary conduct, but lamented that ‘party spirit’ in the Commons had become ‘pernicious and demoralizing’.16Handbill, 12 Feb. 1838, Ibid.

Grey was also troubled by the ‘rancorous rivalry of party politics’, and in June 1841, he announced his intention not to stand at the general election.17R. Welford, Men of mark ’ twixt Tyne and Tweed (1895), ii. 383; Handbill, 18 June 1841, Tynemouth leaflets. In his place, local Liberals brought forward Henry Mitcalfe, a shipowner native to Tynemouth and a known supporter of free trade. Opposed by William Chapman, a staunch protectionist, Mitcalfe continually stressed his local credentials.18Newcastle Courant, 25 June 1841. Supported by prominent members of the town council at Newcastle-upon-Tyne, however, Mitcalfe’s opponents claimed that he was ‘backed by the whole “back shop”’, and if elected, ‘his exertions for your borough will be nullified by the influence from Newcastle’.19Election handbill, 18 June 1841, Tynemouth leaflets. Chapman, however, was also backed by members of Newcastle’s town council and was himself accused of being the ‘nominee of the Newcastle corporation’. The cry of ‘Newcastle influence’, therefore, was a rhetorical one, used to suggest that an opponent could not independently represent the shipping and trade interests of the borough. Mitcalfe’s shipping credentials, therefore, were hugely important, and although he made little mention of his support for free trade, his supporters produced a handbill depicting the ‘Ship Tory’ on the rocks at Tynemouth, its only hope of rescue being the ‘Ship Free Trader’. The campaign was given an extra dimension by the nomination of John Mason, a full-time Chartist lecturer and former Tyneside shoemaker, and his supporters made a number of effective interventions at the hustings.20M. Chase, Chartism: a new history (2007), 181-2. Mason did not go to the poll, however, and after a fractious contest, Mitcalfe defeated his Conservative opponent, a result that confirmed the fact that local and shipping credentials could transcend the influence of the protectionist interest.

The possible repeal of the navigation laws dominated the 1847 general election. The local port association had contributed money to the General Shipowners’ Society’s Central Committee for upholding the navigation laws, and William Richmond, representing Tynemouth, had been a witness for the protectionists before the select committee into the operation of the laws.21S. Palmer, Politics, 92-3, 107. With Grey being the only candidate to come forward, Conservative shipowners tried to induce the protectionist Henry Liddell, who was retiring from North Durham, to contest the borough, but he declined.22Morning Chronicle, 21 July 1841. Grey, however, approached delicately the subject of the navigation laws, stating that although ‘some modification’ may be ‘an advantage’, it was ‘his duty to see that protection be fairly given to the shipping interest generally’.23Morning Post, 20 July 1841. He also wisely championed the call for a custom house at North Shields, ‘in order to emancipate themselves from the tyranny of the more large and powerful town of Newcastle’, and was re-elected unopposed.24Ibid.

The long struggle between Newcastle and Shields over the latter’s harbour was finally resolved in 1848, when it was constituted an independent customs port, with a custom house at North Shields. Tension between the two boroughs also eased the following year when Tynemouth was granted a charter of incorporation. The River Tyne Improvement Act of 1850, which vested management of the river in a commission of 14, to which Tynemouth contributed 3 members, also ended the town council of Newcastle-upon-Tyne’s monopoly over the conservancy of the river.25Craster, History of Northumberland, 353. The impact of the rhetorical cry of ‘Newcastle influence’, therefore, was lessened by these reforms.

The issue of the navigation laws, in contrast, continued to be a dominant issue, even after their repeal in 1849. With Grey having supported their repeal, Hugh Taylor, a leading shipowner at Tynemouth and arch protectionist, was brought forward as a rival candidate at the 1852 general election. Taylor, standing as a ‘Liberal-Conservative’, announced that ‘he stood there identified with the borough as a ship-owner, as a coal-owner, and in every possible way one of themselves’, and capitalised on local resentment at the repeal of the navigation laws.26N. McCord and A.E. Carrick, ‘Northumberland in the General Election of 1852’, Northern History, i (1966), 104. The advanced radical candidatures of George Applegate, a coal whipper from London, and John Watson, a bookseller at Newcastle-upon-Tyne, added further tension to the contest, but, owing to a lack of funds, both candidates withdrew after their nomination. After a highly fractious canvass that lasted over two months, Taylor defeated Grey by a narrow margin.

Although Grey petitioned against the return on the grounds of his opponent’s bribery, 22 Nov. 1852, both men were subsequently found to be, by their agents, guilty of treating in the form of refreshment tickets, 15 Apr. 1853, and a royal commission inquiry into corruption at Tynemouth elections was subsequently appointed.27W.W. Bean, The Parliamentary representation of the six northern counties of England (1890), 592; The Times, 16 Apr. 1853. The inquiry laid bare the role of Sunderland’s numerous licensed public houses at election time, reporting that there was ‘abundant evidence’ on both sides of ‘a system of treating and of gifts to publicans’ that was ‘lavish and profligate’ aimed not only at treating others but also ‘corrupting the publicans themselves’, some of whom were found to be complicit.28PP 1854 (1729), xxxi. 544. There were 217 licensed public houses in the borough, with 122 kept by voters. Out of the 669 voters polled in 1852, 108 were publicans; 57 of them voting for Taylor and 51 for Grey. The duke of Northumberland’s influence was found to be limited, with 58 of his tenants in the borough, 42 of whom had polled for Taylor and only 16 for Grey. Indirect bribery was also rife, with the candidates spending over £5,000 between them, and nearly £1,000 of that expended on flagstaffs and rosettes, the orders for which were ‘given in nearly every instance to electors’.29Ibid., 550.

Following the report of the commission in February 1854, a new writ was finally issued for the borough on 30 March. At the nomination, the mayor, Matthew Popplewell, stressed the importance of a ‘clean’ election, and, although ‘both parties came noisily’ there was none of the ‘usual pomp and circumstances’ of a Tynemouth election.30Newcastle Courant, 31 Mar. 1854. The supporters of Taylor, who criticised the findings of the commission of inquiry, brought forward Peter Dickson, a London-based shipowner and timber trade dealer. An opponent of the repeal of the navigation laws, Dickson also campaigned on local issues, calling for an extension of dock building in North Shields. The Liberal candidate, William Schaw Lindsay, one of the largest shipowners in the world, also supported dock building to ensure a harbour of refuge, but insisted that local matters were ‘of comparatively minor importance’. Instead, he unequivocally championed free trade, arguing that ‘with perfect and unfettered free-trade, we shall drive other nations … out of the markets of the world’.31Ibid. A supporter of church rate abolition who identified himself with Peel, Lindsay was able to draw on cross-party support in the constituency, and his victory, albeit by a narrow margin, suggested that the navigation laws were waning as a decisive political issue.

Although his local standing was damaged by his votes against Palmerston’s ministry, Lindsay was re-elected without a contest at the 1857 general election after the Derbyite Captain Linskill, of Tynemouth Lodge, withdrew before the poll. On the eve of the 1859 general election, however, it was clear that Lindsay, owing to his refusal to support reciprocal restrictions in shipping as it was inconsistent with his free trade principles, had lost the support of Tynemouth shipowners.32Daily News, 18 Apr. 1859. Following the decision of local shipowners to invite Hugh Taylor to once again contest the seat, Lindsay announced that he was ‘a good deal disgusted with the shipowners’. He had been ‘working for them night and day for the removal of passing tolls … but instead of gratitude’, he had to ‘encounter their bitter hostility’.33Newcastle Courant, 15 Apr. 1859. He withdrew to contest Sunderland, and Taylor was returned without opposition.

Taylor’s return to Parliament was only fleeting since, following the death of his brother, he took the Chiltern Hundreds, 15 Apr. 1861, in order to take over the management of his family’s interests in the coal industry. At the ensuing by-election, the first candidate in the field was the Conservative Richard Hodgson, chairman of the North British Railway and member for Berwick-on-Tweed, 1837-47. Stressing the importance of the shipping interest, he criticised the effect of free trade on the British shipowner and, appealing to local interest, called for an extension of the Low Lights Dock. He also stated his support for non-intervention in foreign affairs and labelled income tax in peacetime ‘unjust’.34Standard, 24 Apr. 1861. The local Liberal leadership interviewed a number of candidates before finally settling on Arthur Otway, who had represented Stafford, 1852-57. At the nomination, he admitted that he was not a ‘thick-and-thin’ supporter of Palmerston, and informed his audience that he ‘would not deceive local shipowners by telling them they would ever get protection’. A supporter of the ballot, he also stated that he would ‘tell every tenant of the duke of Northumberland that he was free to exercise his franchise in the manner he saw fit’.35Ibid. The short canvass was a markedly hostile one, and after the declaration of the poll, Hodgson’s victory was greeted with indignation. On the way to the railway station he was pelted with rotten apples, eggs and onions, and ‘struck by a stone on the head, causing blood to flow’.36Newcastle Courant, 26 Apr. 1861.

As a railway magnate rather than a shipowner, Hodgson, despite his support for protectionism, never consolidated his support at Tynemouth, and at the 1865 general election, his nomination speech, made while appearing ‘extremely unwell’, was constantly interrupted by a hostile crowd. When he could be heard, he gave his support for the £6 borough franchise, but opposed church rate abolition and the ballot.37The Times, 12 July 1865. In contrast, his Liberal opponent, the author George Otto Trevelyan, was a popular figure. Not only did his support for an extension of the suffrage, the ballot and the abolition of disabilities upon Dissenters resonate with working-class voters, who comprised just over one-tenth of the electorate,38PP 1866 (170), lvii. 51. but also his father’s cousin, Sir Walter Trevelyan, helped him to buy an estate, which was resold after the election, in order to secure tenants’ votes.39P. Jackson, ‘Trevelyan, Sir George Otto, second baronet (1838-1928), Oxf. DNB, www.oxforddnb.com. After a campaign that was largely dominated by franchise reform, rather than protectionism, Trevelyan was returned with a respectable majority.

The Liberals maintained their representation of the borough until its abolition in 1885. At the 1868 general election, Thomas Eustace Smith, a member of one of Tyneside’s most prosperous shipping families, was elected and comfortably held his seat until his resignation in 1885. Although the 1867 Reform Act had doubled the borough’s electorate to over 2,600, its full effect was not felt until 1874 when, after a concerted effort at registration, it swelled to over 5,000. The social composition of the electorate however, remained middle class in character.40T.J. Nossiter, Influence, opinion and political idioms in reformed England: case studies from the North-east, 1832-74 (1975), 39. The 1885 Redistribution of Seats Act created the new constituency of Tynemouth, covering approximately the same area as the previous seat of Tynemouth and North Shields, whereupon Richard Donkin, a shipowner and native of the borough, captured the seat for the Conservatives, and served until the turn of the century. The borough, along with its neighbouring seaport constituencies, is examined in Susan Palmer’s Politics, Shipping and the Repeal of the Navigation Laws, and 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.