Local Government and Public Services.
In the Pipe Roll for 1172–3 (fn. 1) Newcastle
was referred to as a borough for the first time and it
may well be that a royal charter recognizing this
status was granted to the inhabitants in or about that
year. It is certain that when in 1179 Henry II
granted a charter to Preston (Lancs.), the Newcastle
charter, of which there now remains no trace, was
taken as the model and the burgesses of Preston were
conceded the same liberties and free customs as had
been given to the burgesses of Newcastle. (fn. 2)
For the grant of burghal status, and such privileges as accompanied it, the town appears to have
incurred a debt to the king of £23 6s. 8d., that being
the sum for which the sheriff accounted in 1173. (fn. 3)
Paid in instalments, the debt was finally extinguished
in 1186. (fn. 4) Under Henry III a notable step forward
in recognition of Newcastle's importance as a trading
community was achieved. (fn. 5) This was the issue in
1235 of a charter (fn. 6) establishing a guild merchant in
the town, with all the liberties and free customs belonging to such a guild, (fn. 7) and adding the declaration,
which may have been included in Henry II's charter,
that Newcastle should be a free borough. The new
charter omits any reference to Henry II's charter and
so implies that the status was being conferred for the
first time. (fn. 8) A further advance on the road to burghal
autonomy was marked in 1251 by the issue of another
royal charter, which gave the mayor (here mentioned for the first time) and burgesses the right to
hold the town at a fee-farm rent, payable annually
to the king's bailiff at Newcastle. (fn. 9) That payment of
the fee-farm rent did not ensure freedom from external interference appears from a royal mandate of
1282 directing the local bailiffs to protect from interference the burgesses, good men, bakers, brewers,
butchers, fishers, carriers, millers, or other artificers
of Newcastle. (fn. 10)
Although the grant of charters guaranteeing their
rights and liberties would seem to have placed the
inhabitants of Newcastle in a strong position, it was
by no means unassailable. When, in 1267, Edmund,
Earl of Lancaster, upon acquiring the castle and
manor, (fn. 11) seems to have secured a controlling interest
in the affairs of the borough, (fn. 12) he was concerned to
assert his authority and, though the stages of the dispute are not known, it is clear that the burgesses
had finally to bow to his will. In 1293–6 the mayor
and community, while they had claimed to farm the
borough for 40 marks, renounced this right and
acknowledged that Edmund and his heirs should
hold the borough and its appurtenances and dispose
of them in future at will, subject, however, to the
liberties granted to the borough by the charters of
Henry III and Edward I. (fn. 13) It is probable that on the
death of Edmund in 1296 the borough was able to
regain its financial and other privileges; by 1322 it
was paying a farm of £20, which was less than the
original 40 marks and probably a good deal less than
what had been exacted by Edmund. (fn. 14) In 1325 the
burgesses were petitioning the king for confirmation
of 40 marks as the fee-farm rent and exemption from
attendance at outside inquests or assizes. (fn. 15) Nevertheless the farm remained at £20, though the borough
was not always prompt in payment. In 1494 the corporation, being then £166 in arrear, was threatened
by the duchy council with the deprivation of its
liberties in default of settlement. (fn. 16)
The constitutional development of Newcastle may
be traced from the records of its governing body inscribed in a series of minute books, beginning in
1369 and continuing, with a gap of eighty years, from
1411 to 1491, to the present day. (fn. 17) According to the
earliest of these records supreme authority resided
in the mayor and the community (communitas), but
it appears that the day-to-day administration of the
borough was carried on by the mayor, the bailiffs,
and a body of 24 burgesses, first mentioned in 1371. (fn. 18)
Nevertheless, for certain enactments touching the
generality of burgesses, the participation and consent of the community as a whole were deemed advisable, as, for example, in 1379–80 when regulations
were adopted for the fencing of the common lands
and the building of houses; (fn. 19) and again in 1384–5
when approving an ordinance that no 'foreigner'
(unless he was a burgess) should be permitted to set
up as a brewer or baker. (fn. 20) From the point of view
of the evolution of the borough council it is perhaps
significant that in 1379–80 the Twenty-four are
described as elders (seniores) and in 1382–3 as aldermen. (fn. 21) For most of the 15th century no minute books
have survived so that the stages in the development
of town government are not on record, but in 1498
the 'counsell of the towne' is definitely associated
with the mayor and 'his brethren' in giving its consent to a proposal relating to the common lands. (fn. 22)
This body is presumably identifiable with the
'twelve' who both before and after 1498 assented
pro communitate to borough business. (fn. 23) That the
'twelve' were representative of the burgesses as a
whole is attested by the appearance of their names in
1496–7 as giving 'a whole assent and consent of the
cominaltie' to action taken by the mayor and his
brethren. (fn. 24)
In 1547–8 the minutes record the names of twenty
persons as constituting the 'counsell of the towne', (fn. 25)
indicating an enlargement of the earlier body of
twelve. By 1572–3 the 'counsell' had increased to
24 (fn. 26) and at that figure it remained until the grant of
the new charter in 1590. Election to this council was
in the hands of a committee of eight, four chosen
from the Twenty-four and four from the council
itself. (fn. 27)
1590 CHARTER. By patent of 18 May 1590, granted
at the instigation of Robert, Earl of Essex, the town
was incorporated and certain constitutional changes,
which formed the basis of the government of Newcastle for the next two and a half centuries, were promulgated. (fn. 28) Henceforth the governing body, to be
called the Common Council, (fn. 29) was to consist of the
mayor, the bailiffs, and 24 'of the more discreet and
better men' of the borough, to be called the capital
burgesses. The members of the council so set up were
nominated in the charter itself and consisted of the
then mayor, the 2 bailiffs, and the 24 burgesses, comprising 6 ex-mayors, 7 ex-bailiffs and 11 members
of the last 'counsel of the towne'. Power was given
to the mayor, bailiffs, and capital burgesses to make
ordinances regarding the method of election to the
council and the filling of vacancies. In exercise of this
power the council in 1596 enacted that vacancies in
the capital burgesses should be filled by a majority
of the capital burgesses themselves, (fn. 30) and again in
1599 that the election of the borough officers was to
lie with the mayor, bailiffs, capital burgesses, and so
many other 'of the beste sorte of the commonaltye'
as should bring up the total of the electing body to
thirty-two, in addition to the mayor and bailiffs. (fn. 31)
When it is realized that the eight additional electing
members were chosen by the council, it will be
apparent that the ordinary inhabitants had no voice
in the government of the borough, a state of affairs
which remained unchanged until the Municipal
Corporations Act of 1835. In fact, such meagre acknowledgement of the right of the 'commonalty' to
have a say in the election of their masters as had been
conceded in the ordinance of 1599 was later withdrawn, for in 1620 it was ordered that in future
the election of officers should be made solely by the
mayor, bailiffs, and 24 capital burgesses without the
participation of the 'commonalty'. (fn. 32)
While the 1590 charter chiefly deals with the above
changes in the governing body, it contains many
other provisions which in the main are declaratory
of existing custom and practice as exhibited in the
minute books of the earlier period. From them a
picture of the mayor as the chief administrative and
judicial officer clearly emerges; in the 1590 charter
his pre-eminence is amply recognized and the clerkship of the market was then added to his other
functions. (fn. 33) Next to the mayor in the official hierarchy
stood the two bailiffs whose chief duty it was to
collect and pay the farm rent due from the borough.
From 1490 to 1590 one bailiff was elected to represent the Twenty-four and the other to represent the
community. (fn. 34) The other officers elected annually
were the common serjeant (a second serjeant to
serve the mayor appears to have been appointed by
1490), (fn. 35) two wardens of the assize of bread and ale, (fn. 36)
two constables, two receivers of money, and two
churchwardens. (fn. 37) The 1590 charter also provides
for the appointment of a town clerk, an official who
must have existed before, though references to him
in the early minutes are curiously scanty; in 1379–80
there is a reference to 'communis clericus', (fn. 38) who
presumably exercised functions roughly corresponding to those of a town clerk, while in 1383–4 there is
included an item of 6s. 8d. 'pro feodo clerici ville'. (fn. 39)
The charter also provided for the holding of three
borough courts: a tri-weekly 'court of record' before
the mayor, bailiffs, and steward, to deal with trespasses and actions for debt and contract up to £40;
a twice-yearly view of frankpledge; and a court of
piepowder at the Monday market and the St. Giles,
Trinity, and Easter fairs. (fn. 40) Apart from view of frankpledge, which was to be held 'in the manner as hath
been used from ancient time', it is not known how
far these courts already existed before 1590.
THE POST-RESTORATION BOROUGH. The restoration of the monarchy in 1660 heralded the beginning
of an attack on the independence of the boroughs
which was to continue, in the case of Newcastle,
until the Revolution of 1688. The detailed story of
the attempts of the Crown to obtain control of the
borough with the principal object of influencing the
election of the borough representatives to Parliament
has already been told. (fn. 41) Briefly, a new charter was
granted in 1664 which the borough council was in
effect forced to accept. (fn. 42) The charter's most significant
innovation was the insistence that royal approval
should be obtained for the election or appointment
of the recorder and the town clerk, the object being
to safeguard and promote through these two important officers the interest of the Crown in the
borough. In January 1684 when the mayor and corporation wanted to appoint John Turton as steward
or recorder, the king did not approve and the
borough was obliged to elect the royal nominee
Peter Broughton of the Middle Temple 'though unknown to them'. (fn. 43) The charter also provided for the
appointment of three justices of the peace, namely
the mayor and two capital burgesses, (fn. 44) and confirmed the power of a majority of the borough
council to fill casual vacancies and the place of anyone (including the recorder and town clerk) removed
from office for bad behaviour. (fn. 45) In the same year Newcastle, like other boroughs, found itself the target of
an even more determined attack by the Crown on the
entrenched position of the ancient corporations. In
October the council minutes record the decision to
surrender their charters to the king, (fn. 46) but before
doing so the corporation prudently granted to a body
of local trustees the town lands and rents on trust to
permit the mayor, bailiffs, and capital burgesses to
dispose of the rents and profits for the maintenance
of their church minister and for the relief of the poor.
While negotiations were going forward in London
for the grant of a new charter, Charles II died
(6 February 1685). The charter of James II granted
in the following month provided for a complete reconstitution of the governing body. The new council
was to consist of a mayor, twelve aldermen (the
mayor being one), and fifteen capital burgesses, out
of whom the two bailiffs were to be chosen. There
was also to be a high steward, (fn. 47) a recorder, and a
common clerk. The charter nominated those who
were to be members of the corporation and officeholders, and these were clearly chosen for their
amenability to the policy of the Crown. Even so the
Crown reserved to itself the power at any time to
remove any member of the council or any of the
before-mentioned officials from office. The duration
of this charter was brief. James thought it advisable,
as with other boroughs, to try to placate local antipathy towards him by restoring the status quo and
rehabilitating the old pre-1685 council; the change
was effected by an Order in Council of 4 December
1687, (fn. 48) under the power reserved to the Crown in
the 1685 charter. Under general proclamation of 17
October 1688, the charter of 1685 was itself annulled
and constitutionally the borough regained the liberties and privileges it had enjoyed under the charter
of 1664.
Nevertheless, though James's interference with
the borough had been unsuccessful and of brief
duration, it brought in its train two evils, namely
financial difficulties and dissension among the burgesses. Considerable expenditure had been incurred
in connexion with the surrender of the charters and
the grant of the new charter in 1685. (fn. 49) To meet their
difficulties, the council had recourse to borrowing,
£220 from a Mr. Allen in April 1685 and £400 from
William Sneyd in May 1685, (fn. 50) but this expedient
also produced its problems, for succeeding minutes
illustrate the council's difficulty in discharging its
debts. (fn. 51) In fact, it is clear that between 1683 and
1688 the affairs of the town were in a very disordered
state, to which the bitter political and personal
rivalry of two opposing factions in large measure
contributed. When the old council was reinstated in
1688 its resentment against its predecessors found
expression in an attack upon Thomas Hemings,
mayor in 1686–7, and in January 1689 it was agreed
that he and all other persons who had intermeddled
with the rents, money, or stock of the town, or received any of the same by virtue of the late charter,
should be called to account. (fn. 52) Proceedings against
Hemings and some of his colleagues were instituted,
and in 1693–4 and 1695–6 two separate suits appear
to have been in progress simultaneously. (fn. 53) How
these actions were finally determined is unknown
and there is no further reference to them in the
council minutes. It is probable that the death of
Thomas Hemings on 30 November 1698 (fn. 54) put an
end to what must have been protracted and costly
litigation.
Throughout the 18th century the government and
administration of the borough preserved its oligarchical pattern and it was not until 1827 that the
right of the council to elect the mayor without the
participation of the general body of the burgesses
was questioned. By a decision of the Court of King's
Bench (fn. 55) it was held that the council's ordinance of
1620 (fn. 56) was illegal, and consequently in 1833 the
mayor and bailiffs were elected by the burgesses
at large. A curious result of the decision was that, the
former mayoral elections having been held to be bad,
several of the capital burgesses were liable to be
ousted as having been elected under bad presiding
officers, which had the further consequence that
vacancies in the council could not be filled because
eligible persons refused to accept office for fear of
legal proceedings. (fn. 57)
THE BURGESSES. (fn. 58) Such, in outline, is the history
of the governing body. Something must, however,
be added about the qualifications for burgess-ship.
In origin the burgesses were presumably the holders
of burgages, of which there were 160 in the early
13th century. (fn. 59) From 1369, when the minute books
begin, ample information is provided about the
election of burgesses, the conditions attached thereto,
and the fees payable for admission to the freedom
of the borough. The usual conditions required the
burgess to reside in the town and to follow his trade
or occupation there. Burgess-ship for life only could
be conferred on 'foreigners', i.e. those living outside
the borough. Regulations regarding such burgesses
were made in 1596. (fn. 60) In the medieval period the fee
payable for admission varied considerably up to a
maximum of 40s. In the earlier 16th century the
usual fee on election was 10s., raised to 20s. in 1560,
to £2 in 1577, and to £5 in 1589, at which figure it
remained until 1835, apart from the two years 1608
and 1609 when 20 marks were exacted. (fn. 61) Apprentices who had served their seven-year term with a
burgess in trade paid a smaller fee which from the
first quarter of the 17th century was usually fixed at
33s. 4d. (fn. 62) Those who were wholly excused payment
of admission fees included free-born burgesses if
resident within the borough, and usually the persons
elected to represent Newcastle in Parliament. (fn. 63) The
last burgess admitted without payment to enjoy the
full privileges was Josiah Wedgwood on 30 April
1831. (fn. 64) Honorary freedom of the borough without
the full privileges is still bestowed in special cases.
Occasionally the burgess-ship was granted, not
for a monetary payment, but as a consideration for
the rendering of a special service. Thus in 1589
Humphrey Smith was made free for life on condition
that he provided ropes for the church bells and clock.
Again, in 1614 Humphrey Liversage, and after him
his son Thomas in 1622, were admitted to their
liberties so long as they maintained the windows of
the church, school house, and steeple in sufficient
repair, for which they were also to receive 6s. 8d.
from the town yearly. (fn. 65) In 1627 Richard Ashe and
his son William were likewise admitted on condition
that Richard should flag and pave the ground under
the New hall (fn. 66) over a period of five years. (fn. 67)
While the records are for the most part silent
about the privileges attached to burgess-ship, the
obligations incurred thereby are clearly revealed.
The efficient government of the urban community
depended upon the co-operation of the burgesses
who were required voluntarily to undertake such
offices as that of bailiff, town serjeant, constable,
receiver of town money, churchwarden, overseer of
the poor, and surveyor of the highways.
A burgess, if elected a capital burgess, was required to undertake the office or submit to a pecuniary penalty, which could be substantial; in 1797
James Breck was fined 50 guineas for refusing to
take up office. (fn. 68) In the sphere of trade regulation, in
addition to the usual assize lookers, as they are
termed, for bread and ale, and also for meat and
fish, (fn. 69) from 1631 two burgesses were appointed to
act as searchers and sealers of leather. (fn. 70) Their duty
was to ensure that all leather brought into the town
for sale was properly tanned and to seize all footwear made of leather mixed with horse hide or other
leather prohibited by law. (fn. 71) Recalcitrant burgesses
and those who showed disrespect towards the mayor,
by no means a negligible number, were punished by
loss of their burgess rights, which, however, seem
to have been restored after an interval and on payment of a fine. (fn. 72)
POST-1835 CONSTITUTION. Under the Municipal
Corporations Act of 1835, the corporation was
styled the Mayor, Bailiffs, and Burgesses of Newcastle-under-Lyme, (fn. 73) and the borough council was
reconstituted to consist of six aldermen and eighteen
councillors elected by the ratepayers. (fn. 74) For the purpose of municipal elections the borough was divided
into two wards, (fn. 75) increased to twelve in 1932. (fn. 76) From
that year, when the borough boundaries were extended, (fn. 77) the council has consisted of 48 members,
namely 12 aldermen and 36 councillors, but the
total is increased by one if the mayor is not an
elected member. (fn. 78) These added parts were predominantly mining and industrial districts and, although at the time of the extension, membership of
the council appears to have been largely on a nonparty basis, (fn. 79) since the end of the Second World War
municipal elections have been contested between
candidates supporting the aims and policies of the
Labour party on the one hand and mainly Independent candidates on the other. In the period
1947–49 the council was controlled by Independent
members. Since that date Labour has been generally
in control. (fn. 80)
The new council elected under the 1835 Act met
in the first week of January 1836 (fn. 81) and proceeded
to establish committees to enable it to discharge its
wider functions of government. As required by the
Act, (fn. 82) a Watch Committee was constituted forthwith, followed by a Markets and Tolls Committee, (fn. 83)
a Highways Committee, and in the following year, a
Finance Committee. (fn. 84) As the work of the council expanded, so did the number of its committees. In
1849 a Sanitary Committee was formed (fn. 85) and by
1880 there were, in addition to those already mentioned, a Burial Board, and Lighting, Fire Brigade,
and Building Committees; (fn. 86) in the following year
the Gas Works Management Committee was established. (fn. 87) In 1890 it was found necessary to effect a
reorganization of the committee structure. Highways, Sewerage, Town Walks and Lighting, General
Purposes, and Watch were made committees of
the whole council, while the other committees constituted were Finance, Gas Works Management,
Markets and Fairs, Corporation Estates, Burial
Board, Sanitary, Building, Fire Brigade, Public
Buildings, and Library. (fn. 88) In 1958 the total number
of committees was still the same as in 1890, but
changes in individual committees had taken place,
brought about by the discharge of old responsibilities and the assumption of new ones: Sewerage,
Town Walks and Lighting, Gas Works Management, Fire Brigade, and Public Buildings had given
way to Allotments, Baths, Education, Rating, and
Town Planning. (fn. 89) In 1850 the council constituted
itself a local Board of Health and appointed its first
medical officer. (fn. 90) The board remained in existence
until 1876. (fn. 91)
At first the chief executive officer of the new
council, as he had been of the old council, was the
town clerk who was paid a yearly salary of £40; (fn. 92)
before 1801 he had received no salary, but in that
year his emoluments were fixed at £20 yearly,
raised to £40 in 1827. (fn. 93) The office, a part-time one,
was filled by a local solicitor who was also able to
practise privately. So things remained until 1933,
when, following the extension of the borough, the
appointment was made a full-time one. (fn. 94)
A treasurer was one of the officers of the Improvement Commissioners (fn. 95) and it was no doubt his
appointment that was continued by the new council. (fn. 96) Although by 1871 a borough treasurer was
included among the officers of the corporation, (fn. 97) his
was probably only a part-time appointment, and as
late as 1914 the treasurer was the manager of a local
bank. (fn. 98) The genesis of the borough surveyor is presumably to be found in the office of Surveyor of Works,
a paid official of the Improvement Commissioners. (fn. 99)
When the reformed council met in the first week
of January 1836, (fn. 100) the finances of the town were in
jeopardy. The expensive litigation of the period
1827–32 (fn. 101) —the legal expenses had amounted to
more than £4,000 (fn. 102) —had played havoc with the
borough finances and when the new council took
office the balance in hand amounted to 2s. 10½d. (fn. 103)
Investigation was clearly called for and a Revenue
Committee appointed for that purpose quickly reported that there had been slackness in the collection of rents from corporation property, the arrears
amounting to £258. (fn. 104) The appointment forthwith
of a Markets and Tolls Committee (fn. 105) also reflected
the council's concern about the financial position,
as the income of the corporation consisted largely
of the tolls and stallage duties of the fairs and markets. (fn. 106) In 1833 £431 out of a total revenue of a
little over £600 came from this source. (fn. 107)
The Improvement Commissioners under the 1819
Act had been empowered to levy highway, lighting,
and improvement rates and had done so fairly frequently. (fn. 108) Under the 1835 Act, however, the council
was authorized to levy a general rate to meet its
expenditure under all heads. (fn. 109) In 1838 a borough
rate was levied for the first time and the total required was £301 9s. assessable on a rateable value
of £21,128. (fn. 110) Fifty years later the rateable value was
nearly £50,000 and the product of the borough rate
£3,759. (fn. 111) In 1891 the rateable value was £60,705
and this had risen by 1901 to £69,217, (fn. 112) while in
the decade from 1901 to 1910 the total borough rate
levied rose from £5,000 to £6,980. (fn. 113) The extension
of the borough in 1932 led temporarily to a slight
diminution in the rate: in 1931 it was 15s. 6d., (fn. 114) in
1932 14s. 6d., (fn. 115) and in 1933 15s., (fn. 116) but by 1937 it had
risen to 15s. 6d. (fn. 117) In 1943 the borough rate was
17s. in the £, in 1947 23s. 10d., in 1951 20s., in 1955
24s., the highest figure so far reached; in 1956, 1957,
and 1958, the rates were 16s. 6d., 19s., and 19s. 6d. (fn. 118)
From 1901 to 1921 the rateable value did not change
appreciably, but by 1931 it had risen to £98,470. (fn. 119)
The extension of the borough in 1932 resulted in a
substantial accretion to the rateable value, which in
that year rose to £216,758. (fn. 120) By 1955 it was £366,258
and in the following year, as a result of a revaluation
of rateable properties, the rateable value reached
£728,107. (fn. 121)
In addition to rates, the markets have continued
to be a source of income. In 1901 the rent received
from market dues was £650 yearly. (fn. 122) The leasing of
the market tolls, with the exception of those arising
in the cattle market, ceased in 1926 (fn. 123) and from that
date the corporation has collected its own tolls. In
1958 the gross receipts from this source amounted
to nearly £8,000. (fn. 124)
OTHER ORGANS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT. In addition to the borough council, both the guild merchant and the court leet in early times shared in the
government of the town, though the records relating
to these bodies are very fragmentary. Of the former
the only extant records are of three meetings noted in
the earliest borough council minute book; (fn. 125) these
took place in Whitsun week, in 1382, (fn. 126) 1389, (fn. 127) and
1396. (fn. 128) The record of the proceedings provides
little more than a skeletal view of the guild organization. The officers of the guild, namely, steward,
clerk, two door-keepers, two treasurers, and two
butlers (pincerne), are mentioned as also are the names
of the members of two bodies known as the Prima
Duodena and the Secunda Duodena, in whom, it
may be surmised, was vested authority to manage
the affairs of the guild and to promulgate its regulations. The guild officers were for the most part
members of one or other of these two bodies. The
sole mention of the statutes of the guild occurs in
1372–3 when, in the case of a John de Wygan who
had 'rebelled' against the mayor and other officers
a second time, it was ordained by the mayor, the
Twenty-four, and the statutes of the guild (per
majorem et xxiiiior et statuta Gilde) that if he
offended a third time he would be fined 20s. and
lose his liberty for ever. (fn. 129)
The business transacted at the assemblies of 1389
and 1396, as recorded in the minute book, was
limited to the admission of a number of the inhabitants to their liberty, but as the guild met for
three successive days in Whitsun week (fn. 130) it is obvious that much more must have taken place than
it was thought necessary or fitting to insert in a book
used for recording the official acts of the borough.
In fact, it would seem that the guild merchant was,
in the matter of admitting persons to the liberty of
the town, i.e. the burgess-ship, performing a function of the borough council, for in the form of admission, the fee, and the requirement of pledges
there is nothing to distinguish the procedure of the
guild from that of the borough council at this
period. The closeness of the relationship between
the two bodies is illustrated by the case of John
Bikley of Cheshire, who in 1409–10 was elected by
the borough council to the liberty of the town so
long as he remained resident there but with the
additional proviso 'that if at some future time some
guild or leet should change the rules about liberty
then John and his heirs would have to conform to
the rules as amended by the guild.' (fn. 131) But whereas
John Bikley paid his admission fee to the receivers
of town payments, the burgesses admitted by the
guild paid their fees to the receivers of guild payments; they may have been town receivers as well,
for it is a fact of some importance that in 1389 and
1396 there are no recorded meetings of the borough
council. Though the evidence is scanty it seems
reasonably clear that there was some overlapping of
the functions of the two bodies at this time; it may
even be that at an early period of the borough's
history the guild merchant was the governing body
out of which the borough council developed, but no
evidence exists to support this possibility.
In the 15th and 16th centuries nothing is known
of the history of the guild merchant and it may be
supposed that in Newcastle, as in other towns, it
slowly disintegrated, its function of guarding and
supervising the trade monopoly being superseded
by the activities of craft guilds and by the growing
control of the central government over matters of
trade and commerce. It is of some significance,
however, that as late as 1502 the borough council
disfranchised four burgesses because they had disobeyed the guild rule (fn. 132) and that in 1588 a burgess
was disfranchised for bringing an action against
another burgess contrary to an ordinance contained
in the guild book, thus suggesting that some at least
of the old guild statutes were still in force. (fn. 133) Two
years later when the borough was granted its charter
of incorporation (fn. 134) the grant specifically confirmed
the liberties, exemptions, and customs of Henry
III's charter of 1235 but mention of the guild merchant itself was significantly omitted. (fn. 135)
With regard to leet jurisdiction the council minute
books in the 15th and 16th centuries (fn. 136) record a
series of enactments in which the law-making body
is described as 'the mayor and his brethren with the
great inquest and the small', (fn. 137) though this formula is
at times subject to slight variation. The judicial and
administrative business effected by this body showed
a wide range and it seemed on occasion to be discharging the undifferentiated functions of a court
baron, a court leet, a guild merchant, and a borough
council. In 1491 the court made regulations about the
common gaps and gates for entry into the common
fields of the town as a court baron might do, but at
the same court the mayor was enjoined to see that
no man bore any unlawful weapon. (fn. 138) The names of
the two sets of jurors are given, twelve each for the
inquisitio magna and inquisitio parva. Leet jurisdiction seemed to be involved in 1496 when it was laid
down that an arrested man should be released only
on giving his bond (fn. 139) and again in 1497 when rules
for the levying of distress were promulgated. (fn. 140) The
court performed the functions of a guild merchant
in 1502 (Uttoxeter men to be allowed to trade only
on payment of toll), (fn. 141) in 1510 (regulations for butchers), (fn. 142) and in 1540 (free entry of merchants). (fn. 143) But
on the last-mentioned occasion the court also concerned itself, as a court baron would, with laying
open of the Holt Fields after harvest. And finally,
the great and small inquest participated in what
appears to be purely borough business such as the
elections to the borough council by the sworn men
in 1571, (fn. 144) the payment of the school master in 1567, (fn. 145)
and the readmittance of a disfranchised burgess in
1581. (fn. 146) It would seem, therefore, that the court,
while at times transacting manorial business, at the
same or other times concerned itself with mercantile
or municipal affairs.
The nomenclature of the court as exhibited in the
minute book shows considerable variation and it is
notable that in the later entries there is a greater
tendency to employ manorial terminology than in
the earlier. In 1531, 1532, and 1581 it is styled
simply the great court, (fn. 147) though in the last-named
year the term great leet is also used synonymously.
In 1583, 1588, and 1590 the court is referred to as
the great leet, (fn. 148) while in 1635 and 1637 it is described
as the court leet. (fn. 149) At all these courts the business
transacted, or at least recorded, concerned the admission or readmission of burgesses or the imposition
of penalties on those who had proved recalcitrant.
It is not until 1653 that those customary officers of
a medieval manor court, the 'afferers' or assessors
of the amercements due for offences presented by
the jury, are found, and at a second court in that
year a shoemaker was fined for refusing to allow
his wares to be searched by the sworn 'afferers'. (fn. 150)
It is possible that the persistence of such medieval
terminology into the 16th and 17th centuries is of
no great significance and that what is noteworthy
is the continued use of the jury of presentment,
even into a period when its functions had been
absorbed by the borough council and borough
Quarter Sessions.
There was evidently a parish vestry in Newcastle
in the 18th century at least, although almost nothing
is known of its activities before the 19th century. (fn. 151)
The functions of the vestry were in large measure
discharged by the borough council, which for a
considerable period exercised control over the
appointment of parochial officers. The election of
church- or chapel-wardens by the council dates
from at least 1490 (fn. 152) and continued until 1707. (fn. 153) Its
election of overseers of the poor is first recorded in
1622 (fn. 154) and it was still appointing them in the 18th
century. (fn. 155) The election of two 'supervisors' of the
highways began in 1626 (fn. 156) and the council made
annual appointments down to the end of the 18th
century when the borough court of Quarter Sessions
appointed them until 1819, at which date the Improvement Commissioners assumed responsibility
in this sphere. (fn. 157)
Because, in the words of the Act, (fn. 158) the borough
was 'very populous, a place of considerable trade,
and also a great thoroughfare for travellers', a body
of Improvement Commissioners was set up in 1819
who were made responsible for paving, lighting, watching, cleansing, regulating, and improving
the town. They consisted of the mayor, the recorder,
the borough justice of the peace, the bailiffs, the
capital burgesses, and the town clerk, and were to be
assisted by a staff of officials including a clerk, a
treasurer, and a surveyor of works. (fn. 159) Under the
Municipal Corporations Act of 1835 (fn. 160) the reformed
borough council took over the functions exercised
by the commissioners, the decisions taken by the
council in that capacity being recorded, not in the
council minutes, but in the order books of the commissioners; this procedure continued until 1850. (fn. 161)
RELIEF OF THE POOR. In Newcastle the parochial
responsibility for the relief of the poor seems to have
devolved upon the borough council early in the
17th century. It was the council which thereafter
undertook the organization and distribution of relief, including many of the charities, the appointment
of overseers, and the maintenance of a workhouse.
This lasted until 1838 when the Newcastle Poor
Law Union, consisting of Newcastle and eight
neighbouring parishes, was created and control
vested in a board of eighteen guardians, six of them
representatives of the borough. (fn. 162)
Until the later 18th century the corporation was
successful in finding expedients to avoid the need
for poor rates, though very occasionally, as in 1630 (fn. 163)
and 1699, (fn. 164) a levy was imposed. Special income was
sometimes assigned to the poor—part of a fine imposed for contempt of the mayor in 1623, (fn. 165) fines for
defective chimneys in 1689, (fn. 166) the fees paid by two
newly admitted burgesses in 1729. (fn. 167) But the first
main source of relief during this period was the
borough malt mill erected c. 1657 to provide for the
maintenance of the poor. (fn. 168) The mill was formally
settled in trust for the poor in 1687 specifically in
order that a poor rate should not be necessary; if
the income from the leasing of the mill proved insufficient the poor were to have also £12 a year out
of the toll of corn ground there. (fn. 169) Although the
arrangement at first achieved its purpose, (fn. 170) the need
for new sources of revenue had arisen again by 1730
and it was then agreed to inclose some 8 acres of
The Marsh and use the rents in lieu of a rate. (fn. 171) It is
not clear whether this scheme was ever carried out,
but by a Chancery decree of 1740 the proceeds of
the mill, £45 a year charged on the market tolls,
stallage, and profits from admissions of burgesses,
the £30 annual income from Lord Ward's charity,
and the rents from land bought with other charity
money were devoted to poor relief by the corporation
in satisfaction for all gifts made to them for the poor
and as a further means of avoiding a poor rate. (fn. 172) The
charity land was sold c. 1795 and the proceeds were
applied to parochial purposes. (fn. 173) The money arising
from the sale of the malt mill in 1796, however, was
assigned to the poor, (fn. 174) and the £45 and £30 were
still paid to the overseers of the poor in 1903. (fn. 175)
By 1774, however, the corporation was in debt to
the amount of £1,600 on account of the poor, and a
rate was thenceforth imposed in addition to the
other charges. (fn. 176) In 1775–6 the product of this rate
amounted to £584. (fn. 177) In 1782 23 acres of The Marsh
were inclosed (fn. 178) and, leased out as building plots,
produced an income which was used to subsidize the
rates; this amounted to £131 19s. 6d. in 1835–6. (fn. 179)
The average annual rate in 1783–5 had dropped to
£563 19s. 6d., but in 1802–3 the poor 'and other
rates', assessed at 1s. 3d. in the £, totalled £964
7s. 6d. (fn. 180)
The first reference to overseers of the poor occurs
in 1622 from which time they were appointed—
usually two a year—by the corporation. (fn. 181) If a person
chosen was unwilling to serve he was required to
find an approved substitute or pay a fine. (fn. 182) In 1720
it was decided to create the two paid offices of standing 'supervisor' and standing overseer; the fines for
exemption were to be £1 10s. and £2 respectively, and
appointment was to be in the hands of the mayor
and aldermen. (fn. 183) At first only one official, described
as an overseer, was appointed, (fn. 184) but, after the repetition of the order in 1727, (fn. 185) an overseer and a
supervisor were elected in 1728 and 1729 (fn. 186) and two
overseers in 1730. (fn. 187) From 1731 there seems to have
been only one overseer, (fn. 188) but, from at least 1786,
there were again two. (fn. 189) In 1759 it was resolved by
the corporation that a Mr. Cartwright was to be
elected overseer for the following year at a salary of
£10. (fn. 190) Payments to the poor by the overseers had
been under the direction of the corporation from at
least 1661. (fn. 191) In 1685 the amount of the allowances
dispensed was placed under the control of the bailiffs,
the churchwardens, and four others. (fn. 192) The corporation was paying the overseers a minimum of £3 10s.
from 1720, (fn. 193) £10 by 1759, (fn. 194) and £12 with a further
allowance of £2 a year for help in collecting the toll
of corn in 1771. (fn. 195) In 1766 the overseer was ordered
to present accounts each week of the bills for goods
bought on the corporation's behalf; the overseer's
accounts were to be inspected once a month by
the mayor, the justices, and four others. (fn. 196) At the
beginning of 1771 the accounts were laid before
the whole corporation. (fn. 197) The vestry were electing
the two overseers and passing their accounts by the
1830's. (fn. 198) When by the Rating and Valuation Act of
1925 the office of overseer was abolished, the Newcastle overseers' functions were transferred to the
rating committee of the borough council. (fn. 199)
The relief, apart from charities, (fn. 200) granted to the
poor of Newcastle at various times from the later
17th century onwards included weekly and occasional money grants; (fn. 201) grants in kind; (fn. 202) whole or
part payment of rent; (fn. 203) grants for apprenticing; (fn. 204)
and the provision, during the 1730's and 1740's at
least, of medical attention, the doctor being given
two bags of malt a year and in 1741 admission 'to the
rights and privileges of the borough'. (fn. 205) The total
expenditure on poor relief in 1775–6 was £577 10s. (fn. 206)
In 1802–3 £574 5s. 7d. was spent on out-relief
within the borough for 153 adults, 62 children under
15, and 23 persons requiring only occasional help;
£223 8s. 1d. was spent on the workhouse, into which
18 adults and children were admitted that year. (fn. 207)
From the later 17th century, however, there was
a steady stiffening in the corporation's attitude towards poor relief. In 1685 the overseers' expenditure
was placed under stricter control (see above). In
1686, eleven years before the statute requiring such
measures, the corporation ordered that anyone in
receipt of weekly pay from the borough should wear
a badge of red cloth in the shape of a castle on pain
of losing the pay; (fn. 208) in 1717 the form of the badge
was altered to the letters np in red. (fn. 209) By the early
18th century the corporation order books indicate a
reduction in the scale of relief. (fn. 210) A fine of 10s. was
imposed in 1707 on all those who relieved vagrants
and beggars, (fn. 211) and the following year a salaried
official was appointed to arrest and punish vagrants
and beggars. (fn. 212) In 1731 the poor who were not in the
newly established workhouse had their weekly pay
cut by half. (fn. 213) In the same year the corporation
ordered that all clothing given to the poor should be
of blue cloth; (fn. 214) the colour was fixed in 1742 as green
for men and boys and yellow for women and girls,
'that it may be visible who are clothed by the town'. (fn. 215)
In 1745 it was ordered that no medical help was to
be given unless on the instructions of the overseer. (fn. 216)
The town clerk was directed in 1756 to strike off the
roll of freemen any who were paupers or in receipt
of pay for themselves or their families, (fn. 217) and in 1774
the corporation decided that too much was being
spent on the poor and that in future no part of their
revenue should go to the poor except what was
assigned under the decree of 1740. (fn. 218)
In 1731, following a report from an exploratory
committee and the unanimous approval of a public
meeting, the corporation resolved that 'the houses
in Ireland [Higherland] be immediately repaired
and converted into a workhouse'. (fn. 219) The standing
overseer was ordered to remove all the poor into the
workhouse and to 'employ them in a proper manner
and provide necessaries for them'; he was to receive
a salary of 4s. a week as master of the workhouse. (fn. 220)
In 1732 a George Alker was appointed to teach the
poor to spin cotton. (fn. 221) The master was still paid 4s.
a week in 1739, and his appointment included the
stipulation that he should live in the workhouse. (fn. 222)
The capacity of the workhouse was 40 in 1776. (fn. 223) In
1786 the corporation gave it into the control of the
churchwardens and overseers on a 99-year lease at
a rent of £5 10s. a year. (fn. 224) The overseers were given
notice to quit in 1808 and a 21-year lease was
granted to the parish vestry at a rent of £10. (fn. 225) The
period was extended to 99 years in 1809 on condition that the parish should spend £300 on repairs
and that the governor should take charge of debtors
committed to gaol as well as paupers. (fn. 226) In 1838 the
workhouse was temporarily taken over for the ablebodied poor of the new union by the guardians (fn. 227)
who on inspection found the house 'extremely clean
and well-regulated' with 'provisions of the best
kind'. (fn. 228) There were 64 inmates, 29 of them children,
and the accommodation included 12 sleepingrooms, with 33 beds, a laundry, a bakehouse,
stabling for a horse and a cow, and a recreation yard
each for the men and the women. (fn. 229) After the building of the union workhouse in 1838–9 (see below),
the corporation regained possession of the old workhouse (fn. 230) but had sold it by 1849 to the trustees of
Orme's Charity, from whom in that year the union
clerk was ordered to secure its use for cholera victims. (fn. 231)
The union workhouse, a building in the Elizabethan style, was erected in the Keele road, east of
the old workhouse, in 1838–9 with accommodation
for 350 paupers. (fn. 232) An infirmary was added c. 1842. (fn. 233)
In 1885–6 a new infirmary was built, the earlier
building being converted into wards for the old and
infirm. (fn. 234) The west wing of the workhouse, occupied
by the women and girls, was burnt down in 1890 (fn. 235)
and rebuilt in 1892–3. (fn. 236) The casual wards were closed
in 1914, the responsibility being transferred to
Stoke. (fn. 237) The building was closed and demolished in
1938. (fn. 238)
PUBLEC HEALTH. The history of sewage disposal
in Newcastle seems to date from the appointment,
in 1635, of a common warder whose duties, in
addition to those of acting as scavenger and carting
the refuse to a convenient place, included the oversight of the town fields and hedges, the removal of
cattle from those fields, cleansing the church gutters,
and whipping dogs out of church. (fn. 239) In 1670 the
council decided to appoint a common scavenger (fn. 240)
but none filled the office until 1682. (fn. 241) In 1685 every
inhabitant was ordered to clean twice a week the
street in front of his house to the pavement channel
and also all causeways against every house. The
refuse was to be laid in a heap and carried away by
the occupiers within ten days. In default the scavenger was to perform the task and to levy 4d. on the
offender. (fn. 242) In 1723 (fn. 243) and again in 1755 (fn. 244) the cleansing of the streets was included in the bellman's
duties. In 1726 the making of 'middens' in the
streets was prohibited and those already in existence
were to be removed. (fn. 245) In 1813, on the recommendation of the vestry, the governor of the workhouse
was appointed town scavenger at a salary of £10
yearly. (fn. 246) In 1821 street cleansing was placed in the
charge of the Improvement Commissioners (fn. 247) and
ten years later their Surveyor of Works was appointed scavenger also, with the injunction to use
extraordinary exertions to keep the streets free and
clear from all kinds of nuisance. (fn. 248) In 1845 the
streets were being cleaned twice weekly, but the
courts and alleys inhabited by the poorer people
were not brought within the scope of public scavenging. In them the refuse was flung into promiscuous
heaps near each property and was only removed 'at
the capricious pleasure of the occupants or landlords'. (fn. 249)
The first attempt to deal with sewerage seems to
date from 1801 when the corporation contributed
towards the cost of two common sewers, one in Red
Lion Square and another from the end of Swinnerton's Lane (?now Hassell Street) on the east side
of the Market Hall, to join a third common sewer
opening into Friars Lane. (fn. 250) But such measures were
inadequate. The Commissioners inquiring into the
state of large towns drew attention, in 1845, to a
widespread lack of sanitation. It was stated that
while in some parts of the town the necessaries
emptied into drains and cesspools, generally they had
confined receptacles behind them which required
frequent emptying and carrying away. In the courts
and lower parts of the town there were no public
necessaries; there were some used in common by
inhabitants of certain courts which were in a filthy,
neglected state. Even in the modern-built part of
the town no public sewers had at that time been
constructed and the refuse was thrown into water
courses; it either soaked into the sub-soil or remained
stagnant on the surface. The general insanitary conditions were aggravated by the over-crowded state
of the lodging-houses, where, it was stated, men,
women, and children were huddled together indiscriminately upon straw or in five or six beds packed
together in one room; the inhabitants of these
lodging-houses were said to be Irish 'of whom we
have 600 of the lowest order'. (fn. 251)
Outbreaks of fever in 1847 and of cholera in 1832
and 1849 (fn. 252) with heavy loss of life caused general
concern (fn. 253) and the Improvement Commissioners admitted in 1847 that the provisions regarding sanitation contained in the Act of 1819 (fn. 254) had not been
fully carried out and that the condition of the town
was unsatisfactory. (fn. 255) In the following year orders
were issued for the removal of nuisances and for the
provision of a main covered drain in The Marsh. (fn. 256)
In 1849 all members of the borough council were
constituted a Sanitary Committee to investigate the
health of the town and to report thereon to the
council quarterly. (fn. 257) The Local Board of Health
created in 1850 (fn. 258) forthwith took in hand a complete
system of drainage, the sewage being conveyed some
distance from the town to fertilize the land. (fn. 259) In
1851 these measures were reflected in the more encouraging account given by the board's medical
officer. He reported that attention had been given
to the crowded and unhealthy state of lodging
houses situated in the most densely populated parts
and to the filthy condition of dwelling houses in the
same districts, namely Lower Street, Pool Dam,
Upper and Lower Green, Fletcher Street, Dunkirk,
Leech's Row, Holborn, Holborn Brook, Penkhull
Street, and the cross streets in Higherland. Good
results were expected from the intended enclosing
of public wells. (fn. 260)
The problem of sewage disposal still remained
unsolved. In 1861 an order was served on the
borough, on behalf of the Duke of Sutherland, to
restrain the corporation from turning sewage into
the Lyme Brook. (fn. 261) Apparently the nuisance was not
satisfactorily abated, for in 1875 the duke obtained
an order for the sequestration of the borough rates,
the execution of which was suspended on an undertaking by the corporation to deal effectively with the
sewage. (fn. 262) Sewage works on about 30 acres between
Clayton Road and Stone Road (fn. 263) were constructed in
1877 (fn. 264) and four years later a lease was obtained of
meadows near the works, as a result of which the
council hoped that both the duke and the Rivers
Pollution Commissioners would be satisfied. (fn. 265)
In 1891 and again in 1894 the County Medical
Officer of Health reported unfavourably on the
sewerage arrangements, particularly in the Ashfield district, a new part of the town with a population of over 1,000, but by the time of his second
report this area had been connected with the general
sewerage system. But in the greater part of the town
the disposal of excrement and refuse still remained
highly unsatisfactory and the report gave strong
support to the view of the borough medical officer
that the privy system should be abolished on the
ground that, apart from the great sanitary improvement thus effected, excrement could be dealt with
at the sewage works with a very trifling increase of
cost and that the cost of collecting night-soil would
be saved. (fn. 266)
In 1919 it was reported that since 1902 1,547
privies had been converted into water closets but
there were still 91 privies and 27 pail closets in the
town. (fn. 267) By 1926 these figures had been reduced to
4 and 10 respectively. (fn. 268) In 1926 90 ashpits were
still in use, though these were gradually being done
away with. (fn. 269) The industrial areas added to the
borough in 1932 presented the borough council with
further sanitary problems and in 1951 out of a total
number of 20,637 households there were 83 without
a piped water supply and 299 without water-closets. (fn. 270)
In 1906 a sewage disposal plant was erected at a
cost of £24,800. (fn. 271) In 1932, by agreement with Stokeon-Trent, arrangements for the sewage of the en
larged borough to be dealt with at the city works at
Strongford were completed, (fn. 272) though the scheme
encountered much local opposition as many thought
that the transfer of sewage disposal to Stoke would
be used as an argument for a further attack on Newcastle's independence. (fn. 273)
In 1845 it was reported that there were no public
baths in the town but that every facility existed for
public bathing in the canals, without causing a
nuisance. (fn. 274) Public baths in School Street on the
site now (1959) occupied by the Public Library
were opened in 1852. (fn. 275) They comprised covered and
open swimming baths and slipper, vapour, and
shower baths. (fn. 276) They were not, however, well supported, and in view of an annual deficit they were
closed in 1856. (fn. 277) Four years later the premises were
sold to the Wesleyan Society for school building. (fn. 278)
The King Edward VII Memorial Baths in Brunswick
Street were erected in 1906. They then consisted of
two swimming baths and a Turkish bath. (fn. 279) Alterations were made in 1921, 1938–9, and 1946. (fn. 280)
The inadequacy of the burial grounds attached to
St. Giles's and St. George's churches (fn. 281) led to the
corporation's being empowered in 1863 to provide
burial places, (fn. 282) and in 1866 a cemetery was opened
between Priory Road and Clayton Road. (fn. 283) It was
extended in 1897 (fn. 284) and 1931. (fn. 285) In 1932 Silverdale
Cemetery came under the control of the borough
council and was added to in 1938. (fn. 286) In September
1954 the council assumed control of Chesterton
churchyard. (fn. 287)
A corrugated iron isolation hospital for 27 patients
was built beside the cemetery in 1874. (fn. 288) At first it
was used for smallpox patients only, but in 1890 it
began to be used for other infectious cases as well. (fn. 289)
In 1901 the building was replaced by a new hospital,
consisting of an administrative block and two pavilions; at the same time a third pavilion, the result of
a private benefaction, was added. (fn. 290)
OTHER PUBLIC SERVICES. It was not until the early
17th century that the borough council actively concerned itself with the maintenance of its streets and
highways. By 1609 'lunes' or rates were being levied
for their repair, (fn. 291) and occasionally the highways or
area to be repaired are mentioned: 'Brompton'
(Brampton), the lane above the 'Hart's Head',
Knutton bridges, and Pool Field in 1628, (fn. 292) and the
last two again in 1630, together with the way to
Chesterton. (fn. 293) During the 18th century the highway
rates were authorized by the borough court of
Quarter Sessions on application by the surveyors (fn. 294)
and occasionally the latter found it necessary to ask
for a considerable levy, as, for example, £40 in 1723
for making a cart causeway in Pool Field leading to
Keele. (fn. 295)
Although the town thus tried to improve and
maintain its streets, there is little doubt that in the
later 18th century the increased number of turnpike
roads (fn. 296) and the heavier flow of traffic created difficulties which the old system was ill adapted to meet.
It is not clear how far the turnpike trusts were expected to maintain their roads within the borough
limits. In 1798 the Tittensor Turnpike trustees repaired the road at the junction of Penkhull Street
with The Stubbs, and in the following year widened
the footway in Bridge Street and built a stone wall
along the new road by the side of Stubbs Field. Also,
they widened the pavement near the Guildhall and
the entrance into Penkhull Street, the narrowness
of which had caused frequent accidents. (fn. 297) These
may have been isolated instances and were possibly
due to the fact that many Newcastle officials and
burgesses were to be found among the trustees. (fn. 298)
When, however, in 1763 (fn. 299) new arrangements were
being made in connexion with the important Newcastle-Uttoxeter turnpike road, relief was specifically granted to the inhabitants of Newcastle by
limiting the obligation for statute work on this road
to one day (or a money composition in lieu) because
the maintenance of other roads was a heavy burden
to them.
Under the 1819 Act (fn. 300) considerable powers were
granted to the Improvement Commissioners to
regulate and improve the roads and streets within
the confines of the borough, and they were required
to appoint surveyors of highways. (fn. 301) They could
acquire by purchase and demolish those buildings,
scheduled in the Act, which impeded the flow of
traffic. Their re-routing of the main thoroughfare
has already been mentioned, (fn. 302) while their order
books provide information about substantial street
improvements during the early part of the century.
The considerable expenditure involved was met by
an improvement rate of 6d. in the £ levied at the
first meeting of the Commissioners in 1819 (fn. 303) and
repeated in 1832, 1833, and 1834. (fn. 304) A highway rate
was also levied from 1821 to 1834. (fn. 305)
The first attempt to provide a communal watersupply was made in 1727 when the borough council
levied a rate for a water-work, which two of the
inhabitants, Burton and Bourne, were authorized to
construct on a waste piece of ground below the
churchyard to supply Lower Street with water. (fn. 306)
The town generally was well supplied with springs
and wells and the provision of iron pumps was no
doubt thought to be adequate. (fn. 307)
In 1795 a more ambitious project was embarked
on, when Joseph Tilstone was given the right to lay
pipes in the borough to carry water from the spring
called Browning's Wells. (fn. 308) He is stated to have laid
down lead and other pipes under some of the streets
and to have erected an engine to pump the water (fn. 309)
to two reservoirs in Merrial Street. (fn. 310) But this was
only a partial answer to the problem, accentuated
by the town's growing population. In 1811 the
council decided to have Saint Sunday's Wells
cleaned and the water therein made available for the
benefit of the town and neighbourhood, (fn. 311) a clear
indication that the system of piped water already in
existence was quite inadequate. Over 30 years later
it had to be admitted that of 2,039 houses in the
town water was laid on in only 215 (fn. 312) For the
accommodation of the poor, however, there were
fourteen stand pipes in different streets, each on the
average supplying twelve houses; for this service
each house had to pay 1d. weekly. Those who could
not pay so much were supplied by pumps, of which
there were seventeen, and from open shallow wells. (fn. 313)
The supply from the water-works, for which the
yearly charge to private houses varied from 5s. to
21s., and to public houses and hotels was up to £4,
was irregular and water was only available from
9 a.m. to 3 p.m. (fn. 314) The problem of an adequate watersupply was one that affected not only Newcastle but
the whole of the Potteries area, and in 1847 statutory
authority was obtained for the formation of the
Staffordshire Potteries Water Works Company to
provide water for all parts of the Potteries and Newcastle. (fn. 315) The water-works were established at Wall
Grange near Leek, and the supply was extended to
Newcastle in 1850. (fn. 316)
Since 1925 the water-supply of the area has been
the concern of the Staffordshire Potteries Water
Board, of which the corporation is a constituent
member, (fn. 317) and in that year a main was laid from
Hanchurch reservoir to Nelson Place. (fn. 318) In 1932 the
number of corporation members on the board was
increased from three to seven. (fn. 319)
Newcastle was among the first provincial towns to
institute a system of communal street lighting. In
1799 the corporation presented the town with 80
lamps, for the maintenance of which the inhabitants
had already agreed to subscribe annually. (fn. 320) By the
Act of 1819 the Improvement Commissioners were
empowered to light the streets, (fn. 321) and at their first
meeting in the same year levied a lighting rate of
6d. in the £. (fn. 322) The Newcastle Gaslight Company
was formed and a gas-works erected in Rye Croft to
supply gas for both public and private consumption. (fn. 323)
In 1827 the Gaslight Company took over the work
of collecting the lighting rate. (fn. 324) In 1833, the commissioners contracted with Cooper, lessee of the
gas-works, to light the town for three years at £260
yearly; the lessee was to collect and retain the rate
of 6d. in the £. (fn. 325) In 1842 the council complained
of poor street lighting, but Cooper retaliated by
threatening to place the town in complete darkness
unless he was paid money owing to him by the
council. (fn. 326)
In 1855 the company transferred its base of
operations to Brook Lane, where a larger installation was established, (fn. 327) rendered necessary by the
extension of the supply to cover, in addition to
Newcastle, Trentham, Stoke-upon-Trent, Keele,
Wolstanton, Silverdale, Knutton, Chatterley, and
Chesterton. (fn. 328)
Under powers conferred by a local Act of 1877, (fn. 329)
the corporation bought the undertaking in 1880, (fn. 330)
and in the same year debentures to the amount of
£67,625 were issued in connexion with the purchase. (fn. 331)
Under the management of the corporation, the
length of mains was increased from 13 miles in 1877
to 33 miles in 1901, while the price of gas, 5s. per
1,000 ft. in 1874, had been reduced by 1900 to 2s.
10d. per 1,000 ft. (fn. 332) Between 1882 and 1899 £20,000
(or £1,222 yearly) was paid out of the net profits
of the undertaking in aid of the borough rates. (fn. 333) At
the end of the century the annual cost of public
lighting in the town was £1,139 which was charged
on the profits of the undertaking in exoneration of
the borough rates. (fn. 334)
In 1906 the main pipes of the Corporation Gas
Works in the parishes of Wolstanton, Silverdale, and
Knutton were bought by the Wolstanton United
Urban District Council. (fn. 335) In 1932, following the
extension of the borough, the Wolstanton United
Gas Undertaking was transferred to the corporation. (fn. 336)
In 1937 the corporation was empowered to supply
gas for industrial purposes. (fn. 337) In 1949 the gas industry
was nationalized and the supply of gas to Newcastle
has since that time been provided by the West Midlands Gas Board. (fn. 338)
In 1899 the corporation set up its own electricity
supply works in Friarswood Road, (fn. 339) and the supply
of electricity began in 1904. In 1912–13 the works
was remodelled and brought up to date. (fn. 340) By 1919
the system had been linked with that of Stoke-onTrent and the corporation agreed to take a minimum
of 60,000 units yearly from Stoke. (fn. 341) In 1921 a diesel
generating set, the engine having come from a German submarine, was installed, and in 1927 the power
station was enlarged. (fn. 342) Electricity supply was installed in Chesterton and Silverdale in 1935. (fn. 343)
Nationalization in 1948 (fn. 344) led to the creation of the
Newcastle District of the West Midlands Electricity
Board, covering an area of 50 square miles and including the Wolstanton and May Bank areas of the
borough. In 1953 a grid sub-station was established
at Holditch. (fn. 345)
The risk of fire in what was largely a thatch-roofed
town (fn. 346) began to be met by the borough authorities
in 1623 when every capital burgess was required to
provide himself with a leather bucket and every
alderman with a hook and bucket. (fn. 347) In 1666 three
fire-lookers were appointed (fn. 348) and in 1689 the firelookers, by then two in number, gave notice to the
inhabitants to repair their chimneys on pain of a
40s. fine. (fn. 349) In 1678 the inhabitants were forbidden
to place 'any kidels of gorse in any stacks' except in
covered and walled buildings, (fn. 350) and in 1753 a man
was indicted for laying 10,000 'thids' or faggots of
gorse so as to 'endanger' fire. (fn. 351) About 1734 the corporation acquired a manual fire pump. (fn. 352) In 1819 it
was enacted that thatch was not to be used as a
roofing material. (fn. 353)
In 1845 (fn. 354) it was stated that there were two wellappointed engines with a brigade of 24 firemen under
the superintendence of the chief constable. (fn. 355) In the
event of fire a full supply of water was said to be
available from numerous pumps and there were also
four fire-plugs. (fn. 356) The organization of a municipal
fire brigade seems to have produced successful results, for in the previous five years there had been
only three small fires. (fn. 357) No doubt by this time tiles
had replaced thatch as roofing material. (fn. 358) In 1848 a
new fire-engine was bought (fn. 359) and in 1851 the borough
possessed one large and two small fire-engines. (fn. 360)
In 1880 the brigade consisted of a captain, who
was also the police superintendent, and eleven firemen, together with fourteen members of the police
force. (fn. 361) The close association with the police force
was broken in 1888 when a volunteer brigade was
formed consisting of a captain, lieutenant, and twelve
men. The fire-engine was housed in the barracks (fn. 362)
and the barrack square was used for drilling. (fn. 363)
By 1901 the fire station, the freehold property of
the corporation, was, and still (1959) is, situated in
King Street. (fn. 364) It was decided to acquire a motor
fire-engine in 1919. (fn. 365) Since the transfer of the fire
service to the county council in 1948 (fn. 366) Newcastle
has been the headquarters of the northern division. (fn. 367)
During the 20th century housing has become one
of the major activities of the borough council. Notwithstanding the Acts of 1882 (fn. 368) and 1890, (fn. 369) it was
not until 1900 that the provision of houses began
with the purchase by the corporation of some land
in Lower Green and with the gift by Ralph Sneyd of
other land in the same area. This building land was
offered for sale but only five sites were disposed of,
and consequently the corporation evolved its own
scheme. (fn. 370) In February 1914 plans for twelve workmen's dwellings in Lower Green were approved and
in the following month approval was given for a
further seventeen to be built on corporation land in
Castle Hill Road and Stanier Street. (fn. 371) By September
1915 the new houses, (fn. 372) which replaced 65 buildings
in the same area, many of which were in a dilapidated
and unhealthy state, were finished and tenanted. (fn. 373)
The First World War interrupted the execution
of further plans, but by 1926 the corporation had
erected or were in course of erecting 331 houses,
168 in Liverpool Road, 104 in Westlands, and 59 in
Stanier Street; a further 213 had been built by
private enterprise. (fn. 374) By 1930 a large housing estate
had been developed at Poolfields on the north side
of the Keele road (fn. 375) and in the same year, in order to
rehouse people displaced from Fletcher Street and
Shoreditch, the borough council compulsorily purchased from the Burgesses Trust land in Ashfield
and also additional land beyond the railway bridge
on the west side of Liverpool Road. (fn. 376)
The expansion of the borough in 1932 brought
under the aegis of the council the heavily industrialized districts of Wolstanton, Chesterton, Silverdale, and Knutton, in many parts of which clearance
and rehousing were urgently needed. Moreover, a
large amount of land, both in this area and to the
south of the old borough, by this extension of the
borough boundaries became available for housing
development schemes. By 1938 the corporation had
acquired by purchase 200 acres of the Bradwell Hall
estate in Wolstanton on which by the middle of that
year nearly 200 houses had been erected. (fn. 377) By 1938,
too, in the Clayton area much agricultural land represented by Seabridge Road farm, Hill farm, and Roe
Lane farm, as well as land bordering on Clayton
Road, had been acquired for further housing development. (fn. 378)
At the outbreak of the Second World War nearly
3,000 houses had been built by the council. (fn. 379) About
90 clearance orders had been issued, most of them
concerned with the lower and older parts of the
borough (fn. 380) but some also with Chesterton, Knutton,
Silverdale, and Ravensdale, while some 1,700 families
from the demolished areas had been rehoused. (fn. 381)
Since 1945 nearly 5,000 council houses, including
234 prefabricated buildings and 77 bungalows, have
been built, the greatest concentration being in the
Clayton area. Much new building has also taken
place at Bradwell, at Chesterton (Hollow farm,
Beazley House, Crackley Bank), at Silverdale on the
extreme western boundary of the borough, and at
Knutton on the land once occupied by Knutton
farm and in the area to the north of the main street.
Smaller housing schemes have been accomplished at
Basford, Lower Milehouse, and Cross Heath. Slum
clearance continued in the post-war period and up
to 1959 730 families had been moved from cleared
areas into the new housing estates. (fn. 382)
From the outset the work of planning the new
estates and designing the houses was carried out by
the Bournville Village Trust, but from 1955 the
borough surveyor has been responsible for an increasing share of the work. (fn. 383)
It is noteworthy that, whereas before the Second
World War, two-thirds of the houses built were of
the three-bedroom type, since its close less than half
of them have been; there has been a great increase
in the demand for two-bedroom houses, maisonettes,
and small flats. (fn. 384) In 1959 28 bungalows specially
designed for old people together with a communal
meeting hall were being built at Porthill Green. (fn. 385)
Although the borough boundary still encloses much
open land, a large part of it overlies coal-mines, and
the consequent risk of subsidence renders its suitability for building doubtful.
Seals, Insignia, And Civic Officers.
The common seal, of which the brass matrix survives, is round, 1¾ inch, and depicts on waves a low
embattled wall above which rises an embattled tower
with 3 gabled projections in front and 2 gable-ends
at each side. (fn. 386) On the tower is a banner flanked by
2 men-at-arms, one holding a battle-axe and the
other blowing a horn. On the frieze below the battlements are 3 shields bearing shields of arms: (i) a lion
rampant contourne within a bordure charged with
roundels, probably for Edmund, Earl of Cornwall,
(ii) ? England, and (iii) ? Chester. Legend, Lombardic:
Sigillum Comune Burgensium Novi Castelli
The seal, which is still (1960) in use, has been
assigned to the 13th century (fn. 387) and was probably
appended to the surrender of privileges by the mayor
and burgesses in 1293–6 (fn. 388) but that document exists
no longer.
The seal recorded at the heralds' visitation of
1583 (fn. 389) differs slightly from the foregoing in architectural and other details. Legend:
Sigillum Comune Burgi Novi Castri Subtus Lyme
No document bearing this seal has been traced. (fn. 390)
Another common seal (fn. 391) cast in 1687 is round and
depicts an embattled castle. Legend, humanistic:
Newcastle Under Line (fn. 392)
The seal was appended to a series of deeds relating to
the free school from 1698 to 1746. (fn. 393) Its introduction
is perhaps connected with the grant of the new
charter in 1685. (fn. 394)
A seal of unknown purpose, round, 7/8 inch, bears
the same design as the first common seal. Legend,
black letter: Newcastle under lyme. (fn. 395) The form of
the lettering suggests a mid-19th-century date.
In 1844 Joseph Mayer presented to the borough,
for use by the Chief Officer of Police for the time
being, a seal engraved on a cornelian, mounted in
silver, with an ebony handle. (fn. 396) The design is that of
the common seal. Legend:
Sigillum Contabularii Novi Castrisubtus Lymam
1179
A seal for the recognizance of statute merchant
debts was granted by the charter of 1664. (fn. 397) As was
customary it was to be of two pieces, one to be kept
by the mayor and the other by the clerk. Impressions
have not been traced.
The insignia of the borough include two silver
(originally silver gilt) maces presented in 1680 by
William Leveson-Gower. (fn. 398) Previously the maces are
said to have been of wrought iron. (fn. 399) In 1507 it was
ordered that the town serjeant should pay 8d. and
the mayor's serjeant 6d. towards their repair. (fn. 400) The
insignia also include the high constable's oak staff
surmounted by a crown beneath which is the cipher
of George II and the date 1732. (fn. 401) The mayoral chain
was given to the mayor by the burgesses and inhabitants in 1851 and is so inscribed. The chain incorporates a medallion embossed with a portrait of
Queen Victoria and around the edge is inscribed:
'Made of California gold by Joseph Mayer, goldsmith, Liverpool.' (fn. 402)
The Borough of Newcastle-under-Lyme. Or, rising from a base barry wavy of four pieces argent and azure charged with three fishes swimming proper, a castle of three towers gules; on a chief azure a lion passant guardant between two fleurs-de-lis all gold. [Granted 1951]
No complete list of mayors seems to exist. Ingamells gives a list of mayors from 1318 to 1880, (fn. 403) and
there is a list from 1900 in the Council Year Book.
Ingamells also records the town clerks from the
reign of Elizabeth I to 1880. (fn. 404) The names of high
constables are extant from 1770. (fn. 405)