Manuscript of the Month May 2015

Chelsea Election: The Final Contest, satirical print, 1868

Overnight on 7th May, Returning Officers throughout the country will take centre stage as another general election reaches its climax. Within London, seventy three seats are being contested. But while the thirteen marginal constituencies command most attention, seasoned election followers are keeping a watchful eye on proceedings at Kensington, which has endured turbulent times of late. During the 1868 general election, however, Kensington was the scene of a bitterly fought contest. And in the thick of it was Sir Henry Ainslie Hoare Bt.

The general election of 1868 pitted Disraeli (Conservative) against Gladstone (Liberal) for the first time. But the passing of the Reform Act a year earlier meant it took place within a dramatically altered political landscape. For not only had the electorate doubled from one to two million, but several new borough constituencies had been created, including two in London: Hackney, carved out of Tower Hamlets, and Chelsea, which encompassed Kensal Green, Fulham, Kensington and Hammersmith as well as Chelsea itself. Under the terms of the Act, Chelsea would return two MPs, while each elector was entitled to two votes. So attractive was Chelsea, with its prime location and huge electorate, that even before the Reform Bill passed into law prospective candidates had begun making their presence felt. But first to formally throw their hats into the ring were two Liberals: 24 year old Charles Wentworth Dilke, Chelsea born and bred, son of a sitting MP; and 43 year old Sir Henry Ainslie Hoare Bt, owner of the extensive Stourhead estates in Wiltshire, whose late father had been a longstanding Partner in the family banking business.

Chelsea was not Henry’s first tilt at a parliamentary seat. Three years earlier he had been elected MP for New Windsor, only to be unseated on petition after his agent was found guilty of bribery. Undeterred by this setback, Henry launched his bid for Chelsea a full fifteen months before the 1868 election. In a series of electors’ meetings, held during July 1867, he explained that: the reason why he presented himself before them – not being a resident among them – was because he believed the borough to be a Liberal one, and that the opinions which he held on all the public questions of the day would meet with their entire and unanimous support…He highly eulogised Mr Gladstone, whom he characterised as the greatest financier of the day, and concluded by saying that if they returned him he would do battle in the course of progress, and would continue a zealous and consistent advocate of all those measures which had made England great (loud cheers.) (British Library Newspapers, West Middlesex Advertiser & Family Journal, 20th July 1867)

For the next year, Henry and Dilke had the field much to themselves. But despite presenting similar manifestos – both advocated the disestablishment of the Irish Church, a further extension of the franchise, the introduction of secret ballots, compulsory education and reduced taxation – the two men chose not to work together. Instead each organised his own local committees and canvassed the borough independently, a risky strategy thought some, should a strong Conservative be prevailed upon to enter the race. During the months that followed, various Tories were mooted and one, Lord Ranelagh, did indeed stand for a time. By August 1868, however, Ranelagh had been replaced by not one but two new Conservative candidates: Charles Freake, a prominent local architect/builder responsible for the construction of Eaton and Onslow Squares, and William Howard Russell, The Times correspondent famed for his coverage of the Crimean War a decade earlier. The stage was set for a straight fight between the four men, with the two Liberals seemingly having the upper hand. Until, that was, Mr Odger entered the fray.

George Odger. Shoemaker, lecturer, secretary of the , chairman of the Manhood Suffrage and Vote by Ballot Association, president of the newly formed International Working Men’s Association and, after a special meeting at the Hereford Arms, Gloucester Road, on 21st August 1868, the preferred Liberal candidate (with Dilke) of the Chelsea Working Men’s Electoral Association. Not that Odger was unique. For across London and beyond, a number of ‘working man’ candidates were emerging, some backed by local groups, others by the Reform League, established three years earlier to campaign for universal male suffrage. In Tower Hamlets, electors at Limehouse town hall, packed as closely as a bundle of firewood, drank in the words of Reform League president Edmond Beales, while at Aylesbury, former bricklayer George Howell lined up alongside banker and sitting Liberal MP Nathan Meyer Rothschild: It is said that the millionaire fights rather shy of his companion, but on a little closer acquaintance he will find, in spite of the lack of wealth or of social rank, a Howell may be as good as a Rothschild. (BL, Sheffield Independent, 7th Nov 1868) By mid September, however, there was mounting concern over the sheer number of candidates coming forward: In the metropolis, Liberal divisions are giving the Tories a chance they would not otherwise have, remarked The Leicester Chronicle: There are four Liberals for Hackney…Four Liberals also stand for the Tower Hamlets, where Mr Coope has unfurled the Disraeli flag…For the new borough of Chelsea, where Dr Russell and another Conservative stand, Sir H Hoare has been almost thrust aside to make way for Mr Odger, a real working man, who may, perhaps, be carried with Mr Dilke.

Within twenty four hours of the Chelsea Working Men’s Electoral Association meeting, a requisition urging Odger to officially declare his candidature had attracted nearly 1,000 signatures. At the same time, the Association’s secretary wrote to Henry asking him to withdraw, so as not to divide the Liberal interest in the borough. Henry’s reply, delivered a fortnight later, was unequivocal. He would do no such thing. After all, how could he, a candidate of such longstanding, be accused of dividing the Liberal vote rather than one put forward at the eleventh hour? Moreover, since the number of votes cast at the Association’s meeting totalled just 164, he failed to see how those few could be said to speak for all the working men of the borough? And even if they did: there are other most numerous and influential grades of Electors to whom must be conceded at least an equal voice in the selection of Candidates. (BL, Chelsea News and General Advertiser, 12th Sept 1868) Thus the stage was set for a bitter and potentially destructive battle.

Odger’s supporters wasted no time firing their first shot across Henry’s bows. During another meeting at the Hereford Arms, held in response to Henry’s refusal to back down, the Electoral Association’s chairman extolled their man’s virtues at great length. Odger was a good debater and a skilled politician, one who: When the question of trades’ unions came before parliament…was best qualified to give advice; for neither Government nor members knew more of that subject than a cow did of music. Furthermore, since sufficient funds had been raised to meet both Odger’s election expenses and the cost of supporting him (MPs were unpaid until 1911) whilst he sat in the House of Commons, he would enter parliament untainted with the curse of bribery. The Association’s secretary was more succinct: Sir Henry Hoare, he said, was more fitting to represent a lady’s drawing room than such a place as Chelsea. Whenever he ventured to address them, Sir Henry Hoare took care to have in his hand a scented handkerchief, which he kept to his nose lest the breath of the men of Chelsea should poison him. (BL, Reynold’s Newspaper, 6th Sept 1868) Henry himself, meanwhile, was busy galvanising support at meetings across the borough – at the Swan Tavern, Walham Green (Fulham Broadway), the Earl Craven in Westbourne Park, the West- end Lecture Hall, Hammersmith, and the appropriately named Gladstone Tavern on Brompton Road – and urging his canvassers to leave no stone unturned in their quest for votes.

The battle at Chelsea raged for two months. Henry attracted substantial support, particularly amongst the wealthier classes and the extensive publican interest, but he was also distrusted by some. How could he, a man of wealth and privilege, comprehend the concerns of the working classes, they asked? In a letter to the West London Observer, one man pithily dismissed Henry’s claim to be the representative of the working man as ‘bosh.’ His ability to fund a lavish campaign was a source of further resentment, while a nagging whiff of scandal surrounding his expulsion from Windsor followed him wherever he went. Odger too though had his detractors. His entering the field so late in the day was widely condemned. It was also rumoured that the small shopkeepers of Chelsea were prepared to let in a Tory rather than bring themselves to vote for a working man. Disquiet even lurked within the ranks of the Chelsea Working Men’s Electoral Association, with one member suggesting that: the time had not yet come to send a working man into Parliament…there was no use in putting up Mr Odger as a Chelsea “Aunt Sally” for the Conservatives to knock down. (Ibid) Neither Henry nor Odger was prepared to retreat though. And as polling day drew ever closer, the bitterness between the two factions reached such a pitch that the police, fearing violence, began attending their meetings.

Finally, less than three weeks before the election, the deadlock was broken. Dilke’s lead, everyone conceded, was unassailable. But if both Odger and Henry were allowed to continue, the resulting split would in all probability gift the second seat to the Tories. After some frantic manoeuvring, therefore, it was agreed that six men, three nominated by Henry and three by Odger, should meet privately in an attempt to decide which of them should retire. If this failed, the matter would be referred to three independent arbitrators. Both Henry and Odger agreed to abide by these terms. Moreover, each promised that the loser would appear at the next electors’ meeting to publicly endorse his erstwhile rival.

Predictably, the case did pass to the arbitrators, whose decision was handed down in a terse statement on 31st October: Having regard to all the circumstances of this case, we are of opinion that it is desirable for the Liberal cause that Mr Odger should retire from his candidature in favour of Sir Henry Hoare. On balance, they believed Henry to have the larger following. As agreed, Odger duly joined Dilke and Henry at their next public meeting, where, amidst loud cheers and cries of “You should have gone to the poll,” he urged those present to rally round both remaining candidates. Despite this appeal, however, Odger’s retirement caused considerable bitterness. Odger found himself having to refute allegations he had been paid to withdraw, while Henry’s next few public appearances were greeted with cheers, groans and even outright uproar.

Crisis over, Henry and Dilke at last were free to focus on overcoming their not inconsiderable Conservative opponents. On 13th November they appeared together at the Free Tabernacle, Notting Dale, previously an Odger stronghold where, before an audience of several hundred, Henry spelled out the ‘articles of his political faith’ and fielded a number of questions. Asked if he was connected with the firm of brewers he replied: I never was, I am not, and I am sure I never shall be. (Cheers) Another elector asked if Sir Henry was the banker. Sir Henry: I wish I was. (Great laughter) In answer to another question, Sir Henry said that he had no paid canvassers anywhere, not even in Chelsea. (The Times, 14th Nov 1868)

Eventually, at noon on 17th November, the Returning Officer for the borough of Chelsea stepped onto the hustings opposite the South Kensington Museum (V&A) to read out the nominations. After expressing his hope that the electors, about 5,000 of whom were swirling about beneath him, would show dignity and restraint – advice which was loudly cheered and soon forgotten – he gave way to the proposers, seconders and finally the four candidates. As expected, Dilke received an enthusiastic reception, but Henry found himself confronted by a waving mass of walking sticks and umbrellas spiked with cakes of Windsor soap, while cries of “Go back to Windsor,” “We don’t want any bribery here,” and “What have you done with Odger?” mingled with the more welcome cheers. Undeterred, Henry embarked on a stirring speech: At no period, he declared, had such momentous issues been submitted to the country as now, and the electors of Chelsea had to decide once for all which party they would follow. Warning that the battle for electoral reform was not yet over, he invoked memories of the recent past: There were battles called “the soldiers’ battles,” because won by soldiers. Such was Inkerman; and he hoped the electoral soldiers were on the eve of a political Inkerman no less glorious, as it was no less “the soldiers’ battle.” (Cheers)…If he and his Liberal colleague were sent to parliament, they would go there to support measures to enable the working man to vote according to the dictates of his own conscience – (Cheers) – for they would give him the ballot. (Renewed cheers.)…The Liberals…were going forward in the path of progress, whilst their opponents were still clinging to their policy of do-nothing or “wait.” The policy of the Conservatives was based upon the words, “As it was in the beginning and ever shall be;” that of the Liberal party, upon “Peace on earth and goodwill towards men.” (Cheers.) (BL, Daily News, 18th Nov 1868)

After such rousing words, the two Conservative candidates faced an uphill struggle. Freake, drowned out by jeers and hooting, retired unheard. Russell too was given short shrift, but hung on long enough to berate the crowd for preferring a wandering baronet from Bath to a man [Freake] who has lived among you, and who has so largely identified himself with your interests. (Ibid) Did they truly wish to be represented by someone who had never shown any commitment to reform before? By someone who had been turned out of the House of Commons for bribery?

Once everyone had had, or had attempted to have, his say, the Returning Officer reappeared to confirm that polling would take place next day between 8am and 4pm. All through that long day, messengers darted back and forth between the borough’s thirteen polling stations and the Liberals’ temporary headquarters at the Gladstone Tavern, where an updated state of the poll was exhibited hourly. Before many hours had passed, however, it became clear that the Liberals had carried the day. Each new update was met with approving roars from the crowds that thronged the streets surrounding the Gladstone. And when, late that afternoon, Henry and Dilke appeared at an upper floor window to hail their victory, they were greeted with deafening cheers. Official confirmation of the result came the following day. Needless to say, Dilke headed the poll, with 7,374 votes. Henry was second, on 7,183, leaving Russell (4,177) and Freake (3,929) trailing in his wake. Nationally, too, the Liberals triumphed, sweeping to power with a majority of over 100. Over the next few years, many of the reforms Henry and his fellow Liberals had promised while on the campaign trail were enacted, among them compulsory education, the introduction of secret ballots and the disestablishment of the Irish Church. But the general election of 1874 once again saw three Liberal candidates chasing two Chelsea seats and this time the third man, G Middleton Kiell, a member of the London School Board, did not back down. The resulting split cost the Liberals dear – and it was Henry who paid the price, losing to the sole Conservative candidate by less than 500 votes.

Despite several attempts, Henry never sat in the House of Commons again. In time he grew increasingly disenchanted with Gladstone, so much so that by the 1880s he had not only defected to the Conservatives, a move he would later describe as the strangest event of his existence, but had become one of the Primrose League’s earliest members and most popular speakers.