I should warn people that this blog post is going to be incredibly long. Its going to cover a total of around 100 years (50 years of the past and 50 years of the more recent past) of political maneuvering and characters ranging from relative depth to great depth. It is designed to draw a comparison between two similar periods of the Conservative Party history, and is drawn primarily from my opinions and what I can see. It is also done in an attempt to look back on our past, and perhaps give an insight into the future. It will not be a ‘face based’ article like others I will post. These are uncertain times, and what I write may prove to be horribly wrong in the coming months. But with that, I shall begin.
“History does not repeat itself but it does rhyme.”
Mark Twain
In the first century CE of the Roman Empire, a historian called Plutarch published his ‘Parallel Lives’ that compared many Ancient Greeks like Pericles and Lysander to people of the Roman Republic, like Fabius Maximus (Who you will remember I mentioned briefly at the beginning of my Cannae retelling) and Sulla. His aim was to point out similarities between the two sections of history. I attempt to much the same, and is the reason I have given this essay a matching title.
For those who do not know what Catholic Emancipation is, a better explanation can be found on my entry on Robert Peel. However, in brief it was the repealing of laws that prevented Roman Catholics from voting to holding public office. It was one of the most contentious and divisive issues of the time, much the same as the UK’s relationship in the EU is.
The Prime Ministers I shall be comparing are: William Pitt to Thatcher; The Prime Ministers of 1801-1812 with Major, Blair and Brown; Lord Liverpool and David Cameron; Canning and Goderich to The Tory Leadership election after Cameron’s resignation; and lastly, the Duke of Wellington to our current Prime Minister to Theresa May.
William Pitt the Younger, unlike most politicians of the time, was not born into a dynastic family. Whilst his mother was Hester Grenville, who did belong to an old Aristocratic family; he obviously did not inherit anything. His family had made their fortune in the East India Company. Pitt’s great grandfather was the famed Thomas “Diamond” Pitt. Having owned the Regent Diamond (Considered to be the most beautiful and purest diamond in the world and is something I may do an article on because of how cool a history its got), he made his families riches. Whilst Pitt’s father did become the Earl of Chatham, this was only in his late life, and it was a title that Pitt the Younger, being the second son, did not inherit. The peculiar thing about the Pitt’s is that they were not the norm. Most Prime Ministers ran from the Lords, the Pitt’s ran from the Commons.
Despite being a sickly child (which would begin his lifelong addiction to Port, which eventually caused his death), Pitt went to Pembroke College, Cambridge – aged just 14 years old. Whilst going to University younger than 18 was not extremely rare at the time, going at 14 was just as unusual then as it would be now. Despite this, he excelled. In fact, quite early on in his life his doctor prescribed him Horse Riding as he spent so much time in his room reading. When he was 18, he graduated from Cambridge, entered the Bar at Lincoln’s Inn, yet by the time he was 21 he wanted a change in career: he went for Parliament. In the election, he contested the seat of Cambridge University (because those existed as seats back then), but did not find luck. Yet thanks to his friend, the Duke of Rutland, he achieved a pocket borough seat in Appleby – a place he’d never even go to in his life.
Much like Pitt, Thatcher was born into a life that would not usually be associated with high office, for her time. Her father was a grocer. She came for humble beginnings, yet like Pitt she would go on to change British politics forever. She went to Somerville College, Oxford and similarly to Pitt went to the Bar at Lincoln’s Inn. Again, like Pitt she was originally unsuccessful having twice failed to get a seat in the 1950 and 1951 election. After spending some time looking after her twin children, she eventually found luck in 1959 in the seat of Finchley.
Both Thatcher and Pitt’s maiden speeches were peculiar. Pitt did not speak for weeks, until MPs called upon the veritable son of Chatham to speak without preparation on a bill introduced by Edmund Burke (yes, that one). Despite having no preparation, it was said Pitt spoke with a ‘transcendent eloquence’ (William Hague). When asked on his opinion of the American Revolution, Pitt said that it was ‘most accursed, wicked, barbarous, cruel, unnatural, unjust and diabolical’. From then on, Pitt was looked on in the Commons as one of the primary debaters. Thatcher’s Maiden Speech came under even more peculiar circumstances, in support of a Private Members Bill she herself had introduced.
Once both PMs reached high office, they were similar too. Both ended up commanding huge majorities within Parliament. Thatcher had the largest majority of a Conservative Party in the 20th Century, and Pitt had a majority of 280/558 in Parliament, which would only grow as Fox (his opposition) blundered around. They then went on to deliver (for better or worse. I’m not here to discuss whether Thatcher and Pitt’s reforms were good; but it is undeniable that they were both radicals) radical changes to the country. Pitt’s ‘National Revival’ was designed to kick start the economy that had broken down after the American Revolution. Thatcher attempted to shift the focus of the economy from an Industrial manufacturer to a service-based operator. Both of them focused on the economy, and one can plainly see the parallels. Another parallel is that Thatcher is the longest serving Prime Minister of the 20th Century, at around 11 years. Pitt similarly had a long tenure – being the second longest serving Prime Minister in history, at around 20 years of office in total, with his first Ministry lasting 17 years.
However, in terms of Brexit and Catholic Emancipation too, they are similar. Following an Irish rebellion in 1897, Pitt decided he needed to combine the Parliaments of Britain and Ireland, as the fact all bills had to pass through both was inefficient. He also seemed to not think it fair that the minority Protestant gentry had so much control over the majority population of Catholics in Ireland. As such, as part of the Act of Union 1801, Pitt attempted to introduce Catholic Emancipation, so they could stand for office. George III, King of the day caught wind of this and put his foot down. As a matter of principle, Pitt resigned. (He would later come back as Prime Minister from 1804-06 but this was in the light of the Napoleonic Wars, and the ministry wouldn’t achieve much due to Pitt’s poor health. He would die of liver failure, from drinking too much alcohol, in 1806.) Thatcher, while not directly being ousted over European Relations, its arguable that this is what lead to her downfall. Her Euroscepticism, when the Party was Pro-Integration would alienate many people. Perhaps without it, the issue of the Poll Tax would not have lead to her being ousted like she was.
Both Prime Ministers, both outsiders for their day, both introducing radical policies. And, most importantly for this essay: both left office in the wake of something that would terrorise and split their parties for the next few decades.
The period between Pitt and our next Emancipation character, of Lord Liverpool, cannot be compared that well to the Blair/Brown years. However I will offer this: Most historians consider the Pitt-Liverpool era as one of Whig ministries. However, these Whig ministries were essentially supportive of the Pittite ideals, and so adopted many Pittitie policies and continued support for them. Much the same that Blair and Brown did with Thatcher; the best example being their support for the privatisation that began under Thatcher.
Our next two characters; David Cameron and Robert Jenkinson, the Lord of Liverpool. Both of whom were a of a different ilk to their party predecessors. Lord Liverpool, was obviously different to Pitt in that he lead from the Lords, where Pitt had never taken a peerage. Cameron was different to Thatcher in that he was your classic born and bred 20-21st Century politician: high standing family that tracks back, went to Eton College and Oxford University, before immediately entering politics. Both of our two new characters were vast changes, in character and upbringing, to before.
While both did continue some of the new policies introduced as their predecessors, Cameron with Thatcher, and Liverpool with Pitt; the two were far more associated with the old party order. By this I mean that Cameron was more of a One-Nation than a New Right Conservative, and Liverpool was more so associated with the Landed Tories than the Pittite Tories. What really distinguishes them however is how they dealt with potential opposition. Thatcher and Pitt would tend to leave their primary opposition well outside their circle of trust, and would dominate the cabinet. Liverpool and Cameron’s ministries meanwhile tended to keep a balance of power within the Cabinet to maintain stability. The two were also quite good at the managing of different characters in check, and maintaining this balance. Liverpool managed to keep his cabinet, containing Canning, Robinson and Huskisson on one side, and the ilk of Wellington and Lord Eldon on the other. Cameron did the same; appeasing the Nick Clegg’s and Danny Alexander’s of his coalition. (Say what you will about Cameron, but I think it’s undeniable that managing to keep a coalition with the Lib Dems together for 5 years and then follow it up with an electoral victory is an impressive achievement). Even following his electoral victory, Cameron managed to keep the Anti- and Pro-European elements within his party at ease. However while maintaining this balance, Cameron and Liverpool still kept a close adviser that was alike them ideologically; Cameron with George Osborne and Liverpool with Lord Sidmouth.
Within the internal structures of the party and indeed within the public itself however, the mood had changed. Since 1807 all new MPs that had entered Parliament, bar one, expressed support for Catholic Emancipation. The meteoric rise of UKIP before and during the 2015 Manifesto can be considered of a similar vein. Much of the party had demanded their respective wishes. Liverpool would resign in 1827, and immediately the party fractured over the issue of Catholic Emancipation. One of the leading historians; Boyd Hilton argues that this came around the fact the “party quickly split between Pro and Anti-Canningite factions”. George Canning, the leading proponent of Catholic Emancipation within the party will be our Boris Johnson. Cameron meanwhile also had his party split. The lack of Collective Ministerial Responsibility (the posh political term for the convention that if a Cabinet minister disagrees with the direction of the Government, they should resign – thus giving the idea that the cabinet is wholly united.) within May’s Government is clear to see – Gove and Leadsom (until extremely recently) staying within Government, despite publicly saying they didn’t like the deal. Both parties had publicly fractured.
Canning and Johnson are similar. They were both “darlings” of the Conservatives, and had been one of the leading politicians within the party for decades. Whilst Canning did not come from a prestigious family like Johnson has, he was considered one of the most eloquent and charismatic politicians of his generation. Johnson is arguably of similar ilk, and has a certain kind of charisma about him, both in and outside the party. They are also similar in that many Tories looked down upon Canning for his humble beginnings (his mother was an actress), as it seems many look down upon Johnson. Whilst these two characters will not appear in this essay; perhaps the recent fact that Rory Stewart said he would not serve in Boris Johnson’s Cabinet is comparable to Robert Peel saying the same thing about George Canning; showing how even outside of our “major players” the similarities stack up. (Thinking about it, Peel and Stewart also share the similarity that they are and were seen as a “future” of the Conservative party).
Canning did not last long, not due to the split within the party, but due to ill-health. He would die 4 months into office. Whilst Boris Johnson has not been Prime Minister, his meteoric rise and utter collapse within the Conservative Leadership bid can be considered similar. The man who looked like he was going to win it all, suddenly wiped out in an instant. Gove, who then looked like he would follow him (at least according to the media), is somewhat comparable to the next Prime Minister, Lord Goderich – in that both failed to unite the party behind them; Gove in not getting enough seats and Goderich in that the party was so split, and him just not being up to the job of uniting the party, probably due to their personalities. Neither were leaders or charismatic, and both happier to be workhorses for another leader deep down. In essence, Goderich and Gove just didn’t have the popularity and relations within the party to mend rifts. The party leadership struggle is also quite similar to these leaders, in that the period between Liverpool and Wellington can somewhat be considered a leadership struggle. As the Monarch of the day would appoint the new Prime Minister, it meant that after a long-lasting and powerful PM, such as Liverpool, there would be a quick succession of Governments before a stable one was formed, so in a way this period was itself a leadership struggle.
(I should note here that this article is being written during the Conservative Leadership Race, and it is entirely possible that Johnson wins, especially considering him being at the top of the polls among the Conservative membership. If so, I suspect May’s deal will be passed, and that the Conservative’s will just have to swallow the pill, but that whoever is Prime Minister and passes the deal will face such a backlash from Conservatives that they will be ousted immediately. If this does happen, and Johnson falls within months of getting to office, then it is also comparable to Canning.)
And so we come to our final two players on the board; the Iron Duke, and the second Iron Lady. Neither of whom showed used their purported ‘Iron Fist’ much whilst in office. In fact, both seemed to have been wholly incompetent at the job they were given. Boyd Hilton claims that Wellington ‘seemed to have a lack of resolve, giving way when felt threatened by opposition, only to then dig in his heels and resist change.’ I think this quote could be reworded to fit May, don’t you agree? They also share the similarity in that neither of them wanted their respective reforms. Wellington went on record to say that he thought the political system was ‘perfect’, and May was an adamant Remainer trying to deliver something she fundamentally doesn’t want. Further, both May and Wellington gave their parties shocking electoral results. Wellington delivered the worst result for a Conservative party ever in history (and this is in a time before the Great Reform Act, so only the Aristocracy could actually vote. Great job, Arthur.) and May, as we all know, managed to blow a 20-point lead over Corbyn’s Labour in 2017.
The two leaders stumbled around. Wellington ended up having to accept Catholic Emancipation, and pushed it through. In 1829, Catholics could finally vote and stand for office (but, of course only those that met the qualifications, it would be obscene to let the common rabble vote in elections.) . May, while not being successful in actually passing a deal, she did end up having to accept the referendum, and get a deal with the EU. Both of which severely divided the party further. The Conservative’s would spend the next 11 years out of power, perhaps even longer considering Peel’s change of heart in his 1841-1846 made him look more like a Whig than a Conservative (Indeed, the ‘Peelites’ that broke away from the Conservative’s in 1846 over the Repeal of the Corn Laws ended up merging with the Whigs and forming the Liberal Party, showing just how ideologically similar they were.) In terms of May, we are now looking into the future – but polling and evidence suggests that perhaps the Conservatives cannot last much longer in power (especially considering Corbyn is calling a Vote of Confidence in the Government on Day-One that a new leader is elected) – Perhaps, like in 1830 we are looking at 11 years of Labour ascendancy – or even Liberal Democrat with their recent surge in the polls.
But what does this all mean? Sure, I’ve laid out some tentative, even haphazard similarities between two 50 year periods of the Conservative party, but what should we take away from this all? Obviously, the similarities are not going to be 100%, I never intended for them to be. William Pitt is obviously not the same person as Margaret Thatcher was and George Canning is obviously not the same person as Boris Johnson. But the links are there, enough to form some sort of picture. History has no flow, and there is no set course. It’s just a series of events stacked up against each other. But historian Niall Ferguson argues that the farther we can see into the past, the farther we can see into the future. By which he means that the best way of knowing whats happening, what could happen, and what we should do about it; is through the study of history. This Articles is an example of history not necessarily repeating itself, but rhyming. And I think it’s worth us all remembering that.
So; that begs the question: what happened to the Conservative Party after 1829? Well, as said before the party completely fractured, and was out of office for 11 years. Not only that, but the Pittite coalition that had made up the general structure and make-up of the party (Remember, back then the parties were not defined things. Crystallisation may have occurred during Liverpool’s tenure, but largely the “Parties” were loose coalitions of factions) dissipated, and the party had a much needed inward reflection, and redefinition. Indeed, in 1835 Peel would change the name of the party from ‘Tory’ to ‘Conservatives’. When he did so, in what historians call ‘The Tamworth Manifesto’ (because, well, it was a Manifesto delivered in Tamworth…), he announced that the Conservative’s would not attempt to repeal the Great Reform Act. I think a much similar reflection could come from the Conservatives quite soon, leading to a new series of Conservative agenda. Much like how Pitt and Thatcher did so when they became leader.
And without anything left to say on the matter, I hope you enjoyed reading this. Be sure to let me know what you think in the comments. :). Sorry for the long ass wait on this one guys, I know you’ve been patient.
Cheers,
Han.
The History Book 