Northumberland

<p>Newcastle was represented throughout the period by local landed gentlemen whose family wealth had been made in Newcastle trade, and who remained respected figures in the town and leaders of its business community. A Whig-Tory compromise and the expense of transporting non-resident freemen from various parts of the country discouraged contests.

<p>Until 1802 Frederick Howard, 5th Earl of Carlisle, returned two Members unchallenged for Morpeth. The party of independent freemen which had threatened Carlisle’s family interest earlier in the century was checked by a policy of careful management which combined charity payments to the poorer voters with a limitation on the size of the freeman electorate through control of the organs of local government.<fn>J. M. Fewster, ‘The Pols. and Admin. of the Borough of Morpeth in the later 18th Cent.’ (Durham Univ. Ph.D. thesis, 1960), ch.

<p>The expense of maintaining an electoral interest at Berwick proved beyond all contenders during this period and it was increasingly regarded as an open, but venal, borough ‘almost as famous for its elections, as for its smocks and its salmon’. In 1784 the two leading interests represented by Lt.-Gen. John Vaughan (Lord Lisburne’s brother) and John Hussey Delaval had retained their hold, but on Delaval’s obtaining a peerage as a reward for going over to government in 1786, the ministerial nominee was defeated by a Whig, Sir Gilbert Elliot of Minto.

<p>A large independent trading town, Newcastle always returned members of local merchant families, such as the Blacketts, who held one seat in every Parliament from 1673 to 1777, except in 1705-10, when the head of the family was a minor. From 1715 until 1747 every election was contested, Tories winning both seats, except in 1722, when William Carr, a Whig, was returned with Sir William Blackett. Defeated in 1727 by Blackett and another Tory, Nicholas Fenwick, Carr petitioned on the ground of the partiality of the returning officer.

<p>The patrons of Morpeth were the earls of Carlisle who, as lords of the manor, could restrict the admission of new freemen, reward their supporters by leasing farms to them on favourable terms, and punish recalcitrants by denying them access for their cattle to Cottingwood common, a tract of common land. From 1715 the 3rd Earl was always able to nominate one Member, his son, Lord Morpeth, ‘without expense’.

<p>Apart from the corporation, the chief interest at Berwick was in the Government, derived from the local revenue officers, the garrison and the ordnance. In 1715, 1722 and 1727 the Government carried both seats, but on 24 Nov. 1732 one of the sitting Members, George Liddell, reported to Walpole, that ‘my corporation have named several candidates for a third man, to make some sport, as they call it’.

<p>The corporation of Newcastle consisted of the mayor, the recorder and the sheriff, who acted as returning officer, with ten aldermen and a common council of 24. Both the corporation and the Members of Parliament were elected by the freemen, though the complicated indirect method in use in municipal elections favoured control by the merchant oligarchy. All the successful candidates in this period came from this class, and all except William Calverley were themselves in trade.

<p>The corporation of Morpeth consisted of two bailiffs, who acted as returning officers, and seven aldermen, one for each of the trading companies crafts or guilds. New freemen were presented by the companies at the court leet of the manor in batches of 24, the proportions of the various companies being fixed.

<p>The most important interest at Berwick was in the corporation, which controlled the roll of freemen. It remained a garrison town despite the union of the crowns, but the interest which thus accrued to the Government was counterbalanced by the strength of Presbyterianism in the town. Most of the candidates were Northumberland gentry by birth or residence, the chief interests belonging to the Presbyterian Greys of Warke and the Roman Catholic Widdringtons.

<p>Enfranchised Mary in 1553, Morpeth was not incorporated. Municipal affairs were conducted by two bailiffs, appointed annually, seven aldermen, representing the town’s crafts or guilds, and the burgesses. The bailiffs were chosen by the lord of the borough or his steward from burgesses nominated by the seven guilds.<fn>Hodgson, <em>Hist. Northumb.</em> ii(2), p. 454 et passim.</fn></p><p>During the 50 years following its enfranchisement, the ownership of Morpeth borough was subjected to several involved changes.