Introduction

Town upgrade plans at early Victorian Bournemouth resulted in an angry public meeting held late in 1856. The first Improvement Commissioners had announced a new rating assessment in order to fund the building programme. An early instance of the resort’s community action saw ratepayers formulate their response. The meeting’s press report highlighted both the problems and the personalities involved. The encounter highlighted middling people and others of humble origins making their voice heard in local government.

Problems

Extents

The ineffective condition of the drains had spurred a movement that resulted in securing Bournemouth’s Improvement Act. During the process, the town upgrade plans had extended to cover additional projects. The extra items included gas & water lines, fire-engines, a pleasure ground, a marketplace, and a pier. As Robert Kerley would say in the meeting: ‘the thing flew like a match to a stack of hay’. In addition to the additional items, the town had still to pay off all monies incurred in securing the Improvement Act. Estimates for the original work had reached around £1,000. Sticker shock occurred after tallying the amount needed for the rest: £5,000. The meeting’s chairman, Colonel Simmonds, having engineering nous, had consulted an expert about the pier. A discouraging report had come from this, questioning the project’s feasibility. Surmounting the difficulties would no doubt add to the cost.

Wider implications

The original funding design had envisaged the Commissioners’ borrowing money on the security of pier tolls and marketplace duties in addition to rates. Since neither the tolls nor the duties would run until construction had finished, the funding plan placed a heavy reliance on the rates. Higher rates would support greater borrowing. Property occupiers would pay the rates, not the landlords. Most of the ratepayers would have derived their income from the town’s economy. Robert Kerley estimated that his rate bill would double in order to fund all desired items. Profitability would have had a high priority for these men, any threat to it a cause for alarm and action. A concern arose that clawing back the rate money would result in higher tariffs set for visitors. Not only would visitor traffic decline, but so would property values. A town upgrade would result in a property downgrade.

Personalities

Ratepayers

In addition to the ratepayers, their group included an animated chairman, Colonel Simmonds, and a covey of lawyers. The lawyers provided an objective framework which guided the town upgrade’s discussion. They asked questions of the Commission’s representative after which they fielded a number of resolutions for the attendees to consider. The Colonel contributed not only leadership during the meeting but had, as mentioned, conducted an element of expert research. Once of the East India Company, he appears to have become a property developer. The ratepayers seemed to say little, but identifications have emerged for most listed as attending the meeting. Property people – builders and the estate agent – had accounted for much of early Bournemouth’s economy. In more recent times, however, retailers grew in number. Hence the attendees included not only the property people but also several retailers as well as a hotelier, a good representation of the town’s commerce.

Commissioners

Robert Kerley represented the Commissioners, accompanied by the clerk, Christopher Creeke, the rest of the board appearing to decline attending. Two Commissioners, however, had kin amongst the ratepayers: John Macey, manager of the Belle Vue, brother-in-law to Samuel Bayly; James McWilliam, son-in-law to David Tuck. A future wedding would connect Kerley with Rebbeck, the estate agent. Kerley played a curious role in the meeting. Although there as a Commissioner, he often argued the ratepayers’ case, providing a form of minority report. Perhaps mindful of the country’s recent social unrest involving working people, the other Commissioners, for the most part gentry, may have chosen to avoid a confrontation. Christopher Creeke, at that time the Commission’s clerk, also attended. A professional architect he would perform stalwart duties for the Commission, including taking substantial public pressure during the great drainage controversy. At this meeting, he displayed an early example of steadiness under fire.

The meeting

Conduct

The press report captured several testy moments during the town upgrade’s meeting. One exchange provided further illustration of the Commission’s preference for secretive action. A call went up for the minute book to review previous public meetings on the subject. The clerk’s response – “It is in Wimborne” – did not ride well with the meeting’s mood. Mr Hibidage, a builder, dared the Commissioners to come for the money: “Rather than yield to them, we should let them come and take our goods away, like the Quakers!”. The account reported he said this ‘indignantly’. At other times, statements attracted applause, loud at one point, and a cry of “hear, hear”. Mentions of laughter, although perhaps ironic, suggest that the crowd had not lost control. Furthermore, the lawyers managed to steer the attendees towards a formal process of comment and response by debating and passing resolutions expressing their opinion to the Commissioners.

Result

The Commission’s strategy became clear in one of the two resolutions passed. The meeting agreed to a budget of £3,000 to cover drainage, roads, paving and lighting as well as paying the outstanding bill for securing the Act. The Commissioners, it seems, had seen the meeting as testing the water, perhaps an arms’ length negotiation. The ratepayers had begun at £1,000, the Commission at £5,000. The sum agreed, therefore, represented a middle point, although the Commission may have wanted this figure all along. The original stimulus for the town upgrade – drainage and roads – returned as the town’s primary focus. Under the chairman’s bidding, the pier and marketplace would have to wait. Robert Kerley appears to have controlled events well. At this point he made a soothing statement to the effect that the main proprietor (and real power), Sir Gervis Tapps, did not want rates to climb too high.

Takeaway

The builders and retailers who constituted much of early Bournemouth’s economy had cooperated in an expressive encounter with authority. Soon these men would become Commissioners and a line would run from there to the town’s first Council. Hence, a settlement created for affluent tourists would become a town run by middling people. This meeting marked an important step on that journey.

References

For the newspaper report of the meeting go here (subscription needed).

For references email here.