Infighting. Social cracks. Independence.

Introduction

Victorian Bournemouth (67) studies infighting amongst the Volunteer Rifle Corps, when middling independence opposed traditional privilege. Lord Malmesbury, commandant of the new Christchurch and Bournemouth volunteers, tried to impose a seigneurial approach. This brought confrontation with Bournemouth’s powerful people. He surrendered. Bournemouth established its own battalion, marking a key stage in its growing independence from Christchurch.

Victorian Bournemouth (67): background

Volunteer movement

At the end of the 1850s, across the country, a groundswell popular movement surfaced. Increasing calls came to establish volunteer local groups to participate in part-time military training. The movement arose from a combination of indigenous social development and a need to prepare defence against a possible French invasion. France’s international prestige had improved after the Crimean War, its emperor keen to maintain this momentum. Some in England thought that France’s growing steamship fleet posed a threat of rapid invasion. Social developments which had resulted in the political reforms of 1832 continued their momentum. Reformers saw benefits from a movement that would mix people from different social backgrounds. Others, however, saw potential threats from providing firearms in the home country to working people. The government endorsed the movement, routing its implementation through Lords Lieutenant, a system whereby affluent and privileged people would control local matters through influence and patronage.

Gentlemen officers

Each unit’s officers would function as its Lord Lieutenant’s social if not the political representatives. He appointed every force’s commanding officer, a man belonging to his social level, affluent and privileged. Lord Malmesbury, for example, an important local land proprietor, commanded at Christchurch with Bournemouth. The commandant took responsibility for providing officers to run each unit. For the volunteers to function as trained military groups discipline and obedience to orders had to occur. Hence, from the government’s perspective, officers should come from the gentry, the traditional process of deference underwriting the necessary authority. This meant an imposition of officers by the system. Nevertheless, as volunteers, the units expected, if not to elect their officers, at least to receive men known by and acceptable to them. These two contrasting requirements resulted in much trouble, not least amongst Bournemouth’s volunteers. Malmesbury found himself in a public confrontation with them.

Victorian Bournemouth (67): Lord Malmesbury

Profile and power

James Harris, 3rd Earl Malmesbury, played a prominent role in Victorian politics, at first in the Commons, then the Lords. His younger brother, Edward Harris served as M.P. for Christchurch during Bournemouth’s early period. After the 1802 Christchurch Enclosure Act, Malmesbury’s family held land that would become the Charminster suburb, but only a small amount lay in the area settled at early Bournemouth. Two instances of his appearance in the press illustrated his local interaction. Involved in the local farmers’ society, he often spoke at their AGM, on one occasion enlarging on labouring people and their morality. Their support from him did not appear to involve an interest in social change. He also played an important role in facilitating railway access to Christchurch with possible extension to Bournemouth. As a result of this process, Lord Malmesbury would play an important part in assisting the resort to increased growth.

Commandant of Volunteers

Despite the idea’s popular appeal, initial level of volunteering ran at a low level. Some Lords Lieutenant exhibited their disinterest. Malmesbury agreed to becoming commandant at Christchurch with Bournemouth only after two others had declined. At an early stage, he thought he had achieved sole responsibility in matters without need for others’ assent. Hence, he could appoint the officers without consultation, choosing gentlemen as required. ‘It is indispensable that the officers should be gentlemen having entire command of leisure time and likely to reside permanently in the neighbourhood.’  He eschewed elections. ‘Very few gentlemen would like to be put up as at an election, where some would be in a minority and therefore lead to the inference that they were the least popular persons’. His secretive, seigneurial manoeuvres resulted in an officer for Bournemouth, unknown to the contingent, who lived ‘only’ twenty-five minutes’ ride distant.

Victorian Bournemouth (67): events

Christchurch meeting

A day before this, a stormy public meeting occurred at Bournemouth. The volunteers there had learned the identity of the officer appointed by Malmesbury for their unit. Their disagreement and distress shaped the meeting, reported in full by the Visitors’ Guide, a copy of which Malmesby had read with disbelief. These events coloured the subsequent Christchurch meeting, intended for oath-taking by volunteers. Instead, despite appointing Sir Percy Shelley as chairman, Malmesbury found it necessary not only to speak, but to defend his methods. The attack opened with George Ledgard, member of the Poole banking family, which had an important presence in Bournemouth society. Malmesbury employed parliamentary sophistry to dismiss this, but, during the meeting, the extent of his manipulation behind the scenes resulted in a vote of confidence, despite standing amongst supporters. He survived this. The locals took their oaths, then ate lunch provided by Malmesbury, drinking his health ‘enthusiastically’.

Bournemouth meeting

This occurred that afternoon at the Belle Vue, managed by William Bill, secretary of the Bournemouth Volunteers, one of people who felt a personal slight both at Malmesbury’s selection and his methods. Although here too an acolyte, the Reverend A. M. Bennett, chaired the meeting, Malmesbury again had to stand in his defence. An aggrieved hotelier (Bill) and the town’s surveyor (Christopher Creeke) confronted Malmesbury, the country’s recent Foreign Secretary, over his approach. They had learned of his decisions by circular. No consultation had occurred, they protested. In addition, Creeke, while displaying deference, criticised Malmesbury to his face. The appointment of officers should not occur ‘by way of patronage or in deference to existing personal ties and connections’. Oath-taking should have happened at this meeting, but Malmesbury surrendered. He cut Bournemouth loose. They could go their own way, but without his drill sergeant and his tailor for uniforms.

Takeaway

Victorian Bournemouth (67) has illustrated how the attempt to establish a combined volunteer unit, drawing from both Christchurch and Bournemouth, ended in disarray. Before long, however, volunteers would take the oath for Bournemouth’s own contingent. Thus, the incident highlighted two events. First, it provided an instance of social cracks in the relationship between affluent and middling people. Second, it gave Bournemouth a push in its efforts to secure independence from Christchurch.

References

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