Aspects of the English electoral system 1800-50, with special reference to Yorkshire. Volume 2 of 2 Mark Pack submitted for the degree of DPhil York University History Department June1995 Appendix 1: Borough classifications ' There are several existing classifications of boroughs by franchise type. I have preferred to construct my own as there are clear problems with the existing classifications, such as inconsistencies and some errors (e.g. see Malton below). In this context, it is more satisfying to delve into the issue, rather than simply pick one of the existing classifications off the shelf. This is particularly so given the existence of a much under-used source of evidence: post-1832 electoral registers (or sources that contain information about them). Under certain conditions pre-1832 franchises were allowed to continue after 1832. As electoral registers listed what qualifications people had registered under, post-1832 registers can reveal the pre-1832 franchise. That at least is the theory; there are some complicating factors. First, the description in an electoral register may be less than a complete description of the pre-1832 franchise. For example, if a register says "freemen" one does not know if there had been additional requirements, such as having to be resident. Second, not all pre-1832 constituencies survived, and so there are no electoral registers for these. Third, compilers of electoral registers may have got the pre-1832 franchise wrong. This is unlikely as when the first registers were being drawn up in the 1830s there was a wealth of local and verbal knowledge to consult. Additionally, given the competitiveness of many of the annual registration cycles in the 1830s and 1840s it would be surprising if erroneous classifications survived without challenge. My other main source - Parliamentary Papers- suffers from problems too. In particular, they are often inconsistent and ambiguous. For example, describing the franchise as resting with "burgesses" may mean a borough was a corporation borough, or it may mean that it was a freeman borough. Given the range of sources involved I have not given a complete bibliography of the evidence used for each individual constituency. Rather, I have highlighted the most useful and important sources. But, these are only an introduction to the evidence rather than a complete survey of it. Notes 1. Many freemenboroughs actually had the franchiseresting with freemenand the corporation,or members of it. For example,freemen, capital burgesses and mayorwas a not uncommonfranchise. 2. There were some franchise rules that applied to all constituencies, many of which continued after 1832. For example, in the 1801-2 session it had been resolved that, in the opinion of the Commons, no peer (except for Irish peers) had a right to vote in Parliamentary elections. 3. O'Gorman, Voters, Patrons and Parties and Thorne, History of Parliament are sources for all of the classifications. Generally, I have only listed additional sources below. 4. Italicised boroughs were in Yorkshire. 1 For example, Oldfield, A Complete History, O'Gorman, Voters, Patrons and Parties and Thorne, The History of Parliament. 237 5. Each borough is accompanied by two Is or Os,which refer to, respectively, whether the constituency polled in the 1806 and 1818 general elections. For example, 10 means the constituency polled in 1806 but not in 1818. The evidence for this is taken from Thorne, History of Parliament.. 6. For further details of the franchise in county boroughs see Appendix 5. Freemen boroughs ' In freemen boroughs the franchise lay with freemen. The methods by which someone could become a freeman varied from borough to borough. The main methods were by birth, marriage to the daughter of a freeman, purchase or apprenticeship. Aldeburgh 00 1831-2 (112) XXXV gives it being scot and lot, but 1831-2 (92) XXXVI gives it as being freeman. Barnstaple11 Confirmedby the presenceof freemenon the 1836-9and 1864registers: 1840(379) XLI and TheHandbook of the Court; ThePeerage; And The House Of Commons,fifteenth edition, P.S. King, London, 1865, p. 152. Bedford 00 This is confirmed by the presenceof freemen on the 1836-9 registers: 1840 (379) XLI. Householders may also have been able to vote: Handbookof the Court, p. 153. Berwick-on-Tweed 11 Confirmed by the of electors under freemen qualifications on the 1836-9 and 1864registers: 1840 (379) XLI andHandbook of the Court, p. 155. Beverley II Conf irmed by the presenceof electors under freemen qualifications on the 1832and 1836-9registers: 1833 (189) XXXVII and 1840(379) XLI. Bewdley 00 Single-memberborough. Confirmed by the presenceof electorson the 1836-9 registers under freemen qualifications: 1840 (379) XLI. Bishops Castle 01 Only resident freemen could vote. Confirmed by 1831-2 (92) XXXVI. Bossiney 01 Note that all those who had free land in the borough and lived in the parishwere automaticallydeemed freemen: 1831-2 (92) XXXVI and 1835(116) XXIV. Boston 11 Only residentfreemen by birth or servitudepaying scot and lot could vote. Confirmed by presenceof electors under freemen qualifications on the 1836-9and 1864registers: 1840 (379) XLI and Handbookof the Court, p. 160. Bridgnorth 00 Confirmed by 1831-2 (92) XXXVI and the presence electors under freemenqualifications on the 1836-9and 1864registers: 1840 (379) XLI andHandbook of the Court, p. 162. Bristol 01 Confirmed by the presenceof electors in the 1836-9 registers under freemen qualifications: 1840 (379) XLI. County borough. Cambridge 01 Confirmed by the presenceelectors under freemen qualifications on the 1836-9 and 1864 registers: 1840 (379) XLI and Handbook of the Court, p. 168. Camelford 01 Only resident freemen paying scot and lot could vote. Confirmed by 1831-2 (92) XXXVI and the presenceof electors under freeman qualifications on the 1854 register: Handbook of the Court, p. 169. Canterbury 01 Confirmed by the presenceof electors under freemen qualifications on the 1836-9 registers: 1840 (379) XLI. County borough. Carlisle01 Confirmedby the presenceelectors under freemen qualifications on the 1836-9 and 1864 registers: 1840 (379) XLI and Handbook of the Court, p. 170. Chester 01 Confirmed by the presenceof electors under freeman qualifications on the 1836-9 registers: 1840 (379) XLI. County borough. Chipping Wycombe 1 Some places did not have freemen, but "liverymen, " "burgesses" or even "capital burgesses". From the electoral point of view there was no difference between them, so I simply use freemen as the collective term for all these types. Further, did in some places - like York - women could become free, but this (apparently) not allow them to vote. 238 Colchester11 Confirmedby the presenceof electorsunder freemen qualifications on the 1836-9and 1864registers: 1840 (379) XLI and Handbookof the Court, p. 179. Coventry 01 Confirmed by the presenceof electors under freeman qualifications on the 1836-9registers: 1840 (379) XLI. County borough.See also 178021 Geo.1II c.54. Dartmouth00 Franchiseconfirmed by 1831-2(92) XXXVI, the ruling on an 1830 election petition and the presence of electors under freemen qualifications on the 1836-9 and 1864 registers: 1840 (379) XLI and Handbook of the Court, p. 184. Derby 00 Confirmed by the presenceof freemen on the 1864 register: Handbook of the Court, p. 185. Dover 11 A 1770Commons resolution allowed non-resident freemen to vote. Franchise confirmed by the presence of electors under freemen qualificationson the 1836-9and 1864registers: 1840 (379) XLI and Handbookof the Court, p. 190. Dunwich 00 Only residentfreemen could vote. Durham01 Confirmedby the presenceof electorsunder freemen qualifications on the 1836-9and 1864registers: 1840 (379) XLI and Handbookof the Court, p. 197. EastLooe 10 Confirmedby 1831-2(92) XXXVI. East Retford 10 Only freemen resident at the time they were made free could vote. Following 11 Geo.IV &1 Will. IV c.74 (1830)40/- freeholdssituated in the Bassetlaw Hundred could also grant a vote. Freemen could still also vote, except for freemen made via redemption since the last election. Freemenand freeholdfranchise confirmed by Handbookof the Court, p.274 and the presenceof electors under freemen qualifications on the 1836-9registers: 1840 (379) XLI. Evesham 01 Confirmed by the presenceof electors under freemen qualifications on the 1836-9and 1864registers: 1840 (379) XLI and Handbookof the Court, p.200. ' Eye 00 O'Gormanclassifies Eye as scotand lot. In this he partially follows Oldfield, who gavethe franchiseas beingwith freemen,the corporation 2 and payers of scot and lot. There were freemen on the 1832,1836-9 and 1864registers: 1833 (189) XXVII, 1840(379) XLI and Handbookof the Court, p.201. As 1831-2(92) XXXVI givesthe franchiseas resting (only) with freemen, I prefer this classification. It is a fine judgement, but I prefer a local official to the sometimes wayward Oldfield. Exeter 01 County borough. Grampound01 Only freemenpaying scotand lot could vote. It was disfranchisedin 1821, and the seatsgiven to Yorkshire. Grantham 01 Only resident freemen could vote. Confirmed by 1831-2 (92) XXXVI and the presenceof electors under freemen qualifications on the 1836-9 and 1864 registers: 1840 (379) XLI and Handbook of the Court, p.207. Great Yarmouth 01 Grimsby 01 Only resident freemen paying scot and lot could vote. Franchise confirmedby 1831-2(92) XXXVI andthe presenceof electorsunder freemen qualifications on the 1836-9 registers: 1840 (379) XLI. Guildford 11 Resident freeholders paying scot and lot could also vote; freemen had to be resident. Franchise extrapolated from 1831-2 (92) XXXVI, Handbook of the Court, p.209, Radice, Identification, Interests and Inf uence,p. 99 and the presenceof people under freemen qualifications on the 1836-9 registers: 1840 (379) XLI. Hastings 00 Only resident freemen could vote. Confirmed by presence of electors under freemen qualifications on the 1836-9 registers: 1840 (379) XLI. Hedon 01 1 Voters, Patrons and Parties, p. 344 n. 94. 2 Oldfield, A CompleteHistory, Volume 2, p.125-6.