Available from Cambridge University Press
Estimated number qualified to vote:
Number of voters:
2,985 in 1826
|15 Mar. 1820||THOMAS WENTWORTH BEAUMONT|
|CHARLES JOHN BRANDLING|
|21 Feb. 1826||MATTHEW BELL vice Brandling, deceased||1186|
|Hon. Henry Thomas Liddell||1150|
|6 July 1826||HON. HENRY THOMAS LIDDELL||1562|
|Thomas Wentworth Beaumont||1335|
|Henry Grey, Visct. Howick||997|
|6 Aug. 1830||MATTHEW BELL|
|THOMAS WENTWORTH BEAUMONT|
|9 May 1831||THOMAS WENTWORTH BEAUMONT|
|HENRY GREY, Visct. Howick|
Northumberland was noted for its coastal coalfield, shipping trade, corn and lead. Its six wards (Bamburgh, Castle, Coquetdale, Glendale, Morpeth and Tynedale), from which the detached districts of county Durham, Bedlingtonshire, Norhamshire and Islandshire, remained distinct, comprised 97 parishes and 646 constabularies. There were three parliamentary boroughs: the Border town and county of Berwick-upon-Tweed; Morpeth, a sessions town and popular location for county meetings, and the county corporate of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, which had taken over the function of hosting the assizes from Alnwick, the usual venue for county elections. The other principal settlements and sources of petitions were Allendale, Alnmouth, Bamburgh, Belford, Bellingham, Blyth, Haltwhistle, Hartley, Hexham, Rothbury, Seaton, Warkworth and Wooler.1 Excluding Newcastle and Berwick, population growth, 1821-31 (101,341; 124,790), was greatest in the southern wards of Castle (61,959; 71,533) and Tynedale (39,382; 42,415), where 1,885 (62 per cent) of the electors at the 1826 general election were registered. The county remained unpolled, 1774-1825, and changes in its representation were determined by aristocratic compromise between the largest landowners: the Percys, dukes of Northumberland (180,000 acres), who had controlled one seat from Alnwick Castle since the 1760s; the earls of Carlisle and dukes of Portland, who had estates near Morpeth; the earls of Tankerville of Chillingham Castle; the Greys of Howick, and the government as managers of the Greenwich Hospital estates. The main Tory contenders (besides the Percy family) were Beaumont of Bywell and Hexham Abbey, Liddell of Eslington and Orde of Nunnykirk; and the leading Whigs were Swinburne of Capheaton, the 2nd Lord Grey, Bennet (Lord Tankerville’s sons) of Chillingham, Middleton (afterwards Monck) of Bellsay and the bankers Charles William Bigge of Linden and his partner Sir Matthew White Ridley* of Blagdon and Heaton. The preference of the ‘independent’ squirearchy for bipartisan representation, with one Member at least from among their ranks, was generally heeded. Canvassing in London, at race meetings, the assizes, Newcastle, Shields, Morpeth, Hexham and Alnwick was vital; and, as in neighbouring county Durham, the Tyneside industrialists and ship owners formed an increasingly vociferous electoral lobby.2
The sitting Members were the Whig Sir Charles Monck, first returned on Lord Percy’s elevation to the Lords in 1812, and the Tory renegade Thomas Wentworth Beaumont, who had been substituted for his father in 1818 and had the wealth of his Blackett mother at his disposal. Both were expected to seek re-election at the general election of 1820, when Beaumont’s votes with the Whig opposition against the repressive legislation introduced after the Peterloo massacre and his declared support for Catholic relief and parliamentary reform made a Tory challenge inevitable.3 It was engineered by the Tory lord lieutenant, the 3rd duke of Northumberland, who, ignoring the pretensions of the 1818 favourite, the Canningite heir to Eslington, Henry Thomas Liddell, and of Daniel Orde, who was disqualified as the incumbent sheriff, secured the government’s backing for the anti-Catholic Tory Charles John Brandling of Gosforth. Since relinquishing his Newcastle seat in 1812, Brandling had revived the Newcastle Pitt Club and proved effective and popular as a commander of the yeomanry cavalry.4 Professions of support and promises of second votes from both sides failed to dissuade Monck from retiring from lack of funds directly Brandling’s candidature was announced, 4 Feb. 1820. He gradually adopted his own idiosyncratic brand of Toryism and remained a powerful, disgruntled and unpredictable figure in Northumberland politics until his death in 1867, and proved to be especially so in this period.5 Disappointed, but not surprised, the Whig leader Grey, whose daughter Elizabeth Beaumont had courted in vain, informed Monck, 6 Feb.:
I could not have entered into any agreement the object of which was avowedly to displace Beaumont for having acted according to my view in a manner that did him the greatest honour, for the purpose of bringing in Brandling as the supporter of an administration whose existence I thought a national calamity.6
Refusing to back Brandling, Grey accused him of dealing a fatal blow to the independent interest.7 Tankerville’s heir Lord Ossulston, who successfully contested Berwick-upon-Tweed, wrote similarly; but Ossulston also commiserated with Monck and offered to co-operate with him at a future date to defeat ‘the odious combination of petty squires following in the train of the duke of Northumberland’.8 A third man ‘equally distinguished for his loyalty to the throne and his regard for the just legal rights of the people’ was announced, but was not forthcoming.9 Beaumont procured an address of support from his Hexham stronghold and stayed away from the county meeting at Morpeth, 22 Feb., when Northumberland proposed and Grey and Ossulston seconded the addresses of condolence and congratulation to George IV.10 Proposing Beaumont at Alnwick, 15 Mar., Sir John Swinburne of Capheaton and John Reed of Chipchase Castle praised his independence and paid tribute to Monck and Grey, leaving Beaumont to defend his conduct and criticize Northumberland and his agents for putting up ‘a phantom with two faces’ against him. Assertions by Brandling and his proposers, the failed banker Sir Charles Loraine of Kirkharle and Charles John Clavering of Axwell Park, that ‘church and state politics’ had to be represented and that Beaumont was a turncoat were echoed by Liddell, Orde and Brandling’s nephew Matthew Bell of Woolsington. Distancing themselves from Beaumont, Bigge and Ridley proposed and carried a vote of thanks to Monck and dined with Brandling’s party after the chairing.11 The result was interpreted as a Tory gain, which Grey, noting the popular hostility to the duke and the Tory squirearchy, deemed reversible.12 Drawing parallels with the contest in county Durham, where his son-in-law, the Whig John Lambton, had prevailed and assisted in the return of a second Whig, he observed to his brother-in-law Edward Ellice*, 20 Mar. 1820:
We could have done the same thing against the duke, and the squirearchy (the basest set that ever existed) of Northumberland, if the Whigs had been united, and we could have found a candidate of character, resolution and money.13
During the 1820 Parliament legislation was enacted for the construction of a new county gaol, 24 Mar. 1822, and improvements to the turnpike roads linking Newcastle and North Shields, 8 July 1820, Alnwick with Alnmouth, 28 May 1821, the Hexham hub, 21 Mar. 1821, and the great north road at Haggerston, 5 May 1826.14 Petitions to the Commons for agricultural protection, 16 May, and ‘moderate and constitutional parliamentary reform’, 30 June, which Bigge had joined Grey, Monck, George Duncombe Shafto of Bavington and Swinburne in promoting at the county meeting at Morpeth, 16 June 1820, were presented by Beaumont.15 The freeholders of Newcastle (disqualified under the charter of 1400) petitioned for county or borough votes, 9 June 1820.16 Beaumont formally joined Brooks’s that month and supported the campaign on behalf of Queen Caroline, which Brandling opposed. Alnwick marked the abandonment of the bill of pains and penalties with illuminations, 22 Nov., and an address praising Grey, who, ever doubting the zeal of the Whigs, instigated and headed a requisition for a county meeting to petition in protest at the queen’s treatment, 20 Dec.17 Notifying the queen’s partisan Sir Robert Wilson* on the 5th, Grey cautioned:
It is entirely and almost exclusively on the middle and lower classes of the freeholders on which I must depend for support. Most of our squires are bigoted Tories, or mean courtiers of the duke, and though we have some excellent friends, and these the representatives of the best families, I am sorry to say that their activity is not equal to their other merits.18
After the Tory sheriff William Clark of Benton refused to do so, 21 Dec. 1820, the meeting was convened at Morpeth in their capacity as magistrates by Grey, Lambton, Swinburne, Monck, Beaumont, Bigge and George Baker of Elmore, 10 Jan. 1821. With Swinburne as chairman, the meeting confirmed Grey’s ability to ‘carry anything with the middling and lower classes of freeholders’, who cheered his call for moderate reform. Monck also rallied for Grey and the queen, and the sole dissentient from the freeholders’ petition attaching ministerial incompetence to a plea for the restoration of the queen’s name to the liturgy was Orde, a signatory to the ministerialist loyal address circulated by the duke of Northumberland.19 Grey informed Lord Lansdowne, 13 Jan. 1821:
Our Tory country gentlemen in this county are of the most inveterate and bigoted description, yet even amongst them the tone of ultra loyalty is a good deal lowered. In every other class of the community the change of opinion is striking and decisive. Of this I cannot give you a better proof than that of the duke and the supporters of the present administration not having ventured to face us ... The attendance was most numerous and respectable, and the proceedings quite satisfactory in every respect. In the North then I may venture to state that there exists the same preponderance of public opinion against the present ministers as you describe in your part of the country.20
Its presenter Beaumont endorsed the petition, 1 Feb., and echoing Grey’s comments on introducing it in the Lords, 5 Feb., he made Clark’s conduct the subject of a censure motion, 13 Feb., which was withdrawn only in deference to another on the Cheshire proceedings, 14 Feb.21 The county joined in the petitioning against the agricultural horse tax, 7 June, and for repeal of the leather tax, 31 May, 7 June 1822. (Hostile petitions from the tanners of North Shields, 31 Mar., were matched by others from the town’s butchers supporting the 1824 hides and skins bill 3 May.)22 Dissatisfaction with the 1822 agriculture committee’s report prompted the adoption at ward meetings of petitions against the government’s corn importation bill. The Lords received several from parishes in the Haltwhistle district, 25 June, and from the Morpeth and Castle wards, 26 June, and Tynedale on the 27th. The county’s owners and occupiers petitioned similarly 5 July 1822.23 The agriculturists of Wooler, 9 Jan. 1823, the hundred of Coquetdale and the inhabitants of Alnwick petitioned both Houses in March 1823 requesting changes in the General Turnpike Act.24 Petitions, as wool producers, from the county’s farmers and stock masters sought concessions permitting wool to be exported or re-exported to the colonies duty free, 4 July 1823, 26 Mar., 8 Apr. 1824.25 The presbytery of North Shields and synod of Alnwick, who had pressed in 1821-2 for a Dissenters’ Marriage Act, led the local petitioning in 1823, 1824 and 1826 for the abolition of colonial slavery.26 Alnwick presbytery also supported the petitioning campaign for inquiry into the indictment in Demerara of the Methodist missionary John Smith, 14 June 1824.27 Petitions were sent up by the colliery owners for repeal of the coastwise coal duty, 28 Apr., and the ship owners and merchants of North Shields, Blyth and Hartley resisted alterations in the timber duties, 23 Feb., 23, 26 Feb., 26 Mar. 1821, and opposed the relaxation of the navigation laws and changes in the reciprocity duties proposed by Huskisson as president of the board of trade, 30 June 1823.28 They also requested representation by counsel to secure amendments to the Isle of Dogs docks, 21 Apr., and Kingston-upon-Hull docks bills, 26 Apr. 1825, and sought concessions in the stamp duty levied on seamen’s apprenticeship indentures, 5, 27 Apr., and marine insurance policies, 4 May 1826.29
From August 1823, when, in a fit of delusion, Beaumont accused his prospective mother-in-law Lady Swinburne of adultery, naming Grey and his brother General Henry Grey of Falloden among her paramours, the manoeuvring to replace him was relentless.30 The main ministerialist contender Liddell, whose father had been made a coronation peer (Lord Ravensworth) in 1821, had commanded the cavalry during the 1822 keelmen’s strike with Brandling and Bell, and had been recalled from Florence to the foreign secretary Canning’s private office in anticipation of Beaumont’s retirement.31 An attempt meanwhile by the Whigs to mask their differences by rallying round Grey’s heir Lord Howick, who came of age in December 1823, had foundered when Ridley and his brother Nicholas Ridley Colborne* put Beaumont’s decision to stand down in February 1824 ‘on hold’ while they ‘sounded’ Grey and the duke.32 Ridley explained to Grey, who had been the victim of similar intransigence by Northumberland’s father in 1807:
We knew the duke would not have offered any opposition to Monck, Bigge or Swinburne, but we thought he might have had had some personal dislike to the introduction of Lord Howick, and in compliance with your declared intention of not standing a contest we wished to ascertain this point, as ... once declared ... it would neither be creditable to the party or fair to Lord Howick to withdraw him and we certainly had no prospect of being able to provide for a contest.33
Beaumont decided to stay on and stand a contest at the general election, even ‘if it cost £100,000’. The element of surprise was lost and the claims of Bigge, Monck, Ridley, Swinburne and the Morpeth Member William Ord of Whitfield to the Whig seat were revived. Bigge and Swinburne ruled themselves out on financial grounds, but not so Ridley and Monck, whose involvement in costly chancery proceedings was drawing to a close. Ord, suggested by Monck with a view to freeing a Morpeth seat, was apparently not consulted.34 Determined to proceed to a contest, but not a ‘severe and expensive one’, Grey entrusted management of Howick’s campaign to his brothers and Lambton, and made use of Ridley to introduce Howick, a lanky redhead renowned for his obstinacy and aloofness, to the squires at the 1824 Newcastle races and the magistrates at the September 1825 assizes. The Greys graced Ridley’s 1826 New Year ball at Blagdon and chose him as Howick’s proposer. Yet, possibly sensing that Ridley, fearing a loss of banking business, was uneasy in his allotted role, they never fully trusted him to put Howick’s claims before his own or those of his neighbour Monck. Monck, like Bigge and Swinburne, had attended their strategy meeting at Blagdon, 30 Nov. 1824, and complained afterwards of Lambton’s unwarranted and unwanted interference in Northumberland politics.35 Appealed to as a seasoned parliamentarian, Monck refused to be drawn by offers of support from Shafto and the duke of Northumberland’s steward Sir David Smith when a general election seemed imminent in September 1825, and he turned down a requisition in January 1826, when Beaumont was said to be ‘at daggers drawn’ with his mother and preparing to retire.36 The earl of Carlisle and duke of Portland, who had influence in the Morpeth area and the earl of Tankerville (as Ossulston had become) humoured Grey, but Tankerville in particular was troubled by Howick’s support for corn law reform and political economy.37
When, with a general election pending, Brandling’s death on 1 Feb. 1826 unexpectedly vacated the Tory seat, Liddell and Howick waited on Northumberland, who professed neutrality for ‘both elections’. Both declared next day: Liddell described himself as an independent constitutional candidate; Howick appealed to his family connections.38 Two days later, certain he had ‘no chance this time’ as the county was unlikely to return two Whigs, Howick offered to withdraw provided Liddell did not oppose him at the general election.39 Reports of this ‘treachery’ reached Bigge, Monck, Swinburne and Ridley, who on the 8th turned Liddell down.40 Without authorization from his father, who had not intended him to start, ‘bitterly lamented his withdrawing’ and despaired at the cost, Howick matched Beaumont’s general election preparations by retaining agents at Alnwick, Newcastle and Shields and, with Lambton seriously ill, he commenced his personal canvass on 4 Feb., assisted by John Grey of Millfield, who shared Ridley’s unease concerning his canvassing strategy.41 Want of effective opposition to Liddell, who, as a Canningite and government candidate had ‘obtained a very general promise of support’, including the Greenwich Hospital, Carlisle and Portland interests, brought the anti-Catholic Bell into the field on the 11th, the day after the grandees met at Brandling’s funeral. His announcement coincided with Howick’s formal retirement.42 Bell’s uncle by marriage and confidant, the advanced Whig Thomas Creevey*, surmised:
As to the result of this business, all one knows for certain is that from the next general election, Matt will have this county for his life, but as for this go, one does not quite see one’s way as yet because Liddell is a Tory candidate and has had the course to himself for ten days.43
On 2 Mar. (as again, 29 May), Ellice suggested to Grey that the Newcastle Whig barrister James Losh or Hedworth Williamson* should take soundings to determine which candidate the Whigs should back, as ‘anybody would have confidence in their decision’.44 Losh, however, was also the Beaumont family’s lawyer. Predicting Bell’s success, he noted that Howick’s ‘election might have been secured’ had he been ‘well advised in the first instance’, and that he had injured ‘his prospects for the future without any present advantage’.45 Canvassing proceeded at Alnwick, Corbridge, Hexham, Heydon Bridge, Morpeth, Shields and Newcastle, where Bell was accompanied by his Brandling uncles, the Rev. Ralph Brandling, who as heir to Gosforth Park agreed to pay half his expenses, John Brandling, an excise officer of Kenton Lodge, Newcastle, and William Brandling, the local agent for the Tyne coal owners and the Greenwich Hospital estate. Loraine, representing the Tories, and Bigge, Monck and Ridley, as spokesmen for the Whigs who perceived Liddell as a greater threat than Bell to Howick or Monck’s future prospects and also respected him as a man of business and fellow land and coal owner, agreed to back Bell. On the 14th they poached Robert Lancelot Allgood of Alnwick and the militia colonel Coulson of Blenkinsopp (some 300 votes and the best transport) from Liddell, whose committee and agent William Pierson protested.46 Possibly deliberately, the candidates’ differences on West Indian slavery, Catholic relief and protection were masked and the contest was projected as a personal one between an independent resident squire and an absentee aristocrat.47 Bell was lampooned as Northumberland’s bellman; Liddell as a detached observer of the canvass on his behalf.48
Entering the fray preparatory to the general election, Beaumont declared for parliamentary reform and Catholic relief and against colonial slavery. Canvassing personally, he ‘laboured on the Sabbath’, opened the most inns and initially favoured Liddell. Like Howick, who affected neutrality and lacked the perspicacity of his rivals, he canvassed avidly until the nomination at Alnwick, 21 Feb. 1826.49 On the hustings Beaumont made his mother the scapegoat for his recent troubles, and he and Howick successfully stifled attempts by Monck, who had recently contacted Northumberland’s agents and Swinburne and been turned down by Ridley, to appeal directly to the freeholders. So, according to Creevey, they ‘cut his throat for the next election’.50 Liddell’s proposers, the anti-Catholic chairman of the magistrates Thomas Clennell and Clark, testified to his willingness to reside at Eslington, and criticized Bell’s late intervention against a fellow Tory and his committee for brokering a deal with their opponents. Bell’s proposers, Loraine and Allgood, praised him as a resident squire and proven man of business and accused Liddell of canvassing with unseemly haste. They left William Brandling, who stressed the bipartisan family support available to Bell (a cousin of William Ord), to counter Clennell, to justify Allgood and Mrs. Beaumont’s support for Bell, and to expose Liddell’s botched ‘reciprocity pact’ with the Beaumonts.51 Bell raised the ‘No Popery’ cry but conceded the right of eligible Catholics to poll and his agents did not deter them by insisting on applying the oath. Liddell, who evaded commitment on most issues, was reputedly pro-Catholic in private and anti-Catholic in public. The Catholic vote (about 100) was his, marshalled by George Silvertop of Minster Acres, Sir Carnaby Haggerston of Haggerston and Ralph Riddell of Felton Park and Swinburn Castle.52 After nine days’ polling Bell, whose uncles were ‘out in all directions’, regained the narrow lead he established over the first five days and emerged the victor by 36 votes in a poll of 2,336 on the 13th day.53 Losh observed: ‘This contest has been a remarkably close fought and expensive one (both candidates being Tories and men of no considerable talents, I took little interest in the struggle which was on the whole temperately conducted. Williamson was not a good assessor, being too hasty in his decisions)’.54 Howick spent at least £9,000, Beaumont an estimated £12,000, Bell and Liddell, who had little independent means, about £3,000 daily.55 Bell carried the Castle and Tynedale wards by 352-312 and 493-309 respectively, while Liddell took Morpeth (130-125), Bamburgh (78-38), Coquetdale (252-146) and Glendale (69-32).56
Despite his bitter departing words on the hustings, 7 Mar. 1826, such was the support for Liddell’s 44-carriage cavalcade as it passed, as was customary, through Newcastle that day, that a subscription to return him was immediately commenced. A central committee, chaired by lord chancellor Eldon’s nephew-in-law, the anti-Catholic Tory Sir Thomas Burdon of West Jesmond, supervised 17 district committees in his interest, in what Grey, who rued his own failure to collude with Bell and prevent Carlisle, Portland and Tankerville from backing Liddell, perceived as a ‘new and much unexpected attempt’ to return two Tories. This added to the ‘difficulty and confusion’ of the canvass.57 Each candidate set up local and London committees, dined and addressed their supporters and retained agents countywide for the four-cornered contest. Howick, whose prospects were puffed in the Newcastle Chronicle, the Durham Chronicle and The Times, made most headway at Morpeth; Beaumont, lauded by the Tyne Mercury, progressed at Alnwick and Newcastle; Liddell, the favourite of the Newcastle Courant, boosted his following at Rothbury, Newcastle and North Shields, and Bell, praised by the anti-Catholic Durham County Advertiser and the Courant, secured Blyth and Haltwhistle. Proclaiming independence, Beaumont made a virtue of the refusal of the Whig aristocracy to back him and their determination to turn him out. More radical than Howick, he alone advocated the immediate abolition of slavery and he was a prominent supporter of schemes for a Newcastle-Carlisle railway and Tyne suspension bridge, which Coulson promoted and Ridley opposed. Bell refuted pro-slavery allegations, was staunchly protectionist and attributed distress to the Whig and Huskissonite policies of free trade. Liddell denied ‘truckling’ over Catholic relief and he and Bell ridiculed reports of collusion by their London committees.58 Indeed, as John Brandling declared on the hustings at Morpeth, 22 Mar., allegations and counter-allegations of skulduggery had been flying between the two Tories and their committees since February, over which of them should have had priority. Furthermore, Liddell’s speech at the George Tavern, North Shields, 15 Mar., alleged that Bell was trying to persuade him to desist or to challenge Lambton in county Durham instead.59 Squibs and caricatures depicting divisions among the Whigs, especially the damage caused by Monck’s adherence to Bell and by Beaumont’s sniping, also abounded, and few of Grey’s parliamentary friends believed the optimistic reports supplied by his chief agent Lambert. These, as late as 31 May, made Howick the likely winner of the ‘Northumberland stakes’ (Howick 1,042, Liddell 852, Bell 738, Beaumont 536). Lambert estimated that Howick was clearly ahead in Coquetdale and Morpeth wards, and narrowly so in Glendale.60 Letters between March and July 1826 to Grey from his son Charles Grey*, Howick’s constant canvassing companion, became more sanguine and favourable to a pact with Bell, which, according to Creevey, had been in place since February. Howick meanwhile pinned his hopes on a show of strength at Morpeth, 10 June, and trouncing Beaumont and Liddell there at a county meeting on the 13th. Liddell and Beaumont’s committees refused to sign the requisition for it.61 Taking charge of Howick’s campaign, 2 June, Lambton strove personally to undermine the support expressed for Beaumont and Liddell at Shields, 7, 10 June, and prompted discussion of the Swinburne affair, a ploy he had had in mind since March 1824 and which Bigge, Ridley and Carlisle’s brother William Howard* rightly deemed of dubious benefit to Howick.62
At the county meeting at Morpeth, 13 June, Joseph Lamb of Lemington House, Newcastle and the ship owner Thomas Batson pressed the claims of the ‘liberal’ Beaumont, Loraine and Clavering sponsored the church and state Tory Bell, Ridley and Ord proposed Howick, and Clennell and Clark did the same for Liddell, ‘an eloquent supporter of government’. Each claimed a successful canvass. Proceedings were dominated by Lambton, who, backed by the Greys, ridiculed Beaumont by detailing his failings, notably his instability and absences from Parliament over the last eight years, and by comparing him unfavourably with Howick. Beaumont’s former tutor, the Rev. Christopher Bird, responded, and Beaumont and Liddell won the show of hands.63 Lady Grey’s warning that Lambton’s anti-Beaumont tirades, a contentious issue at the Durham election, 15 June, would do Howick ‘more harm than good’ went unheeded.64 At Alnwick, 20 June, nominations proceeded as previously, with Frank Sitwell of Barmoor Castle deputizing for Clark. Liddell topped the poll from the outset. Beaumont, whose Hexham voters demonstrated the efficiency of ‘Liddell and Beaumont’s patent machine for splitting plumpers’, overtook Howick on the fifth day (24 June) to challenge Bell for second place. Howick failed to stop Carlisle and Portland’s tenantry, who he expected to plump, splitting their votes between him and Liddell. On 26 June 1826, with the poll at Liddell 1,067, Bell 1,027, Beaumont 860, Howick 768, and Grey reluctant to waste £1,000-a-day in a hopeless cause, Lambton and Grey of Millfield summoned William Brandling and suggested protecting Bell by leaving Howick’s name on the poll. This, they suggested, would prevent Liddell directing some 300 unpolled Liddell-Howick voters to split their votes between him and Beaumont: ‘Bell must stand all the expense of so doing’.65 Bell agreed to meet Howick’s costs from the 28th and Lambton and Ridley opened a subscription. In March 1827 Grey’s agents, who with Loraine and Ridley had previously forwarded Howick’s bills to Ellice, were instructed to refer those for the last days of Howick’s campaign to Lambton for settlement.66 Beaumont continued to outpoll Bell daily, and at Liddell 1,428, Bell 1,297, Beaumont 1,165, Howick 937 on 30 June 1826, Howick accused Liddell of resorting to bribery. Intervening, Beaumont replied that his words were mouthed by Lambton. The accusations escalated and culminated next day in a bloodless duel between Beaumont and Lambton on Bamburgh sands.67 Despite continued inroads into his majority by Beaumont, on 3 July, with the poll at Liddell 1,485, Bell 1,331, Beaumont 1,241, Howick 976, Bell declared himself secure. Howick retired officially that day, receiving one further vote before the result was declared on the 6th. The Tories took both seats at an estimated cost of £90,000 to Liddell and £60,000 to Bell, revised to £30,000 a candidate. Liddell refused to draw on his £4,000 subscription fund.68 What the political economist Mallet termed ‘a wretched concern for the Whigs’ cost Beaumont, who secured a reduction in his £60,000 bill, £40,634. Grey sold Ulgham Grange for £40,000 to finance both elections and was invoiced for £19,213, reduced later to £16,981, of which £4,181 was incurred in legal costs, £1,278 charged to Lambton and £643 outstanding on Howick’s split vote account (£208 to Liddell, £62 to Beaumont and £372 to Bell). Grey estimated the cost to the county at £187,681: £60,000 to Bell, who admitted spending £43,000, and £50,000 to Liddell for both contests; £60,000 to Beaumont and £17,681 to Howick for one.69
According to Stoker’s analysis, of 2,985 polled, 69 per cent had also voted in February, with Liddell’s supporters (85 per cent) more consistent than Bell’s (75 per cent). Seventy per cent of plumping was Tory, while 58 voted for at least one Tory and 42 for at least one Whig.70 Three-hundred-and-sixty-two, over half the 716 (24 per cent) who plumped, did so for Bell, 143 for Liddell, 132 for Beaumont and only 79 for Howick. Of the 2,269 (76 per cent) who split, 846 voted Liddell-Beaumont, 493 Bell-Howick, 326 Liddell-Howick, 278 Bell-Beaumont, 247 Liddell-Bell and 79 Beaumont-Howick. Liddell retained a clear majority in Coquetdale, nudged Howick into second place in Bamburgh, Glendale and Morpeth, led Beaumont in Castle and polled third behind him and Bell in Tynedale. Bell, whose plumpers were a mixture of ultra Tories and disaffected Whigs led by Monck, derived a further 56 per cent of his vote (771) from cross-party splits with Howick and Beaumont. In terms of actual votes received, the predictions for Howick by his agents were not wildly optimistic, but they had grossly underestimated support for his rivals, especially their bête noir Beaumont and the strength of his coalition with Liddell.71 Editorials in The Times upbraided the Catholic Sir Charles Haggerston, Monck and others who had put ‘private pique’ before party during the poll and, as Lord Carlisle had predicted, the election ended in personal quarrels.72 Bell complained to Monck of the expense and refused to be reconciled to the coalition Tories who had put Liddell first and cast second votes for Beaumont.73 Grey’s agents, spurred on by Lambton and the Durham Chronicle, sought revenge for Howick’s defeat by publishing Beaumont’s 1823-4 ‘Swinburne’ correspondence, so provoking an angry response from Ridley, whom they held personally responsible for Howick’s poor showing in Newcastle, and for accentuating Whig divisions.74 Howick, who was seated by Lord Darlington for Winchelsea, determined not to spend again in Northumberland. Preparing for his next challenge, Beaumont attributed his defeat ‘wholly to the Whigs’ and celebrated his victory at the Stafford by-election in December 1826 by rallying his Northumberland supporters, denouncing the aristocracy at a celebration dinner in Newcastle, 7 Feb. 1827, and retaining agents countywide.75
Liddell moved the address for the Liverpool ministry, 21 Nov. 1826, and had great difficulty afterwards reconciling his conflicting obligations to ministers, Canningites, and the agriculturists and ship owners of Northumberland, who constantly monitored their Members’ conduct. The seamen of North Shields petitioned the Commons for repeal of the corn laws, 30 Nov. 1826;76 but the consensus was for some protection, and Bell fully endorsed protectionist petitions from the agriculturists of the northern wards and North Tynedale, 21, 26, 27 Feb., 27 Mar., 9 Apr. 1827, and voted against Canning’s corn bill, which Liddell, who had failed to persuade ministers to raise the pivot price to 64s., was obliged to support. Petitions received by the Lords, 30 Mar., 12 Apr., 30 May, requested an ‘equitable policy’ on corn.77 That from the parish of Eglington asked to be heard by counsel, should Canning’s ministry alter their corn bill.78 The Wellington ministry’s 1828 bill attracted only a handful of petitions objecting to the proposed pivot price and scale.79 The Members backed the Blyth, Shields and Tyne ship owners’ protectionist petitions advocating inquiry into their trade, 30 Mar., 3 May 1827, and Liddell seconded Gascoyne’s motions for a select committee on shipping, 7 May 1827, 17 June 1828.80 Petitioning for repeal of the 1827 Malt Act, 22 Feb., protection for lead, 28 Mar., 18 Apr., and wool, 12, 20 May, and the continued circulation of small bank notes, 2 May 1828, was initiated by the agriculturists, the lead miners of the Derwent district and the ship owners, who also petitioned for repeal of the stamp duty on receipts, 11 Mar., 18 Apr., and against the North Shields improvement bill, 21 Apr., 6 May, which received royal assent, 13 May 1828.81 Meanwhile the attorneys of North Shields petitioned for changes in the laws governing bankruptcy, 16 June, and petitions were also received from Shields and Blyth for the extinction of colonial slavery, 23, 24 June 1828.82 Dissenters countywide had petitioned the Commons in June 1827 and both Houses in 1828, urging repeal of the Test Acts.83 Northumberland’s Roman Catholics had petitioned for relief in 1825 and 1828, when the Unitarians and Friends of Religious Liberty supported their campaign; but Bell and the diocesan clergy of Alnwick, Bamburgh, Morpeth and Newcastle had resisted concessions throughout. Continuing to do so, they sponsored hostile petitions from several parishes, including Blyth, Gosforth, Lesbury, Longhaughton, Ponteland and Warkworth in 1829, when, during the duke of Northumberland’s Irish lord lieutenancy, ministers conceded Catholic emancipation.84 Legislation for the Tyne Ferry was enacted, 1 June 1829, but the routes of the approach (service) roads remained in contention throughout 1829 and 1830, and until the third bill received royal assent, 6 Sept. 1831.85 Shipping and lead mining remained depressed when Liddell, following the example of Sir James Graham* in Cumberland, personally instigated a requisition for a county distress meeting, which his political ally, the ship owner Sanderson Ilderton as sheriff, convened for 15 Feb. 1830. By all accounts it was a ‘wretched flat business. Hardly any of the leading gentlemen of the county were present’, and, opposed only by the renegade Monck, Liddell carried a petition for inquiry, which he presented 12 Mar., but the Lords did not receive it until 29 Apr. It attributed distress to the restoration of the gold standard in 1819, compounded by the 1828 Small Notes Act, and called for retrenchment, cuts in taxes ‘most affecting the poor’, and general government assistance.86 Wellington had refused to guarantee Liddell the Greenwich Hospital interest and he tacked between the Whig moderates and administration for the remainder of that Parliament.87 The Members confirmed the seriousness and extent of the distress alluded to in petitions to both Houses early in 1830 from the Allendale and Derwent Valley lead mining districts and the ship owners. Although they held aloof from the campaign to reduce local levies on coal and ballast shipped from Newcastle, they supported that for repeal of the coastwise coal duties, 3 May, and opposed the sale of beer bill’s provisions for on-consumption, on behalf of the beer retailers of North Shields, 30 Apr., and Alnwick, 7 June, which also sought ‘protection’ for its tobacco trade, 21 May, 7 June 1830.88 Petitions were also sent up from North Shields and Tynemouth for opening the East India trade to China, 5 Apr. 1830, and by the bankers, lawyers and the towns requesting the abolition of capital punishment for forgery and other non-violent crimes.89
Concessions for coal and shipping and Liddell’s hostility to and his rivals’ support for the Northern Roads bill and the Newcastle-Carlisle railway were the main local issues at the general election of 1830, when, with Beaumont’s lavish preparations under way, Bell hosted dinners countywide and ordered a thorough canvass directly the death of George IV was announced. Unable to spend adequately despite a promise of support from Lord Carlisle, Liddell exposed his weakness in a blatant appeal to the freeholders to return him free of charge, 29 June, and had difficulty countering reports that he was standing down. He retired dispirited after canvassing personally for four days, 14 July.90 The aristocracy were conspicuous absentees when the county adopted the customary addresses of condolence and congratulation proposed by Bell, Monck and Orde, 2 Aug., and despite speculation, no third man appeared at Alnwick on the 6th. Bell, proposed by Loraine and Allgood, and Beaumont, sponsored by Lamb and Batson, were returned unopposed. Both confirmed their opposition to colonial slavery, the subject of renewed petitioning that summer, encouraged by the Wesleyan Methodists and the Dissenters; and Beaumont declared for and Bell against parliamentary reform. Their 680 supporters, whose marshals included Coulson and the Brandlings for the Tories and the radical Whigs Dixon Dixon and Matthew Culley of Coupland Castle, were dined together.91 The result was interpreted as a government ‘loss’.92
The Whig lawyer Henry Brougham’s rallying speech at Newcastle, 11 Aug. 1830, following his Yorkshire election victory, boosted support for the campaign for the abolition of colonial slavery, for which both Houses received petitions, many of them publicly adopted, from congregations, presbyteries and towns countywide, 4 Nov. 1830-20 Apr. 1831. Bell’s wife was the president of the Ladies’ Anti-Slavery Society.93 Bell, as expected, voted with the Wellington ministry when they were brought down on the civil list, 15 Nov. 1830. Beaumont, who was listed among their ‘foes’, ‘contrived’ to be shut out.94 On 10 Dec. Bell, who dissented from its pleas, complained that a petition from North Shields presented by Beaumont for reform, including the ballot, had been privately adopted.95 Grey’s appointment as premier had prompted a flurry of reform petitions from ward meetings, which increased in frequency following the successful Newcastle one, 23 Dec. 1830, when Liddell, who was derided as an anti-reformer, and William Ord’s son William Henry Ord† of Whitfield paraded their credentials as candidates in waiting. Petitions from the inhabitants of Alnwick and Hexham requested ‘constitutional reform’, rigid suppression of superfluous expenditure, including sinecures and pensions, and election by ballot.96 The requisition for a county reform meeting on 2 Feb.1831 was headed by Swinburne and Ridley. It was adjourned to the 9th because of a violent snowstorm, but attendance remained poor and proceedings were dominated by Bigge, who since 1829 had been chairman of the bench, and the Rev. John Saville Ogle of Kirkley Hall. Liddell’s attempt to impose on the meeting his own brand of ‘moderate’ reform, which excluded wholesale disfranchisement, was scotched by Losh, and the petition adopted, which Beaumont presented to the Commons, 28 Feb., and Durham (as Lambton had become) to the Lords, 14 Mar., called for a householder franchise, cheaper elections and shorter parliaments.97 The towns and the Coquetdale and Glendale wards petitioned in favour of the ministerial scheme, which proposed dividing the county constituency in two, taking a Member from Morpeth and awarding one to the adjoining townships of North Shields and Tynemouth, where the shipping interest was pleased and Ogle’s namesake son immediately announced his candidature. Silvertop, as sheriff, convened the county for 16 Mar. and signed their favourable petition, to which a deferred resolution for the ballot was appended for Parliament’s consideration. Bell, whose hostile letter to the meeting contrasted with Beaumont’s supportive one, presented it to the Commons on the 19th and Grey presented and commended it to the Lords, 22 Mar.98 According to Losh’s account of the meeting:
The only danger of opposition was from the farmers, who are not satisfied with the restriction to those who have leases for 21 years. It was, however, market day and we contrived, by seeing a good many of them, to prevent any public expression of their dissatisfaction. Mr. Bigge opened the business very well and Bird spoke vigorously. Mr. Grey (of Millfield Plains) was our chief orator and some parts of his speech were really excellent. I escaped as neither Mr. Liddell nor Mr. Ord (of Nunnykirk) appeared amongst us. They were both expected ... I think there is a very strong feeling that Lord Howick should be called upon to propose himself (at the present time) as Member for the county. I had a letter from Dr. Fenwick this morning suggesting the possibility of forming an association for the purpose of bringing him in free from expense ... I think such a scheme only wants a beginning to make it succeed.99
A committee led by Bigge, Bacon Grey, Bird, Culley, Grey of Millfield and the Newcastle reformers was established to support the bill and secure the election for the county, at the first opportunity, of two reformers. They contacted Howick, then colonial under-secretary in his father’s ministry, who agreed to stand but not spend, and fomented public hostility to the Tories by publicizing the tactics deployed by the duke of Northumberland’s agents to get up an anti-reform petition. This became the subject of heated exchanges in the Commons between Beaumont and its presenter Bell, 20 Apr.100 The Lords received a petition from Coquetdale ward that day praying that ‘an aristocratic and anti-reform petition from this county may have no influence on [them] nor interfere with their exertions to carry the bill’.101 Corbridge had included tithe reform in their petition (3 Mar.), and certain occupiers and landowners, frustrated at the county meeting, petitioned independently for a £20 rural voting qualification.102 Beaumont’s favourable and Bell’s anti-reform votes, 22 Mar., 19 Apr., prompted countywide meetings to condemn Bell’s conduct and calls for representation by two reformers, and Beaumont and Howick were asked to contribute £1,000-£1,500 each to the reformers’ subscription fund. The network of attorneys, committees and sub-committees which had promoted Beaumont’s candidature in 1826 was revived and Howick’s agents waived retaining fees and also commenced canvassing before the dissolution in April precipitated by the bill’s defeat.103 Letters from the Whig physician Headlam and from Losh left the cabinet minister Durham and Howick, who had applied for the Carlisle, Portland, Tankerville and Greenwich Hospital interests, in no doubt that ‘want of cordiality’ to Beaumont and his agents would ‘frustrate’ the reformers’ cause. Complaining on 5 May that Portland had yet to declare for them, Losh criticized Howick: ‘his lordship’s address is cold, very cold, if his manners prove as much so when he arrives he will damage us greatly’.104 Howick accepted joint requisitions, toured the county, 2-9 May, dined and addressed meetings with Beaumont.105 Bell, who had recently presented petitions and lobbied strenuously for repeal of the coastwise coal duty, had defended the coal and ship owners’ handling of the 1830-1 pitmen’s strikes, and he shared the ship owners’ and merchants’ objections to the details of the Grey ministry’s budget, which proposed further adjustments in the timber duties - a petitioning issue in North Shields, 7 Mar.106 Guaranteed a much-lampooned £100,000 fighting fund by Northumberland, he canvassed assiduously from 22 Apr., assisted by his personal friends, including tenants of Greenwich Hospital (where Grey had Brandling replaced as agent by Grey of Millfield in January 1833).107 His credentials as a ‘moderate reformer’ were ridiculed and with his personal safety in jeopardy, he privately conceded the hopelessness of his cause, 1 May 1831, and retired on the 3rd.108 The election on the 9th, when Beaumont was proposed by Thomas Riddell and Batson, and Howick by Bigge and the Berwick Member Sir Francis Blake, was a celebration of Grey’s premiership, reform and the duke of Northumberland’s defeat. Grey of Millfield and Culley were the principal speakers.109 Lord Grey, who had censored Howick’s speeches, delighted in his success and criticized Tankerville (who had made a great display of his only son Lord Ossulston’s coming of age, 10 Jan. 1831), for putting Bell’s interests first.110 Possibly doubting the late concession of Morpeth’s second seat, Portland and Carlisle’s agents held aloof throughout.111 Lord Wellesley informed his wife: ‘the anti-reformers are flying in all directions. Bell, the duke of Northumberland’s man, has fled before Lord Howick in Northumberland’.112
Both Members voted for the introduced reform bill at its second reading, 6 July 1831. Neither attended to its details in committee, Howick on account of departmental business and Beaumont because of illness and financial embarrassment following his mother’s death, 10 Aug.113 North Shields and Tynemouth, where the franchise had been confined to the two townships in preference to the parish, 15 Sept., petitioned urging the Lords to carry the bill promptly, 3 Oct., and similar petitions were received that day and 4-6 Oct. from Alnwick, Blyth, Glendale ward and Hexham.114 Swinburne and Ridley were indisposed and Bigge, Bacon Grey, Bird, Grey of Millfield, the barrister Robert Ingram of Haltwhistle, Losh and Ridley’s namesake son were the main speakers when the county met to petition in protest at the Lords’ rejection of the bill, 12 Oct. Monck, the sole dissentient, vehemently opposed the £10 householder vote. (He afterwards published his speech as a pamphlet.) Like Bell, he deemed it prudent not to sign the anti-reformers’ address to the king.115 Losh informed Lord Brougham, 9 Nov. 1831:
We have so far been able to keep the ultra reformers quiet; and by a little management our public meetings in this district have gone off very well. But unless the reform bill be passed very soon, there will be a bursting out of public indignation which nothing can resist in the northern counties. What is called the ‘Northern Political Union’ has done mischief. A few ill judging men (Mr. Attwood, etc.) are the leaders and as they have no real influence themselves they have but too successfully enticed the pitmen and made them more restless and discontented than they were before.116
The Northumberland reformers acquiesced in the reinstatement of Morpeth in schedule B in the revised reform bill announced in December 1831. The anti-reformers failed to have North Shields and Tynemouth combined with South Shields to free a Member for Toxteth or Merthyr Tydfil, 7 Mar. 1832, and in May, when the prospect of a ministry headed by Wellington threatened the bill’s passage, Alnwick, Glendale, Newcastle, North Shields and Tynemouth met to petition in protest. Bigge, anticipating a dissolution, also reconvened the 1831 committees. A requisition for a county protest meeting was started but abandoned as superfluous later that month when the Grey ministry and reform were secure. Several local petitions accordingly remained unpresented.117 The anti-slavery campaign revived with the bill’s passage and Howick’s support for the immediate appointment of a select committee was welcomed, although it did not comply with Thomas Fowell Buxton’s remit.118 As elsewhere in the North, the ministerial registry of deeds bill, against which the peers and freeholders petitioned, 21 Sept. 1831, 27 Jan., 28 Feb., 20 Mar. 1832, was highly unpopular. Howick’s defence of the measure, 22 Feb. 1832, backfired and, as with most local legislation that Parliament, the county looked increasingly to the Newcastle Members John Hodgson and Ridley to oppose it.119 The agriculturists of the northern wards petitioned against the use of molasses in brewing, 18 Aug. 1831;120 and the Presbyteries opposed government spending on educating Roman Catholics at Maynooth College, 4 June 1832.121 The boundary commissioners confirmed the county division. Bedlington, Islandshire, Norhamshire and the bounds of Berwick-upon-Tweed were added to the Bamburgh, Coquetdale, Glendale and Morpeth wards to form the new Northumberland North constituency polling at Berwick-upon-Tweed, Elsdon, Morpeth, Wooler and the election town of Alnwick. The Castle and Tynedale wards formed Northumberland South, polling at Bellingham, Haltwhistle, Newcastle, Stamfordham and the election town of Hexham. A petition from the corporation of Berwick-upon-Tweed for the transfer of its bounds from the borough to the Northumberland North constituency initially failed and the issue remained in contention until 1834.122 The Tyne Mercury voiced the Liberals’ concern that the division would favour the aristocracy and the Conservatives, but the younger William Ord, one of the commissioners, thought the Liberals ought to be ‘satisfied with three out of four. That will be above the average of the agricultural counties, of many of which one must certainly reckon ours’.123
The registration of 2,322 voters in Northumberland North (population 91,974) and 5,192 in Northumberland South (77,707) before the 1832 general election was closely scrutinized.124 A poll was avoided in the Northern division, where Bigge declined and Culley was deterred from standing by the pact that secured the unopposed return of Howick and the moderate Conservative Ossulston.125 The constituency was contested four times before 1885. Shared representation persisted until Howick’s defeat by a Conservative in 1841 and thereafter, with a single interruption, 1847-52, Northumberland North returned two Conservatives until the seat was abolished in 1885. The joint candidature for Northumberland South of Ord and Beaumont was announced in December 1831, directly the loss of Morpeth’s second seat was known. This scotched the ambitions of their fellow Liberals Ridley, Riddell and Sir Edward Blackett and presaged a bitter contest against the Conservatives Bell and Monck, in which Monck’s late retirement contributed to Ord’s defeat.126 The constituency was contested a further three times before it was abolished in 1885 (1852, 1878, 1880) and one and one representation persisted until 1880.
Author: Margaret Escott
- 1. Parl. Gazetteer of England and Wales (1844), iii. 522-7.
- 2. HP Commons, 1790-1820, ii. 303-7; Grey mss, Grey to Howick, 10 Sept. 1824.
- 3. Durham CRO, Brancepeth mss D/BR/F294, Tennyson to M. Russell, 31 Jan.; Castle Howard mss, Lady to Lord Morpeth [1 Feb.]; Lincs. AO, Tennyson d’Eyncourt mss 2Td’E H108/24, Russell to Tennyson, 5 Feb. 1820.
- 4. Add. 38458, ff. 279, 281.
- 5. HP Commons, 1790-1820, iv. 611-12; Northumb. RO, Middleton mss ZMI B.16/V, passim; Grey mss, Grey to Wilson, 6, 12 Feb.; Newcastle Courant, 12 Feb. 1820; Althorp Letters, 101.
- 6. Middleton mss B.16/V.
- 7. Grey mss, Brandling to Grey, 5 Feb., reply, 6 Feb. 1820.
- 8. Middleton mss B.16/V, Ossulston to Monck, 12 Feb. 1820.
- 9. Berwick Advertiser, 12 Feb. 1820.
- 10. Ibid. 26 Feb.; The Times, 29 Feb.; Newcastle Courant, 11 Mar. 1820.
- 11. Grey mss, Ridley to Grey, 16 Mar.; Newcastle Courant, 18 Mar.; Tyne Mercury, 21 Mar. 1820.
- 12. Lonsdale mss, C. Long to Lonsdale, 21 Mar. 1820; Fitzwilliam mss 101/1.
- 13. NLS, Ellice mss, Grey to Ellis, 20 Mar. 1820.
- 14. CJ, lxxv. 423; lxxvi. 339; lxxxi. 52, 255, 325; LJ, liv. 129, 443; lviii. 202, 294.
- 15. The Times, 16 May; Berwick Advertiser, 18 June 1820; CJ, lxxv. 216, 378; BL Tracts 1820-1 [8135. e. 4.], no. 1.
- 16. CJ, lxxv. 295.
- 17. The Times, 29 Nov., 27 Dec.; Northumb. RO, Ridley (Blagdon) mss ZRI 25/35-81, Grey to Ridley, 29 Nov.; Fitzwilliam mss 102/7; Grey mss, Tierney to Grey, 12 Dec. 1820.
- 18. Add. 30109, f. 140.
- 19. Grey mss, Grey to Holland, 21 Nov.; Bessborough mss, Grey to Duncannon, 25 Dec.; The Times, 29, 30 Dec. 1820, 15 Jan.; Newcastle Chron. 12 Jan.; Lansdowne mss, Grey to Lansdowne, 13 Jan. 1821; BL Tracts 1820-1, nos. 28, 30; W.A. Hay, The Whig Revival, 1808-1830, p. 120.
- 20. Lansdowne mss, Grey to Lansdowne, 13 Jan. 1821.
- 21. CJ, lxxvi. 22; LJ, liii. 31-32; The Times, 2,6, 9, 15 Feb. 1821.
- 22. CJ, lxxvii. 305, 326; lxxix. 233, 312.
- 23. Newcastle Courant, 22 June, 27 July 1822; LJ, lv. 269, 270, 274, 294.
- 24. CJ, lxxviii. 119, 157; LJ, lv. 596.
- 25. LJ, lv. 841; lvi, 116, 153; Newcastle Chron. 3, 24 Apr. 1824.
- 26. CJ, lxxv. 211; lxxviii. 341, 408, 454; lxxix. 115, 347, 360, 514; lxxxi. 188, 263, 320; LJ, lvi. 221, 304, 330, 355; lviii. 99, 269.
- 27. CJ, lxxix. 492.
- 28. Newcastle Courant, 18 May 1822; Berwick Advertiser, 18 Jan. 1823; CJ, lxxvi. 66, 103, 204; lxxvii. 204; lxxviii. 119, 261, 438, 454; LJ, liv. 66; lv. 203, 243.
- 29. CJ, lxxx. 322, 341; lxxxi. 297, 322; LJ, lviii. 154.
- 30. Grey mss, Ridley to Grey, 25 Aug., 5 Sept., 14 Oct., Creevey to same, 9 Sept., Howick to same, 23 Sept.; Ridley (Blagdon) mss 25/35-81, Grey to Ridley, 31 Aug.; Bessborough mss, Brougham to Duncannon [18 Oct. 1823].
- 31. J. Sykes, Local Recs. ii. 149, 142-4, 169; W. Yorks. AS (Leeds), Stapleton mss 1/42, Liddell to Canning, 1 Nov. 1823.
- 32. Ridley (Blagdon) mss 25/35-81, Grey to Ridley, 28 Feb., 4, 6, 13 Mar., Ridley Colborne to same, 16 Mar.; Grey mss, Ridley to Grey, 26, 27 Feb., 3, 11, 13, 16 Mar., Tankerville to same [8 Mar.], Lambton to same, 15, 17, 18 Mar., Howick to same, 22 Mar.; Middleton mss B.16/VI, Grey to Monck, 5 Mar., ‘Mem. about Beaumont’s determination to retire from the representation ... in spring 1824’; Diaries and Corresp. of James. Losh ed. E. Hughes (Surtees Soc. clxxiv) [Hereafter Losh Diaries, ii], 3-4, 163.
- 33. Ridley (Blagdon) mss 25/35-81, Ridley to Grey, n.d.
- 34. Ibid. Bigge to Ridley, 1 Mar., Grey to same, 4, 19, 21 Mar., Beaumont to Ridley Colborne, 18 Mar.; Grey mss, Ellice to Grey, 8, 11 Mar, 29 July, Ridley to Grey, 19 Mar. 1824.
- 35. Grey mss, Lambert to Grey, 22 Mar. 1824, Lambton to same, 23 Mar., 30 Nov., 26 Dec., Howick to same [6 Aug., 15, 21 Sept.], Ridley to same, 25 Sept., 10, 18 Nov., Grey to Howick, 9, 16 Sept., 20 Nov., 31 Dec. 1825; The Times, 4 Nov. 1824; Middleton mss B.16/VI, Ridley to Monck, 20 Nov. 1824, Grey to same, 16 Sept., 14 Oct., reply, 18 Oct. 1825.
- 36. Middleton mss B.16/VI, Monck to Shafto, 24 Sept. 1825, ‘Mem. Jan.-Feb. 1826’; Grey mss, Howick to Grey [16, 18 Nov.], reply, 20 Nov., Ellice to Grey, 2 Oct.; Fitzwilliam to Grey, 19 Dec., Lambton to same, 26 Dec. 1825, Lambert to same, 22 Jan. 1826.
- 37. Grey mss, Grey to Howick, 8, 20 Oct., replies, 16  Oct. 1825; Creevey mss, Creevey to Miss Ord, 14 Feb. 1826.
- 38. Grey mss, Howick to Grey, 2 Feb.; ‘Coll. Authentic Pprs. ... Feb.-Mar. 1826’, Northumb. Pollbooks (Alnwick, 1826), 195-6.
- 39. Grey mss, Howick to Grey, 4 Feb. 1826.
- 40. Ridley (Blagdon) mss 25/48, Liddell to Ridley, 7 Feb., reply 8 Feb. 1826.
- 41. E.A. Smith, Lord Grey, 142; Grey mss, Lambert to Grey, 3 Feb., Howick to same, 4-15 Feb., replies, 9, 20 Feb., Ridley to Howick, 4, 6, Feb., same to Grey, 7 Feb., J. Grey to Howick [10, 12 Feb.]; Middleton mss B.16/VI, ‘Memo. 9-17 Feb.’, Swinburne to Monck, 12 Feb. 1826.
- 42. Northumb. Pollbooks (Feb. 1826, Davison edn.), 98-201; Creevey mss, Creevey to Miss Ord, 12, 18 Feb. 1826.
- 43. Creevey mss, Creevey to Miss Ord, 11 Feb. 1826.
- 44. Grey mss Ellice to Grey, 2 Mar. 1826.
- 45. Losh Diaries, ii. 40.
- 46. Creevey mss, Creevey to Miss Ord, 13-16 Feb., 4 Mar.; Middleton mss B.16/VI, Monck to Ridley, 15 Feb. 1826; Northumb. Pollbooks (Feb. 1826), 202-3, 240-4.
- 47. Grey mss, T.E. Headlam to Grey, 20 Apr. 1826.
- 48. Tyne and Wear Archives DD14/1; M.D. George, Cat. of Pol. and Personal Satires, x. 15120-2; Creevey mss, Creevey to Miss Ord, 11 Feb. 1826.
- 49. Northumb. Election Pprs. [BL J/8133. h. 2.] i. 1-23 and passim; D.L. Stoker, ‘Elections and Voting Behaviour: A Study of Elections in Northumb., co. Dur., Cumb. and Westmld. 1760-1832’ (Manchester Univ. Ph.D. thesis, 1980), 68-72.
- 50. Middleton mss ZMI B.16/VI, corresp. Monck and D. Smith, 11, 15 Feb., Swinburne to Monck, 12 Feb., Monck to Ridley, 15 Feb.; Creevey mss, Creevey to Miss Ord, 21 Feb. 1826; Losh Diaries, ii. 43-44.
- 51. Northumb. Pollbooks (Spring 1826), 206-11; Fitzwilliam mss 124/5, 9; Creevey mss, Creevey to Miss Ord, 22 Feb.; Berwick Advertiser, 25 Feb.; Tyne Mercury, 28 Feb. 1826.
- 52. Creevey mss, Creevey to Grey, 21 Feb.; Grey mss, Howick to Grey, 27 Feb., 4 Mar.; Northumb. Pollbooks, (Feb. 1826), 219-33; The Times, 15 Mar. 1826.
- 53. Creevey mss, Creevey to Miss Ord, 23 Feb.-7 Mar.; The Times, 27 Feb.-10 Mar. 1826.
- 54. Losh Diaries, ii. 42.
- 55. Berwick Advertiser, 25 Feb., 25 Mar.; The Times, 7 Mar.; Grey mss, Anderson to Grey, 10 Mar. 1826.
- 56. Northumb. Pollbooks, (Spring 1826) ‘Poll ... 21 Feb.-7 Mar. 1826’.
- 57. Creevey mss, Creevey to Miss Ord, 9 Mar., 17 Apr.; Grey mss, C. Grey to Grey, 9 Mar., Grey to Howick, 14, 17 Mar.; The Times, 14 Mar.; Newcastle Courant, 18 Mar. 1826; F. O’Gorman, Voters, Patrons, and Parties, 70-71.
- 58. Tyne Mercury, 21 Mar.-30 May; The Times 13, 17, 26 Apr., 2, 5, 6, 12 June; Newcastle Chron. 22 Apr.-10 June; Newcastle Courant, 22 Apr.-10 June; Durham Chron. 3-24 June; Durham Co. Advertiser, 3-24 June 1826. The following account of the 1826 general election draws also on P. Burroughs, ‘Northumb. Co. Elections of 1826’, PH, x (1991), 87-104.
- 59. Northumberland Poll Book. (June-July 1826), W. Davison edn. (1827), 23-27, 31-32, 37-39, 42, 44-46, 48-51.
- 60. George, x. 15129-33; Add. 51574, Abercromby to Holland, 17 Mar.; 51584, Tierney to same, 10 Apr., 4-5 May; 51668, Bedford to Lady Holland, 23 May; Grey mss, Lambert to Grey, 31 May, 2 June 1826.
- 61. Grey mss, C. Grey to Grey, 9 Mar.-2 June; Creevey mss, Creevey to Miss Ord, 26 Feb. 1826.
- 62. Grey mss, Lambton to Grey, 23 Mar. 1824, 29, 31 May, 1, 3 June, Lambert to same, 2, 7 June, Louisa Lambton to same [June]; Castle Howard mss, Howard to Carlisle [10 June]; Creevey mss, Creevey to Miss Ord, 11 June; Middleton mss B.16/VI, Bigge to Monck, 12 June 1826; Add. 30111, f. 231.
- 63. Newcastle Chron. 17 June; The Times, 17 June 1826.
- 64. Grey mss, Lady Grey to Grey, Monday .
- 65. George, x. 15135; Grey mss, Lambton to Grey [26 June], Portland to same, 28 June, Fenwick to Howick, 30 June 1826.
- 66. Grey mss, Ellice to Grey, 18 Oct., election expenses 1826; NLS, Ellice mss, Grey to Ellice, 7 Feb. 1827.
- 67. Northumberland Poll Book (June-July 1826), W. Davison edn. (1827), 209-86; C. New, Lord Durham, 89-90; George, x. 15142; The Times, 3, 4 July 1826.
- 68. Burroughs, 97; The Times, 6, 10 July, 19 Sept.; Procs. and Poll, N. Dur. (1837), 8-9, 11.
- 69. Baring Jnls. i. 48; R. Welford, Men of Mark ‘twixt Tyne and Tweed (1895), i. 222-3; Ellice mss, Grey to Ellice, 7 Feb.; Creevey mss, Creevey to Miss Ord, 10 Feb.; Grey mss, Grey to Howick, 19 Feb. 1827, Ellice to Grey .
- 70. Stoker, 194, 197, 199, 205.
- 71. Burroughs, 104; Grey mss, Lambert to Grey, 31 May 1826.
- 72. The Times, 1, 8 July; Add. 51580, Carlisle to Lady Holland, 7 July .
- 73. Middleton mss B.16/VI, Monck to Bell, 8 July, reply, 12 July 1826.
- 74. Grey mss, Lambton to Grey, 13, 21 July, 17 Aug.; The Times, 21, 22 July, 15 Aug.; Globe, 22 July 1826.
- 75. The Times, 10 July 1826; Durham Chron. 10, 17 Feb. 1827; Losh Diaries, ii. 46, 73-74.
- 76. CJ, lxxxii. 46.
- 77. Stapleton mss 1/42, Liddell to Canning, 18 Jan.; Grey mss, Grey to Howick, 23 Mar. 1827; CJ, lxxxii. 206, 362, 398; lxxxiii. 149; LJ, lix. 219, 254, 264.
- 78. LJ, lix. 294.
- 79. LJ, lx. 571.
- 80. Durham Chron. 10, 17 Feb. 1827; CJ, lxxxii. 428; LJ, lix. 219.
- 81. CJ, lxxxiii. 78, 96, 155, 246, 253, 287. 314, 337, 444, 471; LJ, lx. 146, 344, 435, 464.
- 82. CJ, lxxxiii. 436, 444, 471; LJ, lx. 570.
- 83. CJ, lxxxii. 527, 540; lxxxiii. 79, 105; LJ, lx. 47, 54 57, 65, 109.
- 84. CJ, lxxviii. 216-7; lxxxiii. 254, 332, 339; lxxxiv. 24, 103, 105, 146; LJ, lvii. 661; lix, 307; lx. 401; lxi. 22, 74, 90, 92, 132, 140, 152; Sykes, ii. 240-1; Losh Diaries, ii. 167-8.
- 85. CJ, lxxxiv. 40 310, 354; lxxxv. 49, 110, 130-1; LJ, lxi. 566; lxii. 963.
- 86. Ellice mss, Grey to Ellice, 24 Jan.; Grey mss, Howick jnl. 11-12 Mar., Grey to Ellice, 17 Feb.; Newcastle Chron. 13, 20 Feb.; Tyne Mercury, 16 Feb. 1830; CJ, lxxxv. 172; LJ, lxii. 260.
- 87. Wellington mss WP1/1023/15, 16; Add. 38758, f. 138.
- 88. CJ, lxxxv. 265, 352, 360, 445, 520; LJ, lxii. 199, 307, 507; Tyne Mercury, 18 May 1830.
- 89. CJ, lxxxv. 211, 261, 360; LJ, lxii. 205, 388.
- 90. Ridley (Blagdon) mss 25/59, Stable to Ridley, 31 May, Donkin to same, 5 July; Durham Chron. 5 June, 10 July; Tyne Mercury, 29 June, 6, 13, 20 July; Newcastle Chron. 3, 10, July; Losh Diaries, ii. 94; Cumbria RO (Carlisle), Howard of Corby Castle mss D/HC/1/21, Losh to H. Howard, 13 July 1830; Northumb. Election Pprs. [BL J/8133. i. 13.] ii. 763-9.
- 91. Middleton mss ZMI/S7/3/6; Newcastle Chron. 7, 14 Aug. 1830.
- 92. Add. 40401, f. 140.
- 93. Newcastle Courant, 18 Sept., 16, 23 Oct., 6, 13 Nov. 1830; CJ, lxxxvi. 39, 56, 115, 126, 155, 163, 216, 454; LJ, lxiii. 19, 48, 108, 145-6, 186, 262.
- 94. Northumb. RO, Blackett-Ord mss NRO324/A/36, W.H. Ord to fa. [Nov. 1830].
- 95. CJ, lxxxvi. 164; The Times, 11 Dec. 1830.
- 96. Blackett-Ord mss A/36, W.H. Ord to fa. 23, 25 Dec.; Newcastle Chron. 24 Dec. 1830-29 Jan.; Tyne Mercury, 1, 8 Feb. 1831; CJ, lxxxvi. 295, 372, 376; LJ, lxii. 200, 240, 262.
- 97. Newcastle Chron. 5, 12 Feb.; Tyne Mercury, 15 Feb. 1831; Losh Diaries, ii. 105-6; CJ, lxxxvi. 324; LJ, lxiii. 319.
- 98. Brougham mss, Losh to Brougham, 10 Mar.; Losh Diaries, ii. 107-8; Newcastle Chron. 19, 26 Mar. 1831; CJ, lxxxvi. 372, 381, 494, 406-7, 509; LJ, lxiii. 359, 372, 384, 493.
- 99. Brougham mss, Losh to Brougham, 16 Mar. 1831.
- 100. Grey mss, Headlam to Howick, 26 Mar., Howick to C. Grey, 4 Apr.; Brougham mss, Losh to Brougham, 7, 15 Apr.; Newcastle Chron. 2, 9 Apr. 1831.
- 101. LJ, lxii. 494.
- 102. Newcastle Chron. 16 Mar., 9 Apr.; LJ, lxii. 283, 445.
- 103. Newcastle Chron. 23 Apr. 1831.
- 104. Brougham mss, Losh to Brougham, 5 May .
- 105. Grey mss, Headlam to Howick, 25 Apr. 1831; Losh Diaries, ii. 111, 193; Sir James Graham mss (IHR microfilm XR 80) 29, Losh to Graham, 29 Apr.; Brougham mss, Losh to Brougham, 29 Apr.; Newcastle Chron. 30 Apr., 7 May 1831.
- 106. CJ, lxxxvi. 75, 145, 172, 347-8; N. McCord, ‘Government of Tyneside, 1800-1850’, TRHS (ser. 5), xx (1970), 11-13; Sykes, ii. 279-9.
- 107. George, xi. 16648; Durham Co. Advertiser, 23, 30 Apr., 7 May 1831.
- 108. Northumb. Speeches, Addresses and Squibs [BL J/8133. i. 13.], ii. 783-5, 795; BL tracts (1831) [8135. dd. 6.], nos. 16-17; Creevey mss, Mrs. Taylor to Creevey [30 Apr.], 2, 3 May; Durham Chron. 30 Apr., 7 May; Add. 51569, Ord to Lady Holland, 1 May; The Times, 4 May 1831.
- 109. Newcastle Chron. 7, 14 May 1831.
- 110. Ibid. 15 Jan.; Grey mss, Grey to Howick, 1 May 1831; Lieven-Grey Corresp. ii. 218.
- 111. Brougham mss, Losh to Brougham, 5 May .
- 112. Yorks. Arch. Soc. duke of Leeds mss DDS/II/VII/7, Wellesley to wife, Tues [May/June 1831].
- 113. Losh Diaries, ii. 116-17; Middleton mss ZMI/S77/4/6, 8, 9.
- 114. CJ, lxxxvi. 845; LJ, lxii. 1036, 1037, 1031, 1067.
- 115. Losh Diaries, ii. 121-2; Middleton mss S77/4/6, 8, 9; B.16/VI, ‘Address ... on the late and present bill for reform ... 1832’; Newcastle Chron. 8, 15 Oct. 1831.
- 116. Brougham mss, Losh to Brougham, 9 Nov. 1831.
- 117. Newcastle Chron. 17 Dec. 1831, 12, 19, 26 May, 7 June 1832; Losh Diaries, ii. 142-5, 209-10.; LJ, lxiv. 194.
- 118. CJ, lxxxvii. 387, 455; Tyne Mercury, 31 May, 7 June 1832.
- 119. CJ, lxxxvi. 859; lxxxvii. 54, 152, 208. See NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE.
- 120. CJ, lxxxvi. 764.
- 121. Ibid. lxxxvii. 370.
- 122. PP (1831-2), xxxix. 163; CJ, lxxxvii. 62.
- 123. Tyne Mercury, 14 June 1831; Blackett-Ord mss A/36, W.H. Ord to fa. 18 Sept. 1831.
- 124. The Times, 4 Oct., 7 Nov. 1832; PP (1833), xxvii. 82-83.
- 125. Berwick Advertiser, 30 June; Losh Diaries, ii. 133, 172-3, 172-3; Grey mss, Howick to C. Grey, 31 Aug., 4 Sept.; The Times, 18 Dec.; Newcastle Jnl. 22 Dec. 1832.
- 126. Newcastle Chron. 23 June-28 Dec.; Middleton mss S77/5/9-12; Northumb. RO BMO/B/28, passim; Losh Diaries, ii. 135-6, 145, 149-51, 172; Tyne Mercury, 18 Dec. 1832.