Confusion and more confusion

Introduction

Victorian Bournemouth (111) continues the analysis of the resort’s territorial appetite for lands and institutions lying to its east. The vestry elections at Holdenhurst and increasing presence of Bournemouth people on the Christchurch Union’s Board of Guardians provide two examples of this continued process. These advances provoked resentment and reaction.

Victorian Bournemouth (111): background

Geography

The area defined in this study as Greater Westover contained all Holdenhurst parish and, eastwards, land under the control of Christchurch borough. The town of Christchurch stood east of the river Stour, Holdenhurst to its west. On occasion, the latter bore the name Liberty of Westover. Administration of the area had a long and obscure history. It progressed through various manors and hundreds, whose definitions involved much change. In the Victorian period, Christchurch retained its borough administrative structure, whereas Holdenhurst’s affairs lay in the hands of its vestry. After the reforms of 1834, a Union came into being combining poor relief for Christchurch, Holdenhurst, and Sopley, another parish near the borough. As such, therefore, the Union’s management consisted of representatives from all three participating areas. Bournemouth grew on land within both Holdenhurst and Christchurch. As the town grew, it placed pressure on the existing administrative systems.

Administration

By the 1870s, its vestry provided most of Holdenhurst’s administration. This supervised poor relief amongst other duties. The churchwardens appear to have undertaken the overseers’ duties for this purpose, although others had that title in 1880. As such, they assessed built property lying within the parish boundaries to set a rate for payment by occupiers. In parallel, it seems the area’s Union also had its assessment board, which sought to obtain payments from those inhabiting its three areas. Furthermore, parishes now had begun to appear within Bournemouth. Vestry meetings for these also elected churchwardens. Those residing in Bournemouth also had to pay a rate assessed and levied by the Board of Improvement Commissioners. Events which happened at the Holdenhurst vestry elections of 1877 suggest that much confusion existed over the types of rates, the levying powers, and the areas involved in the various assessments and amounts demanded for payment.

Victorian Bournemouth (111): Holdenhurst vestry election 1877 (1)

Previous elections

According to the press reports, elections happened at Holdenhurst’s vestry meetings by exception. Holdenhurst’s parochial structure and executive actions depended on its ecclesiastical origins. Further back, the vestry would have elected not only two churchwardens, but also overseers. By the 1870s, however, the officers consisted only of the churchwardens, one representing the vicar, the other the parish. The vicar nominated his, while the local landed proprietor, William Clapcott Dean, nominated the parish’s. Often, a single person received nomination for each of the two churchwarden positions. At one nomination meeting, only the vicar, as chairman, and the two candidates attended, no election required. On another occasion, Mr Dean, nominated his churchwarden, without dismounting from his horse, echoing a scene from Hardy’s Far From The Madding Crowd. There, the squire William Bowood clarified his social position by knocking on Bathsheba Everdene’s door while on horseback. Thus, Holdenhurst’s vestry experienced little electoral excitement.

The unpopular assessment

Joseph Stanfield, born in Eagle, Lincolnshire, had come south by 1849, marrying then a local farmer’s daughter in Poole. By 1861 he had Careys, a hundred-acre farm near Holdenhurst village. Active in the local farmer’s club, a member of the Union’s Board of Guardians, he also served as a Holdenhurst churchwarden, often without election. During 1876 or early 1877, Stanfield became involved in an assessment of property for the parish poor rate. For unclear reasons, property in Bournemouth emerged from this having a much higher rating than before. This caused much anger, in part provoked by confusion about the various administrative systems active within the area. By this time, the majority of Holdenhurst parish’s population would have lived inside Bournemouth’s limits. Furthermore, as mentioned, the town also had its own parishes supporting the churches built since its foundation. Stanfield’s actions drew many voters to the vestry elections of 1877.

Victorian Bournemouth (111): Holdenhurst vestry election 1877 (2)

Event

Fifteen men came from Bournemouth to contest Stanfield’s re-election. News of their intentions attracted local farmers and gentry. They succeeded in preventing election of a Bournemouth candidate. Much discussion and, perhaps, uproar happened. Edward Jennings, a timber merchant and Improvement Commissioner, quoted from his copy of Holdsworth’s book about parish laws. Talk about district definitions also occurred. James Druitt, clerk of the Union, a Christchurch man, attended. He dismissed wider issues, reminding everyone that the meeting had no purpose other than vestry elections. Nevertheless, he could not prevent himself from a comment about the high level which Bournemouth’s rents had reached. Rates depended on rental levels. If Bournemouth people did not want high rates, they should lower their rents. This comment may have infuriated the Bournemouth attendees, in part because it offered no solution, but also because he had long served as clerk to the town’s Improvement Board.

Diagnosis

Stanfield referred to the matter in subsequent meetings of the Guardians. Part of the trouble, he thought, lay in a Bournemouth newspaper misquoting him. It had him referring to rates raised by ‘the Bournemouth overseer’ whereas he had used the term ‘surveyor of taxes at Bournemouth’. Mr Farr thought trouble arose when Stanfield chaired an assessment appeals meeting. Bournemouth people attending had had to stand too long in the passage at the Belle Vue. These references suggest that a combination of confusions – terms, geography – had contributed to the trouble. Druitt thought people had confused the poor rate with the improvement rate or vice versa. An antiquated administrative system, having questionable relevance to Bournemouth, experienced the raw and impatient power generated by the town’s rapid growth. It withstood the assault, but the latter’s ferocity signalled the resentment that bubbled beneath the relationship between Bournemouth and its neighbours.

Takeaway

Victorian Bournemouth (111) has examined the events occurring at Holdenhurst during its vestry elections of 1877. Here, the force from Bournemouth’s substantial growth and appetite crashed against a torpid, ancient administrative system trying to retain its relevance.

References

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