CITY OF DURHAM 



value, and was no doubt coveted in proportion. 

 In 1757 Robert Green, a citizen of Durham, 

 made an attempt to override the principle of 

 the rule made in 1728, claiming to be free of the 

 Masons' Gild, although he had not complied 

 with the strict formalities prescribed.'^ The 

 case was taken to the King's Bench, and it was 

 ruled that Green had not made good his claim in 

 view of the explicit provision of the ordinance 

 referred to. His was evidently a test case and 

 the decision was not popular. 



When the famous election of 1761'^ took 

 place. Tempest and Lambton, who had repre- 

 sented the city since 1747, were returned, 

 Ralph Gowland, of Durham, being an unsuccess- 

 ful candidate. Lambton died suddenly, and a 

 new election followed before the year ran out. 

 With this election pending, advantage was 

 taken of the recent decision to ' let in a shoal 

 of freemen.' The bylaw of 1728 was deUberately 

 rescinded by the Corporation, and freemen 

 were admitted peU-meU. No less than 215 of 

 these mushroom burgesses were entered on 

 the roll." Two candidates were put forward 

 for the vacancy in the representation of the 

 city, General Lambton and Ralph Gowland. 

 The new freemen carried the election in favour 

 of the local candidate, and Gowland was re- 

 turned by a majority of twenty-three. An 

 election petition soon followed, when Gowland 

 was unseated, his adversary being welcomed 

 into the city in procession amid great en- 

 thusiasm, which was not shared, it may be 

 presumed, by the Corporation, whose action 

 had been so signally rejected. 



A stigma now attached to the Corporation, 

 which it was not easy to efface. Whilst it is 

 not easy to follow the exact steps taken, it seems 

 clear that dissensions arose among the aldermen 

 and councillors. Some of the aldermen were 

 non-resident, and this in violation of the charter. 

 Matters came to a crisis in 1766 on Mayor's 

 day, when attention was drawn to the abuse of 

 the provision of the charter. A suit in the 

 King's Bench followed, which deprived the 

 mayor of his position. A local writ of quo 

 warranto unseated four of the aldermen, and 

 a fifth resigned. Under the terms of the charter, 

 the number of seven aldermen present and 

 voting was prescribed as necessary for a valid 

 election. With only four aldermen no such 

 election was possible, and the Corporation 

 virtually ceased to exist. There appears 

 to be no record of what was done in this 



'^ The documents are quoted in Hutchinson, op. 

 cit. ii, 43-8 or 34. 



'2 Hunt, Political Hist, of Eng. 19. 



" The names are given in Allan MSS. (Doc. of 

 D. and C. of Dur.) vii, fol. 70, and comprise gentle- 

 men, officers, clergy and others unconnected with 

 the city. 



wholly irregular, if not invalid, and shape- 

 less civic constitution. Mayors were cenainly 

 elected until 1770, but from that point until 

 1780 no further municipal election took place. 

 There was no formal surrender of the charter ; 

 it was defunct. The gilds made petition to 

 Bishop Trevor for a new charter in the impasse 

 which had been reached. He soon after died, 

 but his successor. Bishop Egerton, in 1773 

 consulted the Attorney-General of Durham. 

 His opinion was that ' the powers and 

 authorities vested in the Corporation are 

 suspended,' and that ' it is impossible for the 

 Corporation to preserve or continue itself,' 

 a position of affairs much to be deprecated. 

 He advised the Bishop to exert his jura regalia 

 and to issue a new charter. After some delay 

 this course was adopted. 



Accordingly, in 1780, the last episcopal 

 charter was issued. The document makes no 

 reference whatever to Crewe's abortive charter. 

 It was drawn up on the model of Matthew's 

 grant of 1602. It begins with a recital of the 

 main provisions of that instrument, and then 

 calls attention to the present deadlock in which 

 the ' corporation of the said city of Durham and 

 FramweUgate is incapable of doing any corporate 

 act, and is dissolved, or in great danger of being 

 dissolved.' It recalls the terms of the petition 

 for a new charter of incorporation unattended 

 by the inconveniences to which the old con- 

 stitution was exposed. The 2 October was 

 selected for the ceremony of bestowing the new 

 charter. The members of the corporation were 

 introduced to the bishop in what was called 

 the breakfast room at Durham Castle. This 

 room had been recently improved by Egerton, 

 and formed the lower one of two chambers 

 in a space cut off from the hall at its northern 

 end by Bishop Neile about 1620. The docu- 

 ment was received by Mayor Bainbridge on 

 bended knee, the aldermen put on their gowns, 

 and the oaths were taken. Outside in the hall 

 the freemen were regaled whilst the corporation 

 lunched with the bishop. In the courtyard 

 the townsfolk were entertained with a fountain 

 that ran with liquor. After this a procession 

 was formed, consisting of corporation, city 

 officers, constables, trades gilds with their 

 banners, who took their way to the town hall, 

 where speeches were made to the crowd assem- 

 bled in the market-place.'* The city was governed 

 byEgerton's charter until the Municipal Reform 

 Act of 1835.'^ A memorial of the turning point 



'* The chief documents are given in Hutchinson, 

 op. cit. ii, 43-74. 



'5 The charter virtually included those surrounding 

 parishes of Durham which had been suburban, 

 or at all events had been loosely connected with the 

 city. It enumerated the parishes of St. Mary-le-bow 

 and St. Mary the less, the castle and precincts. 



45 



