HYLTON FAMILY OF AMMERDOWN, KILMENSDON. (POLITICAL PAPERS OF SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFE)

Sir William George Hylton Jolliffe, 1st. Baron Hylton (1800-1876), (For a history of the Jolliffe family, see Lord Hylton, The Jolliffes of Staffordshire and their Descendants (1892).) was Chief Whip of the Conservative party from 1853 to 1859. Under his aegis the firm foundations which the Conservative party had enjoyed during the leadership of Sir Robert Peel, and which had been destroyed in the political earthquake of 1846, were gradually rebuilt.

Jolliffe (like his distinguished Peelite predecessor, Sir Thomas Fremantle) was a landed country-gentleman (John Bateman's The Great Landowners of Great Britain and Ireland, published in 1876 (the year of Sir William Jolliffe's death) attributes to Jolliffe's heir possession of 10,058 acres in Surrey, Somerset and Hampshire, with a gross annual rental of £17,072.) with few ministerial ambitions, (Jolliffe's experience of ministerial office was restricted to a brief tenure of the Under-Secretaryship of State for the Home Department in Derby's celebrated 'Who, Who' administration of 1852. He represented Petersfield in Hampshire from 1833-1835, and from 1837-1866.) 'well connected with the network of Conservative families and therefore able to exercise powerful influence over the backbenchers and move easily in the complex tangle of local influences which determined the character of constituency politics'. (Robert Stewart, The Foundation of the Conservative Party, 1830-1867 (1978), 279.) Though Jolliffe always regarded himself as Lord Derby's man, (Jolliffe's feelings of respect for Derby were undoubtedly reciprocated. See DD/HY/18/3/2.) his appointment owed most to the influence of Benjamin Disraeli.

Following the Conservative defeat at the General Election of 1852, Disraeli realised the desperate need for a thoroughgoing re-organization of the party, both inside and outside the House of Commons. (Stewart, Foundation of the Conservative Party, 278. In a letter from Lord Malmesbury on 12 January 1853, Disraeli was urged to turn his attention to the problems of party organization: 'I cannot refrain from urging on you before we begin a new lease of Opposition, the absolute necessity of reforming our personnel and getting matters into an administrative form ... Had you twice the talent and eloquence you possess, you could do nothing ... It is better to fail in orators to back you by words than in men to back you by votes. We lost the Elections from bad management and are out in consequence.' Hughenden Mss. B/XX/Hs/29.) In Jolliffe, Disraeli believed he had found the ideal man to manage the intractable political material of the Tory backbenches, and to co-operate with the party's election manager outside Parliament, Philip Rose. (Stewart, 279. Jolliffe was appointed with the full concurrence of Lord Derby who told Disraeli that he looked forward to 'very useful results from his popularity and tact' and that he expected Jolliffe to 'do much towards reuniting the disjecta membra of our body politic'.) It proved to be an inspired choice.

From the beginning Jolliffe took a wide view of his duties. In an Agenda, written in 1853, (DD/HY/24/19/205.) he outlined his programme of action:

1. Procure Books with 'Electoral Facts' - leaving several pages to each County, District and Borough.

2. Transfer information already obtained to the respective places in private Book whence such as is desirable may be transferred for General reference.

3. Correct 'Electoral Facts' so far as is necessary by the proceedings in Committee this Session.

4. When opportunity occurs ascertain and note in working Book all useful intelligence:

1. As to men of Influence in the place;

2. What description of Candidate most likely to succeed;

3. Particulars of former elections;

4. Number of freemen;

5. Number of houses and rental;

6. Population last census;

7. Registered electors (last register).

5. Make list of Counties, Cities and Boroughs where no Conservative Agent.

6. Investigate the case of all places where no Conservative member:

1. by enquiring of any neighbouring influential supporters;

2. by independent enquiries made as may be thought prudent;

3. Ascertain who are the influential people on the other side and whether the non-success is caused by supineness or otherwise.

7. Obtain Election cases for reference.

8. Get Parliamentary report of election proceedings of this session and analyse.

Jolliffe followed this plan almost to the letter. The result was not only a vast improvement in the standards and efficiency of Conservative party organization, but the accumulation of a rich collection of political papers, perhaps the richest of its kind in existence.

The political papers of Sir William Jolliffe form a small part of the Hylton of Ammerdown Mss., placed on long-term loan in the Somerset Record Office by Lord Hylton. The political papers consist of two stout boxes (18 and 24) and a small red folder, totalling over 3,000 items. The papers throw much light on Jolliffe's role as Chief Whip, particularly his relationship with the party's electoral managers inside and outside the House. His chief correspondendents include: Philip Rose, (Sir Philip Rose, Bt. (1816-1883); of the firm Baxter, Rose, Norton & Company, Solicitors and Electoral Agents to the Conservative party; Disraeli's solicitor; Chairman of the Conservative Central Committee, 1853-1859, and (in effect) the Conservative party's election manager; retired in semi-disgrace in 1859 after damaging revelations about his role in corruptly compromising election petitions.) Markham Spofforth, (Markham Spofforth; Rose's assistant, and his successor as Chairman of the Conservative Central Committee, 1859-1870; shrewd and unscrupulous.) Col. T.E. Taylor, (Col. Thomas Edward Taylor (1812-1883); MP County Dublin, 1841-1883; assistant to Sir William Jolliffe, 1853-1859; Chief Whip, 1859-1868, 1873-1874; Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, 1868, 1874-1880.) and George Hamilton. (George Alexander Hamilton (1802-1871); MP Dublin University; Conservative election manager in Ireland in the 1850s.) More importantly, perhaps, they provide material for a study of constituency politics, especially those middling boroughs, such as Devonport and Weymouth, with which mid-Victorian political organizers felt most at home, and (as in the case of Sir William Jolliffe) for which they mostly sat in the House of Commons. Of particular interest in this respect is the leather-bound note-book entitled 'A List of English Boroughs With Names of Parliamentary Candidates & Notes Prepared for Sir William Jolliffe, Chief Conservative Whip, 1859', (DD/HY/24/Unbundled Items.) and the numerous letters from Samuel Triscott, an employee of the Royal Naval Dockyard at Plymouth, a zealous Conservative supporter and prime source of political intelligence for Devon and Cornwall. The papers also afford an insight into Conservative attempts to reform the franchise in 1859 and the opportunities and difficulties which this presented from the point of view of the party managers. The Conservative party's troubled relationship with the Press and the distribution of political patronage are also well covered.

Suprisingly, this extensive and valuable collection has been little used by scholars. Professor H.J. Hanham had access to them while they were still in private hands, but made comparatively modest use of them in his important study of Elections and Party Management: Politics in the Time of Disraeli and Gladstone (1959). Lord Derby's biographer, W.D. Jones, (W.D. Jones, Lord Derby and Victorian Conservatism (Oxford, 1956).) made no use of the papers at all, which perhaps accounts for his consistent mis-spelling of Sir William Jolliffe's name. (Jones mis-spells Jolliffe as 'Joliffe' throughout the book.) The first scholar to make a significant use of the papers has been Professor Robert Stewart, whose book, The Foundation of the Conservative Party (1978), contains a section on the 'Party under Jolliffe' (pp. 325-339). (Professor Stewart is pre-eminently a 'front-historian; his attention rarely strays to the of provincial and constituency affairs. His use of the Jolliffe papers is thus principally to support an account of the central development of the Conservative party. As such it is valuable and worthwhile, but it ignores the rich material on local affairs almost entirely. Professor Stewart's contribution to the establishment of the reputation and importance of Sir William Jolliffe is to be welcomed, but his use of the papers is marred by vagueness in referencing (sometimes only the Box number is given), and carelesness in transcribing or deciphering the names of correspondents.) Professor Stewart's treatment, however, is far from exhaustive and much untapped material remains to excite scholarly attention.

In the catalogue I have aimed at showing the name of the correspondent (in the case of letters), or the nature of the document (in other cases) and the date. Where this information is not specifically stated (or is unclear), but where it can be deduced (or safely assumed) from internal (or other) evidence the relevant details are given in square brackets. Where possible, brief biographical information about the correspondent is given in square brackets after his name. Uncertain information or attribution is shown by the use of a question mark in square brackets. All letters are to Sir William Jolliffe, unless otherwise stated. All Members of Parliament referred to in the text are Conservatives or Liberal-Conservatives, unless otherwise stated. Where information is available about Sir William Jolliffe's correspondents who were not Members of Parliament (usually from the constituency note-book prepared for Jolliffe in 1859), (DD/HY/24/Unbundled Items.) I have chosen to use the description 'Conservative supporter and activist', unless the person is specifically described as 'Conservative agent'.

The deciphering of the numerous difficult signatures and initials and the provision of biographical information was greatly forwarded by reference to the Who's Who of British Members of Parliament, I, 1832-1885 (Ed. Michael Stenton, Harvester Press, 1976) (This was an indispensable work, but it contains numerous errors of fact and spelling and should (on occasion) be used with caution.) and to F.W.S. Craig's excellent British Parliamentary Election Results, 1832-1885 (Macmillan, 1977).

C/1961