The Corporation
Members of Parliament

Sponsor

Institute of Historical Research

Publication

Author

Eneas Mackenzie

Year published

1827

Pages

655-661

Citation Show another format:

'The Corporation: Members of Parliament', Historical Account of Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Including the Borough of Gateshead (1827), pp. 655-661. URL: http://british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=43400 Date accessed: 29 July 2014.


Highlight

(Min 3 characters)

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:—

King Edward I. began his reign 1272.
Anno Regni. Parliament.
26 John Scot, Peter Graper or Draper York
30 Nich. Carliol, Tho. de Frisina London
35 Nich. le Scot (fn. 2) Carlisle
King Edward II. began his reign 1307.
1 Gilbert de Fleming, Peter Fisher Northamp.
2 Johannes filius Henrici, Gilb. Hawkins Westm.
4 Rich. de Emeldon, John de Carliol ditto
5 Rich. de Emeldon, Nich. de Carliol London
6 Gilbert Fleming, John de Keterington Westm.
8 Nich. le Scotts, Rich. de Emeldon (fn. 3) York
15 Michael Scott, Rob. Angerton Westm.
19 Rich. de Emeldon, Adam Graper ditto
King Edward III. began his reign 1326.
1 Richard de Emeldon, Tho. Daulin York
2 Rich. Emeldon, Adam Graper Northamp.
4 Will. Burnton, Gilb. Haukin Westm.
6 Rich. Emeldon, John Denton ditto
7 John Denton, Hugo de Hecham (fn. 4) York
8 John de Denton, Hugo de Hecham ditto
9 John de Emeldon, Rich. Heite Westm.
12 Peter de Angerton, Tho. Holiwell ditto
13 Rob. de Haliwell, Tho. de Haliwell ditto
14 John Denton, Richard Galloway ditto
14 Nich. Scott, John Scott ditto
15 Will. de Emeldon, Nic. de Sadlingstaves ditto
17 Richard de Emeldon, Gilbert Hawkin ditto
20 William de Atton, Richard Angerton ditto
21 Robert Angerton, Robert de Peturick (fn. 5) Westm.
22 Peter Graper, William Ditton (fn. 6) ditto
22 Thomas Worship, John Reynald ditto
24 John de Chaumbre, Nicholas Radun ditto
25 John de Chaumbre, Nich. de Rodun ditto
32 Will. del Strothe, Nich. de Rodun ditto
33 Philip Graper, Tho. Frismarisco ditto
34 Will. de Strechre, John de Stanhop ditto
35 John othe Chaumbre, John de Stanhop ditto
36 John de la Chaumbre, Robert de Duxfield ditto
39 William Acton, Hugo Hawkins ditto
45 Richard Dacton, Robert de Angerton ditto
46 Robert de Hangerton, Laurence de Acton ditto
47 Henry Scot, Roger Lelilax ditto
50 Nich. de Sabram, Laurence de Acton ditto
51Tho. del Chaumbre, John Howel ditto
King Richard II. began his reign 1377.
1 John de Bulkham, Richard de Stanhop Westm.
3 Nich. Sabram, John Howell ditto
7 John Howell, Sampson Harding ditto
8 John Howell, Sampson Harding ditto
9 Stephen Whitgray, Sampson Harding ditto
10 Laurence de, Philip Howell ditto
11 Sampson Harding, William Bishopdale ditto
13 Wm. Bishopdale, Stephen Whitgray ditto
15 Wm. Bishopdale, Laurence de Acton ditto
16 John de Moreton, Rich. de Laugeston ditto
17 Henry de Kersell, Thomas Dirindon ditto
20 Sampson Harding, Wm. Redmarshull ditto
King Henry IV. began his reign 1399.
1 Laurence Acton, Roger Thornton Westm.
3 Richard Bennett, Robert Darcy ditto
6 Robert Lisle, William Carnaby ditto
8 Robert de Lyle, John de Clavering ditto
12 Roger Thornton, Roger de Bothe ditto
King Henry V. began his reign 1412.
1 William Johnson, Robert Whelpington Westm.
1 Rich. de Dalton, Robert Whelpington ditto
2 William de Middleton, Rol. Swineburne Leicester
3 Roger del Both, Thomas de Hibburne Westm.
5 Roger Thornton, John de Strother ditto
7 John Paulin, Robert Hibburne Gloucester
8 John de Wall, Roger del Both Westm.
9 William Ellerby, Roger del Both ditto
King Henry VI. began his reign 1422.
1 Robert Whelpington, Emeric Herring Westm.
2 Robert Whelpington, Roger del Both ditto
3 William Madecroft, Andomer Herring ditto
6 William Madecroft, Robert Rodes ditto
7 Robert Rodes, Thos. Papeday ditto
11 William Harding, Robert Rodes ditto
13 Edward Bartram, Robert Rodes ditto
20 Robert Rodes, Robert Heworth ditto
25 William Harding, Thomas Morrislaw (fn. 7) Cambridge
27 William Harding, John Dalton Westm.
28 Robert Heworth, Robert Baxter ditto
29 John Ward, Richard Weldon ditto
38 Thomas Weltden, Robert Mannes ditto
King Edward IV. began his reign 1460.
7 John Wood, Richard Westden Westm.
12 William Blackston, Robert Folberry ditto
17 ditto
The writs, returns, and indentures, from 17 King Edward IV. to 1 King Edward VI. are all lost.—B. Willis.
King Edward VI began his reign 1546.
1 Robert Brandling, knt. (fn. 8) Westm.
7 Rob. Lewen, mayor, Bertram Anderson ditto
Queen Mary began her reign 1553.
1 Robert Brandling, knt. Edward Hall Westm.
1 Bertram Anderson, Cuthbert Horsley ditto
1 & 2 Bertram Anderson, Joh. Watson, Esq. ditto
2 & 3 Robert Brandling, knt. Cuth. Blont ditto
4 & 5 Bertram Anderson, Robert Lewen ditto
Queen Elizabeth began her reign 1558.
1 Cuthbert Blount, Robert Lewen Westm.
5 Robert Brandling, knt. Barth. Anderson ditto
13 William Carr, William Jennison ditto
14 William Selby, William Jennison ditto
27 Henry Anderson, Will. Jennison, alderman ditto
28 Henry Anderson, Edw. Lewen, aldermen ditto
31 Henry Anderson, Henry Mitford, aldermen ditto
35 Henry Anderson, Edw. Lewen, aldermen ditto
39 Henry Mitford ditto
43 William Jennison, Geo. Selby, aldermen ditto
King James I. began his reign 1603.
1 George Selby, Henry Chapman, esq. Westm.
12 Henry Anderson, knt. ditto
18 Fra. Anderson, knt. Thomas Riddell, knt. (fn. 9) ditto
21 Henry Anderson, knt. Peter Riddell, knt. (fn. 10) ditto
King Charles I. began his reign 1625.
1 Henry Anderson, knt. Tho. Liddle, (fn. 11) knt. Westm.
1 Henry Anderson, knt. Peter Riddel, knt. ditto
3 Thomas Riddel, knt. Peter Riddel, knt. ditto
15 Peter Riddel, knt. Thomas Liddel, esq. ditto
16 Hen. Anderson, knt. Joh. Blackston, esq. (fn. 12) ditto
Oliver Cromwell. (fn. 13)
3 Sept. 1654, Arthur Hasilrig, bart.
17 Sept. 1656, Walter Strickland, esq.
Richard Cromwell.
27 Jan, 1658, Mark Shaftoe, Thomas Lilburne, esq. The Convention Parliament.
25 April, 1660, Fra. Anderson, knt. Rob. Ellison, knt.
King Charles II. began his reign 1653.
13 Fra. Anderson, knt. J. Marley, knt. (fn. 14) Westm.
31 Fra. Anderson, knt. Wm. Blackett, bart. ditto
31 Ra. Carr, knt. Nath. Johnson, esq. ditto
32 Ra. Carr, knt. Nath. Johnson, knt. Oxon.
King James II. began his reign 1685.
1 Nath. Johnson, knt. Wm. Blackett, bart. The Convention Parliament. Westm.
22 Jan. 1688, Ra. Carr, knt. W. Blackett, bart. ditto
William & Mary began their reign 1689.
2 Ra. Carr, knt. William Carr, esq. Westm.
King William III. reigned alone, 1694.
7 William Blackett, bart. William Carr, esq. Westm.
10 William Blackett, bart. William Carr, esq. ditto
12 Henry Liddell, bart. William Carr, esq. ditto
13 Henry Liddell, bart. William Carr, esp. ditto
Queen Ann began her reign 1702.
1 Henry Liddell, bart. William Carr, esq. Westm.
4 William Blackett, bart. William Carr, esq. Henry Liddell, bart. in the room of Blackett, who died 29th Dec. 1705. ditto
7 Henry Liddell, bart. William Carr, esq. ditto
9 Wm. Blackett, bart. Wm Wrightson, esq. (fn. 15) ditto
12 Wm. Blackett, bart. Wm. Wrightson, esq. ditto
King George I. began his reign 1714.
1 Wm.Blackett, bart. Wm. Wrightson,esq. (fn. 16) Westm.
7 Wm. Blackett, bart. Wm. Carr, esq. (fn. 17) ditto
King George II. began his reign 1727
1 Wm. Blackett, bart. Nich. Fenwick, esq. (fn. 18) Westm.
7 W.Calverly Blackett, esq. N.Fenwick, esq. (fn. 19) ditto
14 W.Calverly Blackett, esq. N.Fenwick, esq. (fn. 20) Westm.
20 W. Calverly Blackett, esq. M. Ridley, esq. ditto
28 W. Calverly Blackett, bart. M. Ridley, esq. ditto
King George III. began his reign 1760.
1 W. Calverly Blackett, bart. M. Ridley, esq. Westm.
8 W. Calverly Blackett, bart. M. Ridley, esq. ditto
15 W. C. Blackett, bart. M. W. Ridley, bart. (fn. 21) ditto
Sir John Trevelyan, bart. (fn. 22)
21 M. W. Ridley, bart. A. R. Bowes, esq. (fn. 23) ditto
25 M. W. Ridley, bart. C. Brandling, esq. ditto
31 M. W. Ridley, bart. C. Brandling, esq. ditto
37 M. W. Ridley, bart. C. Brandling, esq. ditto
In the following year, Mr. Brandling, on account of ill health, resigned his seat, and Charles John Brandling, esq. his son, was chosen in his stead.
42 M. W. Ridley, bart. C. J. Brandling, esq. Westm.
43 M. W. Ridley, bart. C. J. Brandling, esq. ditto
47 M. W. Ridley, bart. C. J. Brandling, esq. ditto
48 M. W. Ridley, bart. C. J. Brandling, esq. ditto
52 M. W. Ridley, esq. (fn. 24) Cuthbert Ellison, esq. ditto
59 M. W. Ridley, bart. Cuthbert Ellison, esq. ditto
King George IV. began his reign 1820.
1 M. W. Ridley, bart. Cuthbert Ellison, esq (fn. 25) Westm.
6 M. W. Ridley, bart. Cuthbert Ellison, esq. ditto

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.

Footnotes

1 To enforce the payment of wages to members of parliament, the writ de expensis militum, civium, et burgensium, was framed. See Prynne's fourth Register. This learned writer says, "To be a burgess of parliament, or to find or send burgesses to it, was anciently reputed a matter of great pains and expenses, yea, a great damage and oppression to the burgesses themselves, and the boroughs that elected and paid them."— Brevia Parliam. rediviva, p. 240.
Brady informs us that, in some burghs, "the elections are said to be made by the bailiffs, with the assent of the community of the burgesses." Accordingly, says he, "two burgesses were elected for the community of the burgh of Newcastle upon Tyne, with their names and manucaptators' (sureties) names in a schedule."— Treatise on Burghs, p. 63.
2 The name of the other burgess has not been transmitted. In this writ no particular sum is mentioned, the representative being only to be allowed his reasonable expenses.
3 The above table of burgesses not agreeing with the several returns, implies that a peremptory writ had compelled an election. Hutchinson's Hist, of Northumb, vol. ii. page 105.
4 Hugh de Heckam often occurs as bailiff about this time.
5 Probably in mistake for Robert de Penerith, who was bailiff in 1346.
6 Perhaps William D'Acton.
7 This return was made by the sheriff of Newcastle by indenture, and is the first on record after the town became a county of itself. It appears that the two members now chosen were resident burgesses of Newcastle. The electors were 35 in number.
8 In the Journals of the House of Commons, 15th February, 1550, et seq. mention occurs of an affray between Sir Robert Brandlyng, Knight, burgess of Newcastle, and Syr John Wytheryngton and others. On this occasion, Sir J. Wytheryngton was committed prisoner to the Tower of London.
9 Of St. Edmond's Abbey and Fenham.
10 Of St. Peter's Quay.
11 Alderman and mayor: he purchased Ravensworth.
12 Sir Henry Anderson, Knight, was disabled September 4, 1643, for deserting the service of the house, and repairing to the army against the parliament. Both these members took the protestation May 3, 1641. The writ for the election of another member for Newcastle, in the place of Sir Henry Anderson, appears not to have issued till September 3, 1645. Robert Ellison, of Hebburn, and Henry Warmouth, Esqrs. were candidates on the above vacancy. Henry Warmouth, Esq. was returned, but not suffered to keep his scat long after his election, which was declared void July 23. 1647, and a writ issued eodem die. (Parliamentary History, vol. ix. page 35.) May 29, 1648, Mr. Blakston and Mr. Ellison occur as members of Newcastle. (Common council books.)--By an entry in the common council books of Newcastle, June 20, 1660, it appears that Mr. Robert Ellison, merchant, who had served for a whole year, without any allowance from the town, received after the rate of ten shillings per diem, £182, 10s. He died January 12, 1677, aged 64 years. Mr. Blackston signed the warrant to behead the king.
13 Cromwell convened a parliament called the Little Parliament, 1653, but no representatives for any cities or boroughs, except London, were returned. By his direction, three members were assigned to Northumberland, one for Newcastle upon Tyne, and one for Berwick. The member chosen for Newcastle in 1654 was allowed 5s. per day, by order of the common council.
14 "Sir John Marley died in October, 1673, and I suppose Sir William Blackett to have been chosen in his stead."---Brand.
15 This was a contested election, which lasted two days, and ended November 2, 1710. There were three candidates. Sir William Blackett had 1177 votes; Mr. Wrightson had 886; and William Carr, Esq. alderman, the unsuccessful candidate, 609. Mr. Wrightson was of Cosworth, county of York; he married one of the Fenwick's heiresses of By well.
16 There were three candidates; Sir William Blackett polled 639; Mr. Wrightson 550; and Mr. Clavering 263. James (Clavering, Esq. the unsuccessful candidate, petitioned parliament on this occasion.
17 April 4, 1722, Sir William Blackett, Bart. William Wrightson, Esq. and William, son of Joseph Carr, Esq. stood for burgesses for parliament. Mr. Carr polled 1234, Sir William Blackett 1158, and Mr. Wrightson 831.
18 The poll ended September 8, 1727, when Sir William Blackett had 1202 votes, Mr. Fenwick 1189, and Mr. Carr 620. It began on the 6th of September. Mr. Carr lodged his petition in 1727, but nothing was done therein till after Sir William Blackett's death, and then he was heard; and having disqualified above 600 of Sir William's voters for bribery, he was voted duly elected.
19 This election, the poll-book of which was printed, lasted eight days, and ended on Thursday, May 9, 1734. The candidates were Walter Calverly Blackett, Esq. (originally Walter Calverly, Esq. eldest son of Walter Calverly, of Calverly in the county of York, Bart.) who married one of the daughters and heiresses of Sir William Blackett, Bart, and took his sirname, who had 1354 votes; Nicholas Fenwick, Esq. and alderman, who had 1083; and William Carr, Esq. and alderman, who had 716 votes. 1795 freemen voted on this occasion.
20 At this election, long known by the name of the great contest, which lasted six days, ending May 19, 1741, the poll-book of which was also printed, there were four candidates, all of them aldermen of the town: Walter Calverly Blackett, Esq. who had 1453 votes; Nicholas Fenwick, Esq. who had 1231; Matthew Ridley, Esq. who had 1131; and William Carr, Esq. who had 683 votes. 2391 freemen voted on this occasion. William Carr and Matthew Ridley, Esqrs. were petitioners. Mr. Carr died May 16, 1742. Mr. Ridley renewed his petition in the second session.
21 The contest on this occasion continued eight days, ending on Wednesday, October 19, 1774. The poll-book was printed. Sir Walter Blackett had 1432 votes; Sir Matthew White Ridley, 1411; the Hon. Constantine John Phipps, afterwards Lord Mulgrave, 795; and Thomas Delaval, Esq. 677. 2162 persons voted at this election; a smaller number by 229 than at the great contest in 1741, although 600 are said to have been admitted to their freedom on the occasion.
22 On March 14, 1777, Sir John Trevelyan, Bart, was chosen in place of his uncle, Sir Walter, who died in February that year. There was a hard contest on this occasion, which lasted 14 days. Sir John Trevelyan, Bart, polled 1163; and Andrew Robinson Bowes, Esq. 1068 votes. Mr. Bowes lodged a petition, which accused Sir John Trevelyan of bribery; but no proof that was thought sufficient having been produced, the election of the latter was declared valid by a committee of the House of Commons.
23 This election ended September 21, 1780. Number of votes for Sir Matthew White Ridley, 1408; for Mr. Bowes, 1135; for Mr. Delaval, 1085. At this election, 2245 freemen voted, of which number it is remarkable that 862 were single voters, i. e. 231 for Sir Matthew White Ridley; 514 for Mr. Bowes; and 117 for Mr. Delaval. The latter gentleman petitioned against Mr. Bowes, as did some of the burgesses against Sir Matthew White Ridley; but nothing was done in either petition.
24 M. W. Ridley, Esq. was elected on the resignation of his father; and Cuthbert Ellison, Esq. on the resignation of C. J. Brandling, Esq. in 1812.
25 At this election on March 9, 1820, some of the burgesses put William Scott, esq. only son of Lord Stowell, in nomination. An unexpected contest ensued; but, previous to the arrival of Mr. Scott on the 11th, Alderman Forster withdrew his name. Mr. Ellison was then in Italy; but was represented by his brother, Major Ellison. Sir M. W. Ridley polled 614 votes; Ellison 477; and Scott 217.
26 "An Enquiry into the Question, whether the Freeholders of the Town and County of Newcastle upon Tyne are entitled to vote for Members of Parliament for the County of Northumberland. By John Trotter Brockett. Newcastle. printed for Emerson Charnley, and C. Hunter, London. 1818."
27 See a long letter, signed, "Willm. Peters, attorney at law, Newcastle upon Tyne."---Newcastle Courant, May 27, 1826.