The Guest Papers, Add.Mss. 57934-57941

Home , Arthur Otway, Lady Charlotte Guest

THE GUEST PAPERS, ADD.MSS. 57934-57941

ROBERT A. H. SMITH

MONTAGUE JOHN GUEST (1839-1909), Liberal M.P. for Youghal 1869-74, ^^id for Wareham 1880-5, presented his papers to the British Museum in 1906; they were trans- ferred to the Department of Manuscripts from the Department of Prints and Drawings in 1973. Guest was the third son of Sir Josiah John Guest, Bart., of Dowlais, the iron- master, and Lady Charlotte Guest (later Schreiber), the Welsh scholar and celebrated collector of china, fans, and playing-cards. J.J. Guest was a dissenting industrialist who married into the aristocracy, obtained a baronetcy and a seat in Parliament, and became accepted by Whig Society. His eldest son, Ivor, succeeded in 1852 to the baronetcy, to Canford Hall in Dorset and estates in Dorset and Wales; in the 1880s he possessed over 17,000 acres in Dorset alone;' in 1868 he married the eldest daughter of the Duke of Marlborough; another brother, Merthyr, married the youngest daughter of the Marquess of Westminster, and Guest was to number among his brothers-in-law the future eighth Earl of Bessborough and A.H. Layard the archaeologist, diplomat, and Radical M.P. Guest therefore possessed wealth, status, and good connections; he had the means to pursue a number of interests, to become a keen yachtsman and fisherman, and a frequent visitor to country estates in the shooting season; he became a shooting companion of the Prince of Wales; he was also 'an enthusiastic and discreet collector of Georgian and other engravings and antiques'; furniture, porcelain, and the works of Rowlandson also aroused his interest,^ and he presented his collection of badges, tokens, and passes to the British Museum in 1907. His papers reflect his wide range of interests and social contacts, con- taining letters from authors, artists, and sculptors such as Thomas Hardy, G.F. Watts, Sir Oswald Brierley, Sir Frederick Leighton, and Sir Edgar Bohun, from men of the press, including Sir Francis C. Burnand, A. Borthwick, W. H. Russell, Linley Sambourne, and others, and from Winston Churchill, Lord Shaftesbury, Sir Herbert Beerbohm Tree, Thorold Rogers, Thomas Gibson-Bowles, Colonel Pitt-Rivers, and Sir Henry Cole. Guest also collected autographs, and his papers include letters of Landseer, Thomas Moore, Tennyson, Browning, Darwin, and Disraeli, along with three letters of William Barnes, the Dorset poet, whom Guest later sought to honour with a memorial statue. The single letter from Winston Churchill is dated 24 November 1898 and is a reply to one from Guest praising the latter's first book. The Story of the Malakand Field Force: *I was delighted to get your letter. You cannot think what pleasure such praise gives 29 a young author and I myself am peculiarly susceptible. It is a refreshing encouragement to me in the new book I am writing - "The River War" and I hope you will therefore allow me to send you a copy of it when it is published in April.' Hardy's letter, dated 15 May 1892, touches upon the real place-names behind the place-names he used in his Wessex novels: '. . . "Marlott" bears some resemblance to Marnhull or East Stower; and Trantbridge Cross may be supposed to be where the road from Shaftesbury to Cranbourne crosses the road from Blandford to Salisbury: Cranbourne having suggested "Cheeseborough". "Kingsbere" is, as you may know, Bere Regis.' These two letters are probably the most interesting single items in the collection. Guest also left some personal and political correspondence and papers. His education and undistinguished career in the Rifle Brigade (1855-9) ^^^ ^lot covered by any surviving letters. He disliked the army and failed to return to his regiment from leave in 1859.^ He wished to join the family firm but apparently then abandoned this plan, seeming to have found it difficult to settle in any career. Perhaps his inherited wealth made it unneces- sary for him to choose a profession, just as it made it inevitable that he should seek a seat in Parliament. He and his brother Merthyr inherited his father's Whig opinions, but the Guest family was by 1868 politically divided; Lady Charlotte Schreiber retained her Whig convictions but disliked Gladstonian Liberalism; her second husband Charles Schreiber had been a Palmerstonian Conservative but was now a supporter of Disraeli ;"* Guest's other brothers, Arthur and Ivor, were also Conservatives. Ivor, the eldest brother, contested several seats for his party and was created Lord Wimborne in 1880 for his efforts; his considerable influence as a landowner enabled him to return Arthur as Con- servative M.P. for the neighbouring borough of Poole in 1868 and to place Schreiber in the same seat in 1880. Family considerations influenced Montague Guest's choice of a seat; he was obliged in 1868 to refrain from contesting Poole as a Liberal, to please his brother,-'^ but succeeded in being returned in 1869 for the notorious borough of Youghal,^ a traditionally Nationalist seat, whose former Member had been unseated for corrupt practices at the 1868 election; it could be reasonably expected that he would claim the seat at the next General Election. Guest's position was weak; his influence with the Gladstone Ministry was further weakened by his being the younger brother of a leading opponent of Gladstone in the county of Dorset. The Whiggish element in the Gladstonian Liberal party was in any case increasingly restive, believing that Gladstone was neglecting their interests. Guest received few favours from the Government; his requests for local patronage and support for local interests had scant success. He did not shine in his first Parliament, rather displaying the independent spirit he was to show later, in voting against the Government's Irish University Bill; the latter were defeated by three votes. Guest 'voted quite at the end - G. C. Glyn [a Government Whip] did all he could to turn me'."^ Guest voted with his brother Arthur, and so presumably in accordance with his eldest brother's opinions; family considerations may have influenced him, although he did not always vote to please Ivor. He apparently faced pressure from his constituents. Glyn wrote to Guest that he knew of 'the great pressure put upon Irish representatives but hoped that in your case it would not succeed'.^ Guest was not cast out into a political

30 wilderness for this vote- he was one of many discontented moderate backbenchers at this time - and no doubt it seemed likely that he would continue his political career as an independent Whiggish Liberal. Party discipline in and out of Parliament was gradually becoming tighter however. Guest retired from Youghal in 1874, leaving the former Member once more in posses- sion, and was next returned to Parliament in 1880 for the small borough of Wareham, which lay close to his own home at Bere Regis. He soon clashed with the Government of Gladstone once more, and acquired the unfortunate reputation of being a man 'who generally votes wrong when his vote is in real requirement'.^ He opposed Gladstone's Irish Land Bill of 1880 and Liberal policy over Tunis in 1881, defaulted on the Egyptian vote of censure in February 1884, absented himself from Parliament during some important Irish debates, and was in Dorset when Gladstone resigned in 1885, 'a circumstance that was used against him in the county'. His conduct seems to have been unpredictable; he supported the Liberal Government on many points, including Reform, the Sudan, Afghanistan, the Bradlaugh question, and Irish coercive legislation,'^ yet carried political independence to extremes at a critical time for the Government and the Whips. Guest differed in opinion from the Government on some important issues. With other moderate men he was disgusted with Gladstone's conduct concerning the Kilmainham Treaty, especially in the light of the Phoenix Park murders. In 1882 he clearly wished Gladstone would resign; he believed that the crisis could only be weathered if England had a strong leader, recruited from either political party.'^ He was opposed to all legislation tending to weaken Ireland's links with England. He also paid attention to the needs of the agricultural labourers. To some extent this was enlightened self-interest; labourers in his large rural constituency had the vote, and more would obtain the vote under any future plan of Parliamentary Reform. Guest told Gladstone that he put his election success in 1880 down to the votes 'of the Agricultural labourers, who have to thank the Ballot act for protecting them against the displeasure of the powerful landed interest, which put forth all their energies and exerted all their influence to obtain a contrary result in this Agricultural district Borough, and have in cases where they have been able to find out vented their wrath upon the supporters of the Liberal cause - they look to you as the man that has done more for the labouring Classes in this country than any other that ever lived'.'^ He had earlier criticized the low wages of labouring men. In 1885 he went further and gave £10 towards the election expenses of Joseph Arch, the founder of the National Agricultural Labourers' Union, who stood for North-west Norfolk.'^ Gladstone's Government had done little for the agricultural worker, beyond giving them the vote by 1885; Guest seems to have felt that they should now, in a time of agricultural depression, have their own Parliamentary representatives. Guest was moved to oppose the Government over their handling of the Tunis crisis. France from April to October 1881 had assumed control of the country, sending in troops purportedly to quell disorder among tribesmen on the Tunisian frontier with the French protectorate of Algeria; in fact they had intended to crush an Italian challenge to French economic and political interests in Tunis. Before 1881 British, French, and Italian traders

31 had operated freely there; the country was nominally under Turkish sovereignty, but by i88o French influence was predominant. The French action seemed to threaten British interests in Egypt and the Mediterranean. One of her first aggressive acts in 1881 was the eviction of a British claimant to property sought by a French company.'** Guest, together with A. M. W. Broadley, a lawyer and journalist, and other Tunisian and Italian sympa- thizers, sought to draw British public attention to this incident and to following French actions, both through the press and by speeches and questions in Parliament. The British Government did little beyond making token gestures of disapproval, to the disgust of the Queen.'"^ Granville, the Foreign Secretary, was at first ready to seek some form of international action but Gladstone and the Cabinet as a whole felt bound by Lord Salis- bury's invitation to the French in 1878, at the Congress of Berlin, to annex Tunisia. Salisbury had hoped thus to still French protests at British action in taking Cyprus from the Turks, and Gladstone feared that any protest concerning Tunis would reopen discussions concerning the position of Cyprus. He also needed French support for British interests in Egypt, the Mediterranean, and Constantinople. He and Granville took refuge in the mistaken belief that the French would not annex Tunis ;'^ they replied politely to Guest's communications but did nothing beyond trying to play down the affair. They were aided by '. . . the apathy or disinclination of the Opposition Leaders to any discussion of this matter . . .'; Salisbury, the Opposition Leader, was 'too far com- mitted . . .'; consequently "... A few phrases and John Bull in or out of the House of Commons is silenced if not satisfied'.'*^ After some initial success in attracting the interest of the press and public opinion. Guest's eflbrts failed. He was encouraged in his efforts by correspondents in Italy and Tunisia to oppose this affront to British power and to support the Italian case.'^ Guest was in part concerned with the French disregard for past agreements and with the weakening of Ottoman prestige, but he was mainly concerned with British commercial and strategic interests. In his pamphlet The Tunisian Question and Bizerta, he stressed the threat to British naval power and trade from French control of Tunisia and its port of Bizerta; the French had disregarded earlier treaties, and if they chose to disregard other treaties they could expand their territories still further in North Africa, to the disadvantage of the British. The port of Bizerta could be used to threaten the British hold on Malta and the British position in the Mediterranean, and British trade with Tunisia could be affected by French-imposed tariffs. The interests of British bondholders might be adversely affected. Malta had become increasingly dependent on Tunis for grain and cattle; the existing Free Trade system in the area was now at risk. He chose to ignore the recent Italian intrigues in the territory, although they could also have proved dangerous for Britain. Guest in effect accused the Gladstone Government of failing to protect British interests and to keep the area open to British trade. In fact Guest need not have worried; Granville in May 1881 obtained French assurances concerning British interests in Tunis.'^ But the Government had appeared to lose control over events. Guest may have had other motives for his actions; his brother-in-law. Sir Henry Layard, long a prominent if controversial diplomat and a fierce critic of Gladstone's foreign policy in the 1870s, was recalled from his post as

32 Ambassador at Constantinople in 1880, and removed from his post in March 1881; he was not given another post, although he had been removed from office shortly before he would have become eligible for a pension. Guest resented this treatment of his relative and may have been only too ready to cause the Government embarrassment. Lady Layard, and possibly Layard himself, helped Guest with his campaign; Layard still hoped for some Government employment, but may have welcomed this chance to cause trouble.^^ Layard has been described as the first Liberal imperialist; Guest was an instinctive imperialist though he supported no imperialist plans - he wanted international agreements concerning North Africa to be observed; he supported Gladstone's Afghanistan and Sudan policies; he put forward no solutions, military or otherwise, to the Tunis problem beyond that of making Bizerta a neutral port; he merely called for some action to protect British strategic and trade interests.^^ He was representative, however, of a small but vocal section of the population, who later came to be attracted to schemes to protect British interests and uphold her honour and power. It is not surprising that Guest with his views on Ireland, foreign policy, and agricultural conditions should have become disenchanted with Gladstone. Moreover, his mixed Radical and Unionist- Imperialist instincts alienated him from both the Gladstonians and the Whiggish Liberals at a time when social questions, Egypt, and, above all, Irish policy were coming to dominate British politics. His views and attitude to his Parliamentary duties led him to clash with Liberals in his own neighbourhood. From 1869 he had been establishing his influence in the borough of Wareham. The borough had long been the scene of a political rivalry between the families of Drax and Calcraft; after 1841 J. S. W.S.Erie Drax had established himself asWareham'sM.P.,losingtoaCalcraftonly in 1857, 1865, and 1868; in late 1868J.H. M. Calcraft, the recently-elected M.P., died and Drax once more took his seat in Parliament, defeating Calcraft's brother." Guest was invited in 1874 to contest the seat in the Calcraft interest but was convincingly defeated.^^ Guest, however, now enjoyed the support of the Calcrafts, and had fair hopes of succeeding the ageing Drax; unaccountably in 1880 he sought to contest Youghal once more, 'which is about the most hopeless thing he could do, standing against a Conservative Home Ruler'. He was warned off Youghal, however, by Adam the Liberal Whip, and 'very judiciously' resumed canvassing Wareham, driving away an interloper, who, it had been wrongly reported, had been sent down by the Liberal Central Association.^ He defeated the octogenarian Drax, on a moderate Liberal platform, opposing any attempts to weaken Ireland's links with England.^^ The number of small pocket boroughs like Wareham had been sharply reduced by the Reform Act of 1867 and the survivors were swept away by the Act of 1884. Wareham was dis- franchised and merged into the East Dorset or Poole constituency. Guest considered that he had a claim to the new seat, and declared his intention of contesting it at the next election.^^ There is some evidence that Guest had not done all that was expected of him as an M.P., although he had paid annual visits to Wareham.^? He now became a victim of a new power in the constituency. A Liberal Association had been formed, and this body called on Charles Waring, a contractor with considerable local influence, who

33 had in the past been M.P. for the old borough of Poole, to stand as Liberal candidate in 1885. Waring was the declared enemy of Guest's brother. Lord Wimborne, having been defeated by his influence in past elections. Guest was asked by a Government Whip to withdraw, as his standing would 'only split the party'. Guest angrily refused, attacking the 'self-constituted delegates of the so-called Liberal Association' as 'only a section' of local Liberal opinion, and blaming the situation on the Liberal leaders of East Dorset who had sent Waring down, having earlier invited Guest to stand, 'to do what they can to spoil my chance on account of my votes in connexion with the Egyptian Question ... I am not prepared to throw away 12 years' work and two contested Elections in the Division for the sake of your wish to nominate Waring in my place . . .'. The Liberal Whip, Lord Richard Grosvenor, refuted Guest's charges, pointing out that Waring had been selected without his (Waring's) knowledge: '. . . if you persist in standing the Liberal Associations will start another candidate without asking my or anyone else's opinion ... if the leaders had done their utmost to force your name on the Constituency, they would have failed . . .'^^ Grosvenor wrote again in May 1885, asking Guest to 'allow yourself to be nominated as the selected Candidate by the Liberal Association of the Eastern Division ... I would promise to use my best endeavours to get the Liberal Association to select you . . .'. If Guest failed he would be in a better position, '& we could say that we should not approve of any other Candidate being selected . . .'. Otherwise the Party would be bound to assist the Liberal Association's choice. Guest agreed but 'I was rejected - If I had held my own ground ... I should have got in - I could not stand after I had accepted the compact.'^'' Lord Wimborne wrote: 'Monty has been rejected by the Poole Radicals as too much of a gentleman . . .'^^ There may have been some truth in this; but the Poole Radicals did not make up the whole Liberal constituency. Guest was partly rejected on account of his independent views but also probably because he was the brother of the most important Conservative landowner in the division who had assisted at 'two meetings of the Primrose League to start an organisation to oust these humbugs from power if possible . . .'.-^' One of the meetings had been held at Canford Hall. Following the 1884 Reform Act, Conservative and Whig landowners, rural labourers, and urban Radicals, were brought into close contact - if not into conflict - often for the first time and new local organizations frequently had to be formed, or existing ones extended to accom- modate the different groups which then made up the Liberal and Conservative parties. The latter party appear to have weathered the changes rather better than the former. The Poole Radicals' efforts to obtain a candidate to their liking were unsuccessful; with or without their consent, the Liberals of East Dorset chose Pascoe Charles Glyn, son of Lord Wolverton, a local and national Liberal leader, as their candidate; he was returned in 1885 only to be defeated as a Home Ruler in 1886. Whether Glyn was finally supported by the Liberal Association or was forced upon them, it is clear that in East Dorset and probably in other similar seats where town and country came together for the first time the urban Liberals had to consent to be led by the traditional leaders of

34 the party.32 Guest's papers reveal the balance of interests in the Liberal Party of the mid-i88os, before the disaster of 1886. The central party organs were becoming important; central authority persuaded Guest not to stand at Youghal in 1880, and helped him to drive ofif a rival Liberal at Wareham; it helped to arrange the East Dorset com- promise in 1885; but it could not hope to override the Liberal Association or to influence decisively the local Liberal magnates, who clearly did nothing to help Guest even if they did not conspire against him. The Association and the local leaders still relied on each other for support, and the former was still to some extent a junior partner in the alliance. At the same time the Association demanded more whole-hearted support for Gladstone than Guest from his record was likely to give. The agricultural labourers in the constituency seem to have had little impact on party affairs. Guest did not obtain a seat in 1885 and was to break finally with Gladstone over Home Rule. He never stood for Parliament again; probably this did not cause him much concern; he turned down an excellent chance of being elected as a Unionist for Peter- borough in 1889; the Fitzwilliams, the traditional patrons of the borough, and the Conservatives would have supported him; prospects at Merthyr and at Southampton came to nothing.^^ He still played a part in public life. In 1889 he was elected to the Dorset County Council for Bere Regis; he had earlier shown interest in prison admini- stration and was appointed a Visitor to Portland Prison by the Salisbury Government. He devoted much time to his interests; he helped to reorganize the Isle of Purbeck Yacht Club, and to raise financial support for the Dorchester Museum; as Provincial Grand Master of Dorset he patronized Masonic causes in the county. He is best remembered today for his edition of the journal of Lady Charlotte Schreiber, which was published shortly after his death.^-^ He, like other men of some means and leisure, appears to have combined an active London social life with the life of a sportsman and a country gentleman, both during and after his brief political career. Guest's papers do not, unfortunately, give a full picture of the man or of his relations with his family; very few copies of his letters survive; his papers give very little informa- tion about his life after about 1895. What remains indicates that Guest himself was only a minor figure in late Victorian England outside the county of Dorset; but his papers cast light on the political opinions of one Liberal backbencher during Gladstone's first and second administrations, on the political divisions then developing in a once Whig landowning family, on the way in which family ties still influenced Parliamentary conduct, and on the condition of the Liberal Party in a rural constituency after the passing of the 1884 Reform Act and before the disruption of the party in 1886.

SYNOPSIS OF THE GUEST PAPERS

57934 Correspondence of Guest with members of the Royal Family and their officials, 1871-1903, n.d.; letters from Sir A.H. and Lady Layard, 1869-88; letters to Charles and Lady Charlotte Schreiber, 1880-6. 35 Political correspondence, 1871-81; 1882-99; n.d. 57937 Election and local political correspondence, 1868-95; ^•^• 57939 General letters to Guest, 1864-86; 1887-1904; n.d. 57940 Letters to Guest on Dorset affairs, 1877-92; miscellaneous letters and papers, 1827-1905; n.d. 57941 Typewritten extracts of letters from Sir A.H.Layard to the Marchioness of Huntly, mainly concerning the death of Guest's father. Sir Josiah John Guest; copied by Lady Layard at Weymouth, August 1894; 1851-8.

1 H. Pelling, Social Geography of British Elections Tunis at the time. Guest had recently visited i88yigio (1Q67), p. i36n. Tunis and knew something of French intrigues. 2 The Times, 10 Nov., 20 Dec. 1909. A. M. W. Broadley, The Last Punic War i (1882), 3 The Earl of Bessborough, Lady Charlotte 201-2. Schreiher, Extracts from her Journal iS^j-iSgi 16 R. Robinson, J. Gallacher, and A. Denny, Africa (1952), p. 100. and the Victorians (1961), pp-93-4; Agatha 4 Ibid.,, p. 57. The reasons for the Guests'desertion Ramm, The Political Correspondence of Mr. of Liberalism are obscure; probably they were Gladstone and Earl Granville i8y6-i886 i (1962), moved by dislike of Gladstone and of his Irish 262-5; Queen Victoria, Correspondence and Church policy. Journal, as note 15, Granville to the Queen, 5 Add, MS. S7937. Stephenson to Guest, 29 Sept. 14 Apr. 1881. See also W. L. Langer, 'The 1868. European Powers and the French Occupation 6 'That dirty little town of YoughaT was notorious of Tunis 1878-1881 \ American Historical Review.^ apparently for its expensive contests. N. Gash, xxxi {1925-6), 55-78,251-65. Polttus in the Age of Peel {1953), p. 56. 17 Add. MS. 57935, Granville to Guest, 5 Feb., 7 Add. MS. 57935; division list for 11 Mar. 1873 18 Mar., 27 Apr. 1881; E. W. Hamilton to Guest, with annotations by Guest, He gave no reason 21 Feb. i88i;Sir Arthur Otway to Guest, 30 May for his vote. 1881. Lord Randolph Churchill and Lords De La 8 Ibid. 14 Mar. 1873. Warr and Dunraven failed to arouse general 9 D. W. Bahlman, The Dtary of Sir Edward Walter interest in the House of Lords; The Times^ lead- Hamilton ii (1972), 562, 20 Feb. 1884. ing article, 22 June 1881. 10 Ibid., Add, MSS. 57935-6, passim; the Earl of 18 Add. MS. 57935, Admiral Sir Beauchamp Sey- Bessborough, op. cit., p. 188; see division lists for mour to Guest, 23 June 1881; Admiral Sir George 1880-5. Tryon to Guest, 29 July r88i; Count Maffei to 11 Layard Papers, Add. MS. 39036, fols. 80-3, Guest, 18 May 1881; Lady Bective to Guest, Guest to A. H. Eayard, 9 May 1882. 18 Apr. 1881. 12 Add. MS. 57935, R.Fooks to Guest, 11 June 19 The Tunisian Question and Bizerta., passim. 1872; Gladstone Papers, Add. MS. 44472, fols. M.M, Safwat, Tunis and the Great Powers, i8j8- 117-20, Guest to Gladstone, r8 Oct. 1881. 1881 (Alexandria, 1943), pp. 362-3. See also 13 Add. MS. 57936, Walter Wren to Guest, 15 Feb. Guest's letters to The Times, 8 Feb., 9-16 May 1885. His interest in the condition of the agricul- 1881. tural labourer may not have endeared him to the 20 See Bahlman, op. cit. ii. 135, 28 Apr. 1881; landowners of Dorset, and their support was to Ramm, op. cit. i. 259; Gordon Waterfield,/,aj'ar(/ become important to him later. See below. of Nineveh (1963), pp. 446, 457 et seq.; a draft of 14 See M,J. Guest, The Tunisian Question and a Parliamentary question on the subject, n.d., Bizerta (r88i), pp. 13-15- but probably 1881, is in Add. MS. 57934- 15 Queen's journal, 17 May 1881. Selections from 21 Waterfield, op. cit., p. 444; Guest made clear, in Her Majesty's Correspondence and Journal 1862- his letter to The Times of 16 May, his disapproval 1883, 2nd series (1928), vol. iii, p. 219; Add. MS. of. . . the rule which seems to be in fashion, that 57935, 1881, passtm. Broadley was resident in "might is right"'. 22 C.Dod, Parliamentary Companion {iS6g), p. 138; 29 Add. MS. 57937, Grosvenor to Guest, 15 May Return of the Members of Parliament (i^jS-g). 1885; endorsed by Guest. He was rejected by 23 Add. MS. 57937, W. M. Calcraft to Guest, 8 Dec. 69 votes to 15; The Times, 11 June 1885. 1873, 18 Jan. (1874); J.L.Egginton to Guest, 30 Layard Papers, Add. MS. 39038, Lord Wim- 27 Jan. 1874; Sarah Egginton to Guest, n.d. borne to Layard, 22 June 1885. (1873-4); H.J.Cove to Guest, 10 Feb. 1874. 31 Ibid. 24 The Earl of Bessborough, op. cit., pp. 162-^3 (15 32 The Times, i July 1885; J.R.Vincent and and 17 Mar. 1880); Add. MS. 57937, W. P. Adam M. Stenton, McCalmont's Parliamentary Poll- to Guest, 15 Mar. 1880. Adam denied that the book 1832-1918 {1971), p. 65. The Liberal newcomer came from the Liberal Club. Association in the Poole Division seems to have 25 M. J. Guest 451; J. S. W. S. Erie Drax 416. Dod, been a Radical body. In June the Association op. cit., 2nd edn. {1880), pp. 150, 228-9. was trying to obtain Walter Wren, a middle class 26 Add. MS. 57937, Guest to Lord Richard Radical and supporter of Joseph Arch, as their Grosvenor, 17 Apr. 1885. candidate; Waring failed to come forward 27 See a letter to Guest from some constituents in apparently. The Times., as note 29. Sir William Harcourt to Guest, Add. MS. 57937, 33 Add. MS. 57937, Gwilym Jones to Guest, 4 Feb. 19 Dec. 1882. 1888; Marquess of Huntly to Guest, 19, 21 Sept. 28 Ibid., Lord Richard Grosvenor to Guest, 17, 1889; Tankerville Chamberlain to Guest, 22 Dec. 20 Apr. 1885; Guest to Grosvenor, 17 Apr. 1885; 1895. For Peterborough, long controlled by the Earl of Bessborough, op. cit., p. 164. Waring was Fitzwilliam family, see H. Pelling, op. cit., p. 112. reputed to have been determined in 1880 'that 34 Add. MSS. 57936, 57937-40, passim; M. J. if it cost him ^(^40,000 no friend of Ivor's shall Guest, Lady Charlotte Schreiber's Journals, 2 vols. ever sit for (Poole)'. (1911).