Introduction

Social networks of people originating from the same Dorset district may have helped migrants achieve success in early Victorian Bournemouth. This post continues the focus on the hinterland framed by Cranborne and Wimborne.

Social Networks

Background

Inhabitants of the area defined by Wimborne, Cranborne and the two rivers Allen and Crane migrated around it in search of work and partners. It seems plausible that many social networks must have stretched across the district. These networks would have combined ties of kinship, friendship, and acquaintance. Depending on them, individuals would gain empowerment in their activities stretching from survival to advancement. McFarlane studied the social network of Ralph Josselin, a seventeenth century rural clergyman. He concluded that a network lay dormant until a member activated it for an economic or social purpose. Several of the WACC villages provided migrants who joined Bournemouth’s growing economy and residential society, recorded there in 1851. Two apparent social networks including some of these people have emerged from genealogical analysis. Inferences from evidence scraps suggest that some members may have achieved social or economic success by activating their network.

Young people away for their first job

The first social network concerns young people, baptised in Cranborne, working in Bournemouth. Two of them, sisters, worked in the household of Henrietta Monro, a member of the Tregonwell family, Bournemouth’s ‘founders’. A third member, a male, baptised in Cranborne, may have had kinship connections with the sisters. He worked as a labourer on the farm belonging to the Cailes, Henry from Horton and Elizabeth from Cranborne. The Cailes had another servant, a laundress, also from Cranborne. Another member, older, a cousin, had a lodging-house in Bournemouth then. The Tregonwells held land around Cranborne, Henrietta baptised there, another relative in the household from Edmondsham. The Cailes had moved to London earlier, but had arrived in Bournemouth by 1843, keeping a farm on its outskirts. No kinship appears to link Elizabeth Cailes with either of her servants, so, as with Henrietta Monro, her role consisted of employer.

Artisans sharing kinship and professional skills

The second network includes individuals from the WACC area who have often featured in analyses of early Victorian Bournemouth. Its members, male building artisans participated as workers, but success translated them to capitalists when they became property developers. Samuel Ingram, from More Critchel, had kinship connections with the Joy family from Hinton Martel. Three Joy brothers migrated to Bournemouth by the 1850s, of which, Henry, became one of the resort’s more successful builders. Henry’s first wife also came from the WACC area. Her maiden name – Hebditch – appeared in several settlements of the district, perhaps signifying kinship with John Hibidage, another Bournemouth builder of note. Ingram and Hibidage, like the Joys, had carpentry as their original skill before becoming developers. Hence, this network, connected by kinship, may have offered its members commercial benefits as its primary function. As with the other network, this group’s migration occurred because of their membership.

Network benefits

Pastoral and employment

The Cranborne social network may have provided its members with both employment and pastoral care after migration to Bournemouth. Henrietta Monro and Elizabeth Cailes both gave these young adults jobs. The Coney sisters will have had seigneurial linkage with Henrietta Munro, their employer. The families may have had an acquaintance for many years. Pastoral aspects may have entered the patronage extended by Henrietta Monro. Another member of this network, Mary Ware, belonged to the previous generation. A cousin, but perhaps more of an aunt, she could have provided a port for any emotional storms. She could have done the same for William Frampton, a kinsman. His employer, Mrs Cailes, also may have offered pastoral support along with work. Social problems because of his family’s immediate history could have caused vulnerabilities. Her other Cranborne employee, Sarah Philpott, had lost her father very early, an event where pastoral protection could have helped.

Commercial control

That the Joys, Samuel Ingram, and John Hibidage all had carpentry skills raises some connective possibilities. According to Charles Mate, John Hibidage competed in property development with the Tuck nexus of builders, but no pointed rivalry with Ingram or the Joys received mention. Their social network, combining kinship with professional skills, perhaps brought not just employment but the opportunities for periodic control of the carpentry market. Samuel Ingram at Bournemouth appears to have created a personal network also based around building, combining employees and relatives. He may have housed them in a purposed-built terrace. Occasional monopolistic behaviour in carpentry would fit with such an approach. This carpentry-developer network may also have included another person from the WACC area: William Rebbeck, a Tregonwell employee who grew a successful estate agency. In 1851 and 1861 he lived in ‘Joy Cottage’, moving by 1871 to Southbourne Terrace, built by Henry Joy.

Aftermath

And then what happened?

Evidence exists to trace the subsequent careers of people discussed here. When she retired from her lodging-house, Mary Ware returned to Cranborne, living close to a Coney household. This suggests that she had maintained relations with her native society even during her Bournemouth period. William Frampton dropped out of sight for a while but surfaced in 1871 accompanied by a wife and children, working as a railway porter in Tunbridge Wells. One of the Coney sisters married, her husband a cattle dealer based in Fordingbridge, near to Cranborne, their son continuing the business later. The other became a registered nurse but did not marry. She retained the family connection, because, years later, she had moved to Southampton in residence with a brother. Traces of their social network appear to have stayed in place for many years. The carpenters all remained in Bournemouth, their respectable estates an indication of professional success.

Further into the future

By 1871 Bournemouth’s population had experienced great increase. Organic growth did occur, but the immigration still contributed most. Cranborne and the WACC villages continued to supply migrants willing to travel twenty miles for a chance at fortune. They spread across Bournemouth, but, in Springbourne, many such families clustered together, sometimes as neighbours. Such grouping seems beyond chance, so word-of-mouth, a social network currency, must have fished people from their native rural origins and landed them in the resort. The earlier networks depended on relationships without physical proximity. Now, in parts of Springbourne it seemed as if replicas of WACC villages had appeared. The two earlier networks may have contributed towards their members’ finding a way to succeed within the context of Bournemouth. By 1871 the networks continued to connect family members, but acquaintance clusters went far towards transplanting neighbourhoods into small colonies.

Takeaway

In two cases, early Victorian Bournemouth contained social networks that appear to have helped their members survive and thrive. It seems plausible that others may have existed. Later a flood of interconnected people swept in to replicate their native neighbourhoods within the context of a tourist resort.

References

For references and engagement, please get in touch. Main primary sources: here and here (subscriptions needed)..