| Election Name: | 1895 London County Council election |
| Country: | United Kingdom |
| Flag Image: | LCC arms 1914.png |
| Type: | parliamentary |
| Ongoing: | no |
| Party Colour: | yes |
| Previous Election: | 1892 London County Council election |
| Previous Year: | 1892 |
| Next Election: | 1898 London County Council election |
| Next Year: | 1898 |
| Election Date: | 2 March 1895 |
| Leader2: | Charles Ritchie |
| Leaders Seat2: | None |
| Party2: | Moderate (London) |
| Seats2: | 59 |
| Seat Change2: | 23 |
| Popular Vote2: | 140,310 |
| Image1: | Charles_Harrison.jpg |
| Leader1: | Charles Harrison |
| Leaders Seat1: | Bethnal Green South West |
| Party1: | Progressive Party (London) |
| Seats1: | 59 |
| Seat Change1: | 23 |
| Popular Vote1: | 134,663 |
An election to the County Council of London took place on 2 March 1895. The council was elected by First Past the Post with each elector having two votes in the two-member seats. The Moderates made numerous gains, and tied the Progressive Party in seats on the council.
The Progressives campaigned on their record of running the council, arguing that they had achieved far more than the Metropolitan Board of Works had, and also that the various Metropolitan Borough Councils should be unified and their powers given to the London County Council.[1] The Moderates argued that the Progressives had delayed in making improvements, and that measures should be taken to increase home ownership rates, rather than constructing council housing.[2]
The Earl of Onslow, a prominent figure in the Conservative Party, was expected to stand for the Moderates in Islington South, but he was disqualified as his nomination papers were not received in time.[3]
The Moderates gained 23 seats from the Progressives, and lost only one seat to them, tying both parties on 59 seats. Although the result was a tie, the Progressives held the majority of aldermanic seats on the council, and thus were able to retain control of it.[4]
The Times argued that the result was worse for Progressives than initially appeared, as they had not only lost seats, but many of their formerly safe seats were now marginal.[5] The Daily Chronicle argued that the poor result for the Progressives was due to apathy among workers, and that their vote had held steady among the middle class. In addition, it blamed the unsuccessful Independent Labour Party and Social Democratic Federation candidates for taking votes away from some Progressive candidates.[6]
| Party | Votes[7] | Seats | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number | % | Stood[8] | Seats | % | ||||
| 134,663 | 48.0 | 110 | 59 | 50.0 | ||||
| 140,310 | 50.0 | 116 | 59 | 50.0 | ||||
| 6 | 0 | 0.0 | ||||||
| 5 | 0 | 0.0 | ||||||
| 4 | 0 | 0.0 | ||||||
| 3 | 0 | 0.0 | ||||||