Another very famous political character in the early 19th century was Robert Banks Jenkinson, 2nd Earl of Liverpool born in 1770. He was a Tory politician, and in May 1812, after the assassination of Spencer Percival. Liverpool remained in office until his resignation due to ill health in February 1827. He died in 1828.
The first source is a letter written in 1819 by William Huskisson (1770-1830), Tory MP for Liverpool to his wife. It says that the government is embarrassed about a certain situation, Huskisson then says that the government can blame ‘the genius of Old Mouldy’. Hukisson talks about his leader in a very diminutive manner, the source tells us that Liverpool was maybe a bad Prime Minister, even his own cabinet members seem to be very critical of his abilities. Huskisson also says in his letter that ‘Liverpool is in one of his grand fidgetts’ he is certainly not portraying a good picture of the person who is running the whole country. I think that Huskisson is being critical out of spite, as he is obviously away from his wife and things are becoming increasingly difficult in parliament. The letter was probably written to entertain his wife, the phrase ‘Old Mouldy’ is quite comical. I don’t think this portrays a very fair picture of Liverpool I think it can show us that maybe his MP’s haven’t got a lot of respect for him or they don’t think his personality is very agreeable.
The next source is from the 1821 diary of Mrs Harriet Arbuthnot, wife of a Tory politician and friend of the Duke of Wellington, who served as Prime Minister from 1828 to 1830. Harriet says in her diary that ‘Lord Liverpool is in a great fuss and it is quite childish, a man so repeatedly saying that he wants to resign and then sticking like a leach to his position.’ Obviously she thinks that he is a bit of a cry baby, she thinks that he says he wants to resign and seems very relaxed about the idea of resigning, in the next breath he is ‘sticking like a leach’ to his position, as she describes it. She goes on to say ‘He has a disagreeable, cold manner and a most irritable temper’ Liverpool has a very tempestuous personality she says that he personality make it ‘unpleasant to act in public life with him’. She does have some praise for Liverpool she describes him as a ‘man conscientiously devoted to the service and the real good of his country’. This source could be unreliable because she could just be praising Liverpool for the simple reason that he is a Tory and so is she. It is evident that she finds the man ‘disagreeable’ and therefore she doesn’t think he is a good public figure. On the other hand it is her dairy, she wouldn’t have the need to lie, because she doesn’t think anyone will see it. I think that in comparison to the other source it clearly shows that Liverpool maybe wasn’t very public spirited, but he obviously wasn’t politically incompetent, other wise he wouldn’t have been in office for 15 years.
A novel from Benjamin Disraeli (1844) called ‘Coningsby’ is the other source, which I will be looking at. Disraeli served two terms as Tory Prime Minister in 1868 and from 1874 until 1880. Disraeli describes Liverpool and his government ‘The arch-mediocrity who presided rather that ruled over his cabinet of mediocrities’. He is saying that the Tory government of the time was a farce and its leader was a bad ruler who just looked on rather than getting involved. He says that Liverpool’s methods were ‘frigid’ and he had ‘meagre diligence’ which basically meant he was lazy and very stubborn in his ruling methods. Disraeli also comments on Liverpool’s public ability he states that ‘in the conduct of public affairs his disposition was exactly the reverse of that which is the characteristic of great men’. I think that Disraeli was jealous of Liverpool. Liverpool had been in office for a much longer period than Disraeli had been, and also Disraeli most certainly wanted to be recognised as one of the most significant Prime Ministers of the 19th century. Liverpool, being the longest reining Prime Minister in British history, was standing in his way. In relation to the way which Liverpool dealt with public relations, I think possibly Liverpool was not a particularly good public ambassador, but that doesn’t mean he was a bad Prime Minister. I don’t believe this source is reliable, except when compared with other sources they seem to be building the same picture, Liverpool wasn’t good with public relations.
Professor Asa Briggs (1974) writes the final source from a book called ‘The Prime Ministers’. Briggs disagrees with the other sources saying that Liverpool ‘To his public life brought qualities which few Prime Ministers have equalled’. Remembering that Briggs has hindsight and is not directly or indirectly linked to Liverpool’s reign I think that this is quite reliable evidence. Briggs also states that Liverpool ‘was prompt and decisive when the time came for action’ this is a quality that hasn’t been described, Liverpool’s ability to deal with political matters. It is also thought that ‘He never dismissed a minister: he was never ungrateful or disloyal’ this tells us that Liverpool never made decisions with out the help of his cabinet or ministers. The most important line in this passage is ‘the more the 19th century is put in to perspective the more significant does Liverpool’s role appear’. This comment is made from having hindsight, Liverpool made a big difference to the 19th century. Liverpool was diligent and very decisive when the occasion called for it. I still can not make a clear comment about Liverpool’s public ability, but he was defiantly not an arch-mediocrity, as Disraeli described him to be.
The next person I will be looking at is Robert Stewart, Viscount Castlereagh, later the Earl of Londonderry. Castlereagh was born in 1769. He was appointed as Foreign Secretary from 1812 to 1822 and also leader of the House of Commons until 1821 when he succeeded to the earldom. He committed suicide in August 1822. The first source was written by Lord Byron from ‘The Dedication to Don Juan’, a poem. The poem says that Castlereagh liked ‘Dabbling his sleek young hands in Erin’s gore’ Erin, meaning Ireland, means that Castlereagh always tried to get involved in Irish affairs, and relations with England and Ireland wasn’t that good. Lord Byron also says about Castlereagh ‘The vulgarest tool that Tyranny could want’. Byron is comparing Castlereagh with a lone criminal. It also states that Castlereagh only had ‘just enough talent, and no more’, Byron obviously thinks that he is incompetent and has only enough talent to get into government. Another contemporary poem reads ‘I met murder on the way. He wore the mask of Castlereagh’. I think these show a good public view of Castlereagh, he wasn’t popular. Although these poems were written by strong anti-government people i.e. Lord Byron, so they could not show a liberal view of Castlereagh only, the radical’s view.
Another piece of evidence written by Thomas Creevey, who was a Whig MP, in 1822 states that ‘Now that Castlereagh is dead, I defy any human being to discover a single feature of his character that can stand a moment’s criticism. A worse public man never existed.’ Obviously Creevey didn’t have very high opinions of Castlereagh, the other source is also equally as critical of him. I think it would be wrong to assume that Castlereagh was a horrible character, as Creevey is a member of the opposition party and the other source was written by radicals. The two sources do give us a perspective of what the opinions of his colleges and maybe an overview of what people thought of him. It certainly doesn’t give us a non-bias opinion, Creevey most definitely didn’t know him socially, although Creevey, being an MP would have known Castlereagh’s public manner and how he handled government issues.
The next source is from Mrs Harriet Arbuthnot’s dairy, dating from 1822. She praises him very highly she says that ‘He managed foreign affairs of the country with a judgement and ability that will and down his name with honour’. This paints a very different picture to that of the other two sources she is clearly very sure of what she is saying, she was the wife of an MP at the time and would have probably met him. She was also a supporter of the Tory party which meant that she could have been biased in her views, although it is a dairy and she would have no reason to lie so this is quite a reliable source. She also seems angry with Castlereagh’s opponents as she talks about him being very diligent with foreign affairs and that he will be able to hand down his name ‘with honour to posterity when those of his revilers will be buried in oblivion’. I think that this confirms that he was quite an intelligent politician and he handled the affairs of the country well and with out fault. She does not mention his public abilities, this may suggest that he was not very good at keeping a public image, which matched his obvious political abilities.
The final source from ‘Castlereagh’, by J.W. Derry (1976) suggests that it wasn’t his political or public abilities that were failing, it was because he was the person left to deal with the unpleasant areas of Liverpool’s government, which made him a hated figure in politics and in public. Derry say ‘Castlereagh became so hated because it fell to him to defend the unpopular measures of Liverpool’s government’. On his political views Derry comments ‘his attitudes were liberal on many of the issues of the day – disenfranchisement of corrupt boroughs, Catholic emancipation’. I believe this gives us the knowledge that Castlereagh was an invaluable figure in Liverpool’s government. He dealt with areas which people felt were unfair or wrong and he handled them with a liberal out look. He had a very good political standing he was an intelligent, excellently minded young man with a very good knowledge of public politics, basically Castlereagh was the governments’ ‘fall boy’. He took all the problems and helped sort them. Derry also comments that ‘Had he lived, he would have been a good choice to succeed Liverpool as Prime Minister’. I think that because of hindsight Derry would have a very good knowledge of the era and the things that went on, Castlereagh evidently played an important role. I think that Derry’s statement about Catlereagh making a good Prime Minister was a bit strong. If Castlereagh was hated as much as is said then he wouldn’t have made a good public Prime Minister, riots may have plagued his government. I think that although historians have hindsight they do not possess the ethos of the time so this may cloud their view on certain areas.
The next famous political figure that I will be discussing is Henry Addington, Viscount Sidmouth. Sidmouth was born in 1757 he was the son of a successful London doctor. He served as Speaker of the House of Commons and then Prime Minister from 1801 to 1804. From 1812 to 1821 he served as Home Secretary. He died in 1844. The first source is from ‘Passages in the Life of a Radical’, an autobiography by Samuel Bamford (1839). Bamford was a Lancashire weaver and political radical who was aressted in 1817 on suspicion of revolutionary activity. He was brought to London and questioned by Sidmouth about his activities before being released. In Bamford’s description of the event he says that Sidmouth’s ‘forehead was broad and prominent and from their cavernous orbits looked mild and intelligent eyes. Considering we are talking about a radical, this is a very endearing complement to Sidmouth, and indeed the whole government. It is very odd that this radical, accused of revolutionary activities, is being so nice. He is saying that Sidmouth is intelligent and very mild he also adds ‘His manner was affable and much more encouraging to freedom of speech than I had expected’. Sidmouth obviously shocked this character; Bamford must have thought all government officials to be very arrogant, pretentious and pompous characters he was surprised at Sidmouth’s fairness and understanding. I believe this piece of evidence is important, it clearly shows that Sidmouth had good social skills, good enough to make a revolutionary like him. It also shows that he wasn’t against freedom of speech, which could essentially mean that he was helping to reform parliament.
The next source from ‘Addington’, by Philip Ziegler (1965) depicts a totally different story of Sidmouth. ‘Addington was almost as convinced a reactionary as he has been depicted’ obviously this does not show a good picture of Sidmouth, Ziegler is almost saying that Sidmouth was delusional. It goes on to say that Sidmouth’s talents were ‘in no way extraordinary’. Sidmouth, I think was a better at publicity than actually doing what he said, his words meant nothing. Ziegler also says ‘As a minister he was responsible, conscientious and far from ineffectual’, Sidmouth could act well as a Minister advising and giving speeches, but not as a cabinet minister. ‘As Home Secretary he was violently controversial’ as his public imagery was very important, he tried violently to keep his image as a reactor and facilitator, but instead he became terribly controversial. Ziegler said that ‘On almost every contraversial issue of the day he was found securely entrenched on the wrong side’ this supports my claim that he was trying to be what he was obviously not, a reformer. I think that the most important sentence is ‘Addington emerges as a good man, doing his best to administer an ill-judged policy with charity, humanity and above all absolute fairness’. Sidmouth wasn’t the best man for the job in fact he was very limited in his abilities, I think that one ability which he didn’t find hard was talking and interacting with the public, which is clearly shown in the first source. Addington brought courteous and sincere qualities to a political system which was under fire.
The next important character that I will be looking at is George Canning, born in 1770. The grandson of an Irish landowner, he was brought up in the household of William Pitt, the Prime Minister from 1783-1801 and 1804-1806. Canning’s mother, left a penniless widow, committed the social indiscretion of becoming an actress to make some money. Canning’s feud with Castlereagh prevented him him holding a senior position from 1812-22, but after Castlereagh’s death, Canning became Foreign Secretary. He then succeeded Liverpool as Prime Minister in February 1827 only to die a few months later in August.
The first source is from ‘The Political House that Jack Built’ by William Home (1819). It is a poem which reads
This is THE DOCTOR of circular fame
A Driviller, a Bigot, A Knave without shame
And that’s DERRY DOWN TRIANGLE, by name
From the land of misrule, and half-hanging and flame:
And that is THE SPOUTER OF FROTH BY THE HOUR
The worthless colleague of their infamous power.
The Doctor is referring to Sidmouth, the Derry Down Triangle is Castlereagh and The Spouter Of Froth By The Hour is Canning. This poem is poking fun at all of them; Canning and Castlereagh had a big feud between them which the public saw as childish, it also stopped both of them from becoming senior members in parliament. Sidmouth is referred to as a bigot; this is because of his controversial style of politics. Canning is said to be ‘The Spouter Of Froth By The Hour’, this means that he says things purely to get the support of the government, he basically lies to get his own way. The picture shows Canning standing in a very proud way he looks very confident and in control, but the other two are carrying a whip and a gun, it is poking fun at the childish squabbles which the three have.
The next source is from ‘The political register’, 12th October 1822, a radical newspaper edited by William Cobbett, a journalist and opponent of Liverpool’s government. Cobbett supports the view that Canning has a bit of a one track mind and therefore uses his powers to influence others to voting his way. Cobbett says Canning ‘had but one principle object in view: namely, to prevent any change in the system by which this country has been governed for many years past’. Cobbett is not being unfair, I think that Canning could have been and was a very talented politician, but he had only the one passion, and that was non-reforming of the political system in England.
The final source is from the ‘Annual Register’, published in 1827. It says about Canning ‘Europe lost in him the ablest statesman and the House of Commons the finest orator of his day’. It is clear that Canning was a very good politician, but his cause for attention was wrong, he was a devout member of the old system and spent most if not all of his political career upholding the system.
In conclusion I think the reasons for historians differed views are down to certain factors such as hindsight. This is a particularly useful tool to a historian as they can look with non-biased opinions at certain factors which haven’t been explored, also they have access to documents which were not available at the time. Another important factor is actually having the ability to look from the perspective of people who have actually been in that era or that time, they have knowledge of how life was like and what they thought of certain people without the ability of hindsight. Most importantly is the historians’ own political view, all sources can be interpreted differently which is why so many opinions are given.