The Corporation: Members of Parliament

MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT FOR NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE.

Writs for summoning knights, citizens, and burgesses to parliament, were first issued during the reign of Henry III. in 1266; but it is uncertain whether or not Newcastle upon Tyne was among the boroughs then summoned. It, however, was one of the twenty-one principal towns which Edward I. in 1283, summoned to send two representatives to his parliament; and who, as the ancient writs clearly evince, were to be chosen out of the number of the principal burgesses of the respective towns.

Formerly, there were no contested elections. The third estate of parliament contained no statesmen and legislators. They were mere delegates, charged with presenting humble petitions for the redress of grievances. A seat in parliament was therefore considered more in the light of a burden imposed, than as any distinction conferred; and the wages paid to members seemed then the only advantage they received. (fn. 1)

Though the town of Newcastle regularly received summons to send burgesses to parliament, yet the returns were not regular. From the returns made by the sheriff of Northumberland, 6th and 8th Edward II. and 1st Edward III. it appears that the want of knights and burgesses to defend the county and town in times of peril was, of itself, a just and legal ground to excuse them in electing and sending members to parliament, although the king's writ expressly commanded them to do so. Prynne calls those returns "very memorable and rare, and not to be paralleled in any other shire." The first return on record, made by the sheriff of Newcastle after it had been made a county of itself, occurs in the 25th Henry VI. A. D. 1447. The following names of burgesses who have represented the town are all that can be recovered:—

The Freeholders of the town and county of the town of Newcastle upon Tyne are neither permitted to vote for a member of parliament for that town, nor for representatives for the county of Northumberland. It has lately become a question how so numerous and respectable a class of individuals have been deprived of the important right of choosing those who are entrusted with their properties, their liberties, and their lives. At the election for Northumberland in 1807, Lord Howick offered to accept the votes of the freeholders of Newcastle; but as he immediately after declined the contest, their claim to the elective franchise remains without any legal or constitutional decision.

Mr. Collier infers, with great probability, that anciently all freeholders were free burgesses. "In process of time," says he, "when towns began to grow populous and property more secure, trade encreased: and lands became of more value when allowed to be transferred from hand to hand; then the absentees drew the rents of their property in one place, though living in another; this caused a number of freeholders, no way personally interested in defence of the town where their freeholds lay, to loose their franchises of commonage, &c. which, as well as voting for members of parliament, was then, and is now (by strict law) confined to residents only. The freeholders, having thus lost their rights of commonage by non-residency, and want of personal service, that of voting for representatives soon followed with their own consent; because, paying their wages was a burthen they were glad to get quit of; and even the right of commonage was no great bargain, when saddled with the plague of turning out in turn, armed cap-a-pee,—mounting guard upon the walls, or patrolling the streets, and asking every one they met—who comes there? These observations may in some measure account for the freeholders of places like that of Newcastle losing their franchises, while the freemen or burgesses enjoy them still."

Mr. Brockett argues, that as the town of Newcastle formed an integral part of the county of Northumberland previous to the charter of 1st Henry IV. the freeholders of that town had a right to vote for representatives, in common with other freeholders of the county to which they belonged; and that the charter constituting Newcastle a county contains nothing against the rights of the freeholders of the town. (fn. 26) This writer thinks that the non-exercise of the elective franchise, by the freeholders in early times, arose from the desire of escaping the heavy contributions paid by voters to the expenses of their representatives; but he denies that, because it has so long been dormant, it is for ever lost; for "the right of voting, which a freeholder duly qualified possesses, is inseparably attached to the property which gives him such qualification." The wapentake of Ainsty, he says, was annexed to the county of the city of York, by charter 27 Henry VI.; but the freeholders of this district were, for centuries, refused their elective franchise, until their right of voting was established by the House of Commons in 1735. Accordingly, in 1807, the Ainsty freeholders, to the number of 230, voted without opposition. The town of Poole, by charter 10 Elizabeth, was severed from the county of Dorset, and made a county of itself; but the freeholders within the town still continued to vote for members of parliament for the county of Dorset. The borough of Southampton was also created a county distinct from Hants by Henry VI.; yet the freeholders of Southampton continued to vote for the members of the ancient county. The cities of Bristol and Litchfield, and the town of Nottingham, are all distinct counties, where the freeholders of 40s. a year vote for members. The freeholders of the county of Kingston upon Hull have no vote for members of parliament; but their case is not analogous to those of Newcastle upon Tyne.

Another writer contends that the freeholders of this town are entitled to vote in conjunction with the free burgesses. (fn. 27) The sheriff of Northumberland, he observes, cannot recognize the freeholders of Newcastle in his county, they being no way subject to his control or jurisdiction, or liable to pay any rate, tax, or assessment to his county, or to do any suit or service therein. He proceeds, "It is said, that the custom of voting by free burgesses having obtained so long, cannot be infringed upon by the freeholders; but I contend it will not be an infringement, it is only reviving what, I have no doubt, was the case under the king's writ, which was first issued after the erection of the town into a town and county of itself, i. e. that the election was by burgesses and freeholders conjointly, but that, in process of time, the burgesses became more numerous than the freeholders, and so ousted the freeholders from their right of voting, as in the same way they seem to have wrested from the freeholders their rights of land on the Leazes, and their rights in common, or herbage, on the Town Moor; for I hold in my possession, ancient title deeds of my own freehold property in Newcastle, which shew that three ridges of land on the Leazes were appurtenant to it; and the charter of 1st Henry 4th expressly says, that the burgesses, or their heirs or successors, shall not be put in assizes, juries, &c. BY REASON OF THEIR LANDS or tenements being within the town, suburbs and precincts aforesaid, OUT OF THE SAME TOWN, from which it is very evident, that a choice of members of parliament for the town, was in the FREEHOLDERS pari passu WITH THE BURGESSES."

After affirming that no charters granted to the town of Newcastle go to the disfranchisement of the freeholders or free-suitors therein, Mr. Peters says, "Independent of the above observation, the sheriff of Newcastle holds a monthly county court, which he cannot do without the presence of two freeholders or free-suitors of the town and county; and the sheriff is mostly attended, on this occasion, by two freeholders or free-suitors, who are not free burgesses; for these free burgesses (whether freeholders or not) hold this county court, a mesne court, and generally avoid attending it, if they can; and they cannot attend as free burgesses merely, for the county court is the court of the freeholders or free-suitors only, and wherein none but freeholders or free-suitors can be impannelled. It is not a court of the free burgesses as such,— their court is the court of guild only, held three times in the year by the charter. If a freeholder or free-suitor, upon summons, does not attend a county court, the sheriff has power to fine, and does fine, such free-suitor for the default; and this is a strong corroborative circumstance, to shew that the freeholder or free-suitor ought to be allowed the privilege of voting at elections for M. P.s; for if they are liable to be punished by the sheriff for defaults in office, which the law of the land compels them to sustain, surely they ought to have some privilege in return for this service. The sheriffs of Newcastle always hold the elections for members of parliament for the town, in and under the authority of this county court; for they are commanded, by the king's writ of election, to make proclamation (see Act 19th, George II. c. 28. s. 7.) in the next county court of the said town, to be holden after the receipt of the writ, which writ also directs that the burgesses, for themselves and the commonalty of the said town, shall have power to consent to the things named in the writ, i.e. concerning the election of two burgesses whether present or absent. And the writ further directs, that the election is to be made in the full county of the said town. Now, by this writ to the sheriff of Newcastle, it seems very evident, there is an admission on the part of the crown itself and its officers, that the election is to be by the free burgesses and freeholders or free-suitors conjointly, because it says, 'the burgesses for themselves and the commonalty of the said town,' which word 'commonalty' means the freeholders or free-suitors thereof, as restricted to forty shillings a year, by the Acts of 8th Henry VI. c. 7th, and 10th Henry VI. c. 2, for the qualification of freeholders to vote, for it is notorious, that in all the writs for the elections of knights of the shire for counties at large, that the word 'commonalty' (meaning the freeholders or free-suitors so restricted) of the said counties, is made use of, and that they are to make the elections, and it does seem most singular that, in the writ of election for Newcastle, the word 'commonalty' is united with the burgesses; for if it had not been the idea of the crown and its officers, that the election was in both the burgesses and freeholders or free-suitors of Newcastle conjointly, the writs would run as to the burgesses only."

The freeholders of the county of the town and county of Newcastle pay their distinct land-tax and countyrates, raise their separate proportions of militia-men, and have their own Lord Lieutenant and Custos Rotulorum; but do not attend the grand or petit juries, because they are not summoned: and these things constitute the qualifications of voters. Many old title-deeds, besides the one belonging to Mr. Peters, shew that a right of commonage was originally annexed to the freeholds. A short time previous to the dissolution of the last parliament, Mr. Sykes, M. P. for Hull, brought in a bill entitled, "The Freeholders in Districts Bill," in which it was intended to enact that the freeholders of the town and county of Newcastle should vote for knights of the shire for Northumberland; but the bill, after some debate, was withdrawn. This town was included in the provisions of this bill, without the knowledge or consent of the generality of the freeholders. Had the bill been pressed, it would probably have been opposed by the freeholders of Northumberland, as tending to throw their elective franchise into the hands of the Newcastle freeholders, who possess an unity of interests, and whose number is estimated at not less than 2000.