Abstract
The Leadership of the House of Commons is the least explored aspect of Castlereagh’s career; it is also one of the most criticised. It coincided with one of the greatest eras of popular distress and discontent in British history. Yet even this phase of his career has its admirers. Sir Charles Webster has described him as the best manager of the Commons since Walpole,1 and indeed once one has cut through party prejudice, a remarkable degree of unanimity is to be found among contemporary opinion. Creevey, one of his arch-critics, thought party management his only talent. ‘[He] managed a corrupt House of Commons pretty well, with some address. This is the whole of his intellectual merit.’ Greville, who confessed to little personal knowledge of Castlereagh, made a determined effort to sum up his career from the opinions of others. He concluded, ‘I believe he was considered one of the best managers of the House of Commons who ever sat in it, and he was eminently possessed of the good taste, good humour, and agreeable manners which are more requisite to make a good leader than eloquence, however brilliant.’ Lord John Russell, looking back over his vast experience of parliamentary life, remarked, ‘yet I never knew two men who had more influence in the House of Commons than Lord Castlereagh and Lord Althorp’.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
It will be noted in this chapter that I continue to exclude the word ‘Tory’ to describe the government. As late as 1812 the ministry rejected Opposition claims to the exclusive use of the title ‘Whig’, and it was not until about 1818 that the Grey-Grenville claims were widely accepted. Even then, the description ‘Tory’ was mainly used by writers and some backbenchers, and only very slowly by members of the government. A. S. Foord, His Majesty’s Opposition, 1714–1830 (1964), pp. 443 ff.
N. Gash, Politics in the Age of Peel (1953), passim. A. S. Foord, English Historical Review, lxii. 484–507.
C. J. Bartlett, Great Britain and Sea Power, 1815–53 (1963), pp. 7–8, 45–46, 297,
C. R. Fay, Huskisson and his Age (1951), p. 196. Aspinall, Arbuthnot, pp. 13–18.
See especially Е. P. Thompson, English Working Class (and the extensive review of this book in the Historical Journal, 1965, pp. 271–81),
D. Read, Peterloo (1958), White, From Waterloo to Peterloo, Gash, Peel, and H. P. Bridges, Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, v. 49–51. The case for Sidmouth and the Home Office has recently been restated very effectively by Ziegler, especially pp. 312ff.
Sir J. Clapham, Economic History of Modern Britain, (1926) i. 336.
Hansard, XXVV. 1069, new series, vi. 354. See also E. P. Thompson, pp. 356 ff., and S. G. Checkland, The Rise of Industrial Society in England, 1815–85 (1964), pp. 232–3.
For the long continuance of this attitude, see S. Nowell-Smith, Edwardian England (1964), pp. 57–58.
D. Southgate, The Passing of the Whigs (1962), p. 41. The government’s efforts to control the press separated them most sharply from the Whigs’ later conduct, see W. H. Wickwar, ‘The Struggle for the Freedom of the Press, 1819–32’, Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, v. 51–53.
See also A. Aspinall, Politics and the Press (1949), p. 60. Brougham, after Peterloo, expected many on his side of the House to welcome measures against the Radicals, especially ‘their vile press’ (see his Life and Times (1871), ii. 348).
For Grey’s hostility to the Radicals, see G. M. Trevelyan, Lord Grey of the Reform Bill (1920), pp. 182–8.
J. L. and B. Hammond, The Village Labourer (Guild Books, 1948), ii. 114–17.
H. Martineau, History of the Thirty Years’ Peace (1849), i. 286–7.
W. Harris, History of the Radical Party in Parliament (1885), pp. 163–5. Spencer Walpole (History of England from 1815 (1890), ii. 53) thought the effects of Castlereagh’s death ‘revolutionary’; he believed this ‘gave the deathblow to a system’.
See also Sir E. L. Woodward, The Age of Reform (1946), p. 67. Ziegler, p. 404, makes the more valid point that Castlereagh’s death made the infusion of new blood into the cabinet necessary, and by this indirect means the liberal element was strengthened.
The government’s financial policy at this time is a highly controversial subject; see Checkland, pp. 327–8, and H. C. Acworth, Financial Reconstruction in England, 1815–22 (1925).
English Historical Documents, 1783–1832, p. 19. Feiling, p. 279. W. R. Brock, Liverpool and Liberal Toryism (1941), p. 104.
Copyright information
© 1966 C. J. Bertlett
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Bertlett, C.J. (1966). Leader of the House of Commons 1812–22. In: Castlereagh. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-81795-5_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-81795-5_6
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-81797-9
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-81795-5
eBook Packages: Palgrave History CollectionHistory (R0)