The constituency contains a large minority of students, researchers and academics at the early 19th century founded University of Durham,[n 3] that has a claim towards being the third oldest in England and has elected Labour MPs since 1935, although there have been strong SDP–Liberal Alliance and Liberal Democrat challenges to Labour since the 1980s.
The seat has traditionally been dominated by Labour, with support particularly strong in those villages historically connected to County Durham's mining industry. Durham is famous as an educational centre, for Durham University and the feepaying preparatory school, Chorister School where Tony Blair was educated. The city centre is more inclined to the Liberal Democrats. Like many other university cities such as Cambridge and Oxford, in the 2005 election it swung strongly towards the Liberal Democrats, one possible reason being these cities' sizeable student population who were viewed as being hostile to Labour's policies on areas such as top-up fees and the Iraq War. The Liberal Democrats were able to reduce Labour's majority by over 10,000 votes, although they were still unable to gain the seat from Labour, as was the case in the 2010 election. As reflected in throughout the country, the Liberal Democrat vote collapsed in the 2015 election.
History
The parliamentary borough (1678–1918)
The City of Durham was first given the right to return Members to Parliament by an Act of Parliament in 1673, although the first election was not held until 1678 due to drafting errors.[3] It was the last new borough but one to be enfranchised before the Great Reform Act of 1832.[4] It was the only borough in County Durham, the county also having been unrepresented until the same Act of Parliament, which created two MPs for the county and two for the city. Both constituencies were frequently referred to simply as Durham, which can make for some confusion.
The constituency as constituted in 1678 consisted only of the city of Durham itself, though this included its suburbs which were within the municipal boundary. The right to vote was held by the corporation and the freemen of the city, many of whom were not resident within the boundaries. Unlike the situation in many small rotten boroughs, the corporation had no jurisdiction over the creation of freemen: freemen were generally created by connection with companies of trade, either by apprenticeship or by birth (by being the son of an existing freeman), though the common council of the city had a power to create honorary freemen.
The creation of honorary freemen with the specific intention of swaying elections was a common abuse in a number of boroughs in the 18th century, and at the Durham election of 1762 became sufficiently controversial to force a change in the law. The election was disputed because 215 new freemen, most of them not resident in the city, had been made after the writ for the election was issued. The existing freemen petitioned against this dilution of their voting rights, the candidate who had been declared elected was unseated by the Commons committee which heard the case, and the following year an Act of Parliament was passed to prevent any honorary freeman from voting in a borough election within twelve months of their being accorded that status.
Through having a freeman franchise the electorate was comparatively numerous for the period, though comprising only a small fraction of the city's population; at the time of the Reform Act there were between 1,100 and 1,200 freemen in total, of whom 427 were resident and 558 lived within seven miles, while the total population of the borough was 9,269. The Lambton and Tempest families were influential, and were generally able to secure election, but fell far short of the sort of control common in pocket boroughs.
The city retained both its MPs under the 1832 Reform Act, with its boundaries adjusted only very slightly, although as elsewhere the franchise was reformed. The Reform Act 1867 extended the boundaries to include part of Framwellgate parish which had previously been excluded.[5] Under the Redistribution of Seats Act 1885, the borough's representation was reduced from the 1885 general election to a single MP.[6] In the boundary changes of 1918, the borough was abolished, but a division of County Durham was named after the city.
County constituency (since 1918)
From 1918, Durham City was included in a county constituency officially called The Durham Division of (County) Durham, consisting of the central part of the county.[7] In the 1983 boundary changes, the constituency officially acquired the unambiguous City of Durham name for the first time and its boundaries were realigned to match the new City of Durham local government district.
Boundaries
1918–1950
the Borough of Durham
the Urban District of Hetton
the Rural District of Durham except the parish of Brancepeth
in the Rural District of Houghton-le-Spring, the parishes of East Rainton, Great Eppleton, Little Eppleton, Moor House, Moorsley, and West Rainton.[7]
As well as absorbing the abolished parliamentary borough, the reconstituted seat included Hetton-le-Hole and surrounding rural areas, transferred from Houghton-le-Spring, and northern areas of the abolished Mid Division of Durham.
Spennymoor and the parish of Brancepeth transferred in from the abolished constituency of Spennymoor. Other minor changes (the Rural District of Houghton-le-Spring had been abolished and absorbed into neighbouring local authorities).
1974–1983
the Borough of Durham and Framwelgate
the Rural District of Sedgefield and the Rural District of Durham except the parish of Brancepeth.[9]
Hetton transferred back to Houghton-le-Spring, and Spennymoor and Brancepeth now included in Durham North West. Gained the Rural District of Sedgefield from the abolished constituency of Sedgefield.
Sedgefield returned to the re-established constituency thereof. Gained the area comprising the former Urban District of Brandon and Byshottles which had been absorbed into the District of the City of Durham, previously part of North West Durham.
2024–present
The County of Durham electoral districts of: Belmont; Brandon; Deerness; Durham South; Elvet and Gilesgate; Esh and Witton Gilbert; Framwellgate and Newton Hall; Neville's Cross; Sherburn; and Willington and Hunwick.[13]
These are the final 1895 results after a recount. The original result was Fowler with 1,111 votes, and Elliot with 1,110 votes, leaving a Liberal majority of just one vote.
As with all constituencies, the constituency elects one Member of Parliament (MP) by the first past the post system of election at least every five years.
Froude, James Anthony; Tulloch, John, eds. (1838). Fraser's Magazine, Volume 17. J. Fraser. p.71. Archived from the original on 3 January 2022. Retrieved 7 May 2018.
Ollivier, John (1848). "Alphabetical List of the House of Commons". Ollivier's Parliamentary and Political Directory for the Session 1841, 1848, Volume 1. p.30. Archived from the original on 3 January 2022. Retrieved 7 May 2018.
Henderson and Wharton were re-elected at the general election of 1874, but the election was declared void on petition, and neither stood in the ensuing by-election
Escott, Margaret. "Durham City". The History of Parliament. Archived from the original on 26 October 2020. Retrieved 12 April 2020.
Sources
F W S Craig, "British Parliamentary Election Results 1832–1885" (2nd edition, Aldershot: Parliamentary Research Services, 1989)
J Holladay Philbin, "Parliamentary Representation 1832 – England and Wales" (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1965)
Michael Kinnear, "The British Voter" (London: Batsford, 1968)
E Porritt and AG Porritt, "The Unreformed House of Commons, Vol I: England and Wales" (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1903)
Henry Stooks Smith, The Parliaments of England from 1715 to 1847 (2nd edition, edited by FWS Craig – Chichester: Parliamentary Reference Publications, 1973)
Robert Waller, "The Almanac of British Politics" (3rd edition, London: Croom Helm, 1987)
Frederic A Youngs, jr, "Guide to the Local Administrative Units of England, Vol II" (London: Royal Historical Society, 1991)
The Constitutional Yearbook, 1913" (London: National Unionist Association, 1913)
