Parliamentary Representation
One
of the burghal privileges, not perhaps always valued
as such in the early years, was that of electing two
of their number as their representatives in Parliament. The first Newcastle burgesses are met with in
the Parliament of 1354 and thereafter the names of
those elected are fairly complete. (fn. 1) How or by whom
elections were carried out in the later 14th century is
unknown and it is noteworthy that the early minute
books contain no references to burgess representatives. It may be significant that often during this
period one of the two Newcastle members either was
or had been the mayor or one of the bailiffs, which
suggests nomination by the governing body of the
borough. From the beginning of the 15th century it
seems that at least one of the members was usually
a nominee of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, (fn. 2) and that elections were controlled from
Tutbury. (fn. 3) While the early representatives were
burgesses living in or near the town, in time the desire
of the local gentry for a seat in Parliament brought
about a change in the character of the borough representation as can be seen in the elections to the
later Tudor Parliaments. (fn. 4) Their ambitions in this
respect sometimes conflicted with the wishes of the
borough as happened in the case of the election
to the Reformation Parliament (1529–36). In 1533
Thomas Bradshawe, Mayor of Newcastle, and his
brethren complained to the Lord Chancellor that
John Peassall of Eccleshall had contrived to get the
sheriff to return him as one of the borough members,
whereas Bradshawe maintained that Richard Robynson, the then mayor (1529–30), had been chosen 'by
assent of the hoole commons of the seid towne'. (fn. 5)
Another example of the intervention of a local magnate is provided by an entry in the borough minute
books in 1596 to the effect that the mayor and capital
burgesses had bestowed the freedom and burgessship of the borough upon Sir Walter Leveson for life
and had elected him a parliamentary burgess, an
election incidentally that began a parliamentary connexion between the borough and the Leveson family
of Trentham which was to continue for two and a
half centuries. (fn. 6)
During the Tudor and Stuart periods (fn. 7) the most
significant aspect of the development of borough
representation lies in the attempt to obtain electoral
control, whole or partial, whether by a local influential family, by a great territorial magnate, or by
the Crown itself. Representatives of the first category were the Bagnalls, the Chetwynds, the Levesons, the Mainwarings, and the Bowyers. Of the
second, Queen Elizabeth's favourite, the Earl of
Essex, lord lieutenant of the county 1588–1600,
furnishes an example. Having been the chief promoter of the 1590 charter, the earl considered it
reasonable to demand the nomination of one at least
of the Newcastle members. (fn. 8) His interference in
Staffordshire elections until his death in 1601 does
not seem to have been so successful in Newcastle (fn. 9)
as in other parts of the county, and indeed during the
16th and 17th centuries the burgesses showed a
spirit of independence which at times proved too
strong for those who wished to intermeddle in its
parliamentary affairs. Even the Crown was not
always successful in securing the acceptance of its
nominees. When in 1605 Secretary Cecil, on the
death of Sir John Bowyer, one of the sitting members, asked Ralph Sneyd of Keele to influence
the mayor and burgesses in the matter of filling the
vacancy, the short reply he received was that the
borough had already promised the election to Rowland Cotton, who was in fact elected. (fn. 10)
The first contested election occurred in 1624 and
was followed by a petition to the House of Commons
by the defeated candidate John Keeling. The report
of the House on this petition is important for its
declaration first that the custom of vesting the right
of election in the mayor, two bailiffs, aldermen, and
capital burgesses was not prescriptive, and secondly
that in the time of Edward IV all the burgesses had
the right of election. (fn. 11) As a consequence, thereafter
the right of the general body of burgesses to take
part in parliamentary elections went unchallenged. (fn. 12)
During the Interregnum the representation of
Newcastle fluctuated. In the Parliament of 1653 no
representative of the borough was summoned to
attend, while as a result of the changes made by the
Instrument of Government Newcastle in the Parliaments of 1654–5 and 1656–8 was represented by one
member only. (fn. 13) The two-member basis was restored
in the 1659 Parliament, and thereafter Newcastle
continued to send two members to Parliament, until
in 1885 its representation was reduced to one. (fn. 14)
With the election of William Leveson-Gower as
one of the Newcastle members in 1675 begins the
control of its parliamentary representation by the
Leveson-Gower family which only came to an end
in 1820. (fn. 15) One method noted in 1835 (fn. 16) by which
this control was exercised was the lease of 60 cottages by the corporation at a nominal rent to Lord
Gower, which enabled him to exercise great influence
over the poorer freemen, by whom the cottages were
principally occupied; also much of the Gower property in the borough was held by members of the
borough council at very inadequate rents. The
borough minute book attests the granting of a 21year lease of these cottages at an annual rental of ten
guineas in September 1734. (fn. 17) At the election held in
that year the tenants had 'disobliged' Lord Gower
and on acquiring control of the cottages he ejected
those who were opposed to him. (fn. 18) Ten years later the
power of the corporation to make such a lease having
been challenged, Lord Gower spent more than £600
in the resulting lawsuit in support of the corporation. In consideration thereof and of his lordship's
having in 1743 erected a hospital for the reception of
twenty poor widows, (fn. 19) the corporation granted him
a new 99-year lease on the same terms as before. (fn. 20)
In 1790, when an election petition was submitted by
Thomas Fletcher (fn. 21) and Clement Kynnersley against
the sitting members Sir Archibald Macdonald and
John Leveson-Gower, it was stated in evidence that
a great part of the borough was the property of the
Marquess of Stafford, whose influence directed the
choice of the electors; and that it was customary
for the electors to live ten, fifteen, and twenty years
in their respective houses without paying any rent. (fn. 22)
The election in 1812 of Sir John F. F. Boughey, Bt.,
in opposition to the patron, marks the beginning of
the decline of the Gower interest in the borough,
and 'by 1826 the House of Trentham had retired
politically from Newcastle'. (fn. 23)
Although the Gower influence in parliamentary
elections during the 18th century was paramount,
nevertheless the electors of Newcastle could on occasion make known to their representatives their
opinions on political matters in the expectation that
those opinions would be acted upon. In 1719, for
example, Bryan Broughton, one of the Newcastle
members, excusing himself for not voting for the
Peerage Bill, wrote: 'So violent is the prejudice of
the people here against the bill that should I
venture to appear in favour of it, I must from
that time disclaim all hopes of ever serving His
Majesty in Parliamentary station again, in this
county at least.' (fn. 24) Again, in 1742 the local electors
decided to make representations to their members
of Parliament, Baptist Leveson-Gower and Randle
Wilbraham, 'for their instruction and in voting in
national affairs and their conduct as our representatives', and in the same year a remonstrance was addressed to these same members 'setting forth our
and other national grievances . . . in order to have
such national grievances redressed'. (fn. 25)
The unreformed corporation, being committed to
the support of the Gower interest, when that interest
was on the wane in the early 19th century, attempted
by manipulation of the franchise to arrest its decline.
The method adopted was the creation of honorary
burgesses who could be depended upon to vote for
the Gower nominee. In December 1815 28 honorary
burgesses were elected, in July 1816 12, while before
the general election of 1818, when polling began on
18 June, 32 were created on 9 June and 10 added as
late as 13 June. In fact, between the elections of 1815
and 1818 the corporation added 202 names to the
electoral roll, more than 30 per cent. of the total poll
in 1818. (fn. 26) These activities, however, did not pass unchallenged and the corporation found itself involved
in the period 1827–32 in long and expensive litigation as a result of which the illegality of its electoral
practices was established. (fn. 27) Even as late as 1841
the 'objectionable' long-standing practice 'of distributing money under the appellation of "Market
Money", "Dinner Money" or some other local term
to the poorer voters after the election' (fn. 28) still prevailed.
By the Reform Act of 1832 (fn. 29) the Newcastle constituency was defined as comprising the old borough
and that part of the parish of Stoke-upon-Trent as
was surrounded partly by the boundary of the old
borough and partly by the boundary of Knutton
township, i.e. the detached portion of Stoke which
lay in the Pool Dam area. In 1885 the parliamentary
borough was enlarged to include the parishes of
Tunstall, Wolstanton, Chesterton, and Silverdale. (fn. 30)
In 1901 the total electorate was 9,360, made up as
follows: Newcastle 3,065 (including 586 freemen),
Tunstall 2,760, Wolstanton 1,288, Chesterton 995,
and Silverdale 1,252. (fn. 31)
For some years after the Reform Act (1832), Newcastle returned Conservatives to Parliament, but
from about the middle of the century, one Conservative M.P. and one Liberal seems to have been the
general pattern until the enlargement of the electorate in 1885. Thereafter the single member was
usually a Liberal. From 1906 to 1942 J. C. Wedgwood (afterwards Lord Wedgwood) represented the
borough uninterruptedly, first as a Liberal and from
1922 as a member of the Labour party, since when
Labour members have continued to be returned
until the present time. (fn. 32)