Using privileged courtesy against itself

Introduction

Victorian Bournemouth (68) examines how Bournemouth’s Volunteer rebels beat Lord Malmesbury at his own game of weaponising courtesy. This occurred during their standoff concerning the shape and control of the Volunteer Rifle Corps (1860). Earlier posts have recounted the battle’s events. Here a deeper analysis reveals how middling people at mid-Victorian Bournemouth had evolved their attitudes and power.

Victorian Bournemouth (68): Malmesbury’s approach

Victorian seigneur

Malmesbury, appointed commandant of local volunteers, appeared to approach his task as a mediaeval seigneur, safe in his castle. For his first step, Malmesbury called a committee meeting involving under ten people. The meeting resolved that government rules ‘as altered and signed by the chairman should be the rules of the corps’. Malmesbury may have chaired the meeting or used influence to appoint an ally. He did so to exert influence in the two later public meetings. This gave him the legal basis to act on his sole responsibility, a condition he had imposed on accepting the commandant’s role. He deployed further patronage in choosing the officers, one of whom, John Mills, held an estate near to his. For the Bournemouth contingent, he gave short notice for meetings and communicated his decisions through a circular. Only in extremis did he engage in a full scale, public confrontation.

The courtesy card

Malmesbury appears to have applied the privileged behaviour which used traditional concepts as a coded judgement system and a method of exclusion. As a tactic, this offered the opportunity of selecting the battlefield. In this case he selected the ancient concept of courtesy for the fight. Bournemouth’s resistance to his officers’ list made him think that ‘there had been a want of courtesy somewhere’. He made an example of George Ledgard, a Poole banker supporting the Bournemouth volunteers. Malmesbury ‘regretted that a gentleman of quiet habits and kind disposition … should have … assisted in stirring up dissatisfaction instead of helping things on’. He reminded the audience of his earlier record in local militia matters, where he had always acted with courtesy. In full application of the approach, he then denied William Bill, Bournemouth’s unit secretary, the right to accuse him, Lord Malmesbury, of acting without courtesy.

Victorian Bournemouth (68): middling riposte

Exclusion from the process

William Bill’s role in the events illustrated how Malmesbury’s management of the process excluded middling independence and self-esteem. As secretary of the Bournemouth volunteers, Bill would have expected to participate in decision-making. He perhaps felt foolish at having attended an early meeting without comprehending how Malmesbury had seized full control. Later, he wrote to Malmesbury, expressing Bournemouth’s concern, but the lord had ‘mislaid’ the letter. That Bournemouth had to learn of Malmesbury’s decisions through a ‘circular’ angered Bill. He had expected communication, its lack a measure of discourtesy. Once a butcher, Bill had reached an elevated position at Bournemouth. This centred on his hotel, the Belle Vue, an important community building, and his post as Improvement Commissioner. As such, he perhaps may not have expected his exclusion and snubbing by Lord Malmesbury, someone who had only a small commercial stake in the resort at the time.

Middling independence

Although Bournemouth’s economy depended on affluent visitors, the town’s operational infrastructure fell to builder-developers and successful retailers. Compared to Lord Malmesbury, such people came from humble backgrounds, some even from labouring people. They had imposed control over unfettered and independent building development threatening to destroy the resort’s early commercial appeal. This included funding and obtaining a Parliamentary law to establish their Improvement Commission. As Commissioners, they exhibited a steely dedication to imposing their version of order over the town’s growth. During the drainage controversy of the 1860s, they would face down public bullying at the hands of affluent and privileged physicians. Their promotion of Bournemouth’s public reputation became their prime asset. To receive apparent public belittlement from Lord Malmesbury would have diminished the independence conveyed by their mantle of town control. Such aristocratic, ancient nuances as courtesy perhaps meant little to them.

Victorian Bournemouth (68): analysis and implications

Why did this happen

Bournemouth’s economic and civic progress may have surprised the local population. Families such as Lord Malmesbury’s put a premium on excluding change and innovation, but Bournemouth’s success will have shown these as values. Not least, this awarded civic and political power to people without privilege. This had occurred when elsewhere Chartism threatened to topple the established order. Malmesbury in part may have welcomed Bournemouth’s success, because it improved the value of his land in the settlement. Later he would take an organised approach by attracting the town onto more of his land, creating the Charminster area. Nevertheless, Bournemouth represented change, a threat. Volunteer movements introduced social mixing. They gave guns at home to working people. Denying these ‘revolutionaries’ their own Volunteers kept them under his control and maintained continuity. Finding they fought too well, he folded his tent. He withdrew into the shelter of his own Volunteers at Christchurch. 

Another explanation

Although the analysis proposed may explain this occurrence and its resolution, another factor may have applied. Early in April, the press reported the Bournemouth Rifles’ meeting at the Belle Vue. By then they had appointed their own officer, a solicitor. Now they voted to remove the relevant funds from Christchurch to Bournemouth. In this respect, Bournemouth declared its independence from Christchurch. Some would have seen this coming for a while. Earlier, reported by the Boundary Commission as much decayed, Christchurch revived in large part because of Bournemouth’s success. At first, a settlement sprawling across part of Christchurch parish, Bournemouth before long aspired to establish its own boundaries and institutions. The Improvement Commission began that process of civic independence and line-drawing. Having its own Rifle Corps offered a parallel opportunity to advance Bournemouth’s social identity. Furthermore, this advanced the town’s reputation beyond that of a holiday resort for privileged people. 

Takeaway

Victorian Bournemouth (68) has discussed the confrontation that accompanied Bournemouth’s acquisition of its own Rifle Corps. It illustrated how seigneurial presumption wilted against a concentrated middling presence. On one hand, the Volunteers fulfilled middling people’s desire to participate in the country’s defence. On the other, it provided the middling people managing Bournemouth with an opportunity to augment their civic identity.

References

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