Durham E-Theses Political faction and the formulation of foreign policy: Britain, 1806-7 Hole, Toby Kenton How to cite: Hole, Toby Kenton (1995) Political faction and the formulation of foreign policy: Britain, 1806-7, Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/5234/ Use policy The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in Durham E-Theses • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Please consult the full Durham E-Theses policy for further details. Academic Support Oce, Durham University, University Oce, Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HP e-mail: [email protected] Tel: +44 0191 334 6107 http://etheses.dur.ac.uk Political Faction and the Formulation of Foreign Policy: Britain, 1806-7. Abstract In 1801, William Pitt the Younger, resigned as prime minister after seventeen years in office, to be replaced by Henry Addington, whose most notable act in office was to conclude peace with France. Pitt's resignation and the Peace of Amiens destroyed the huge majority that had characterised Pittite government, as four major political factions developed where there had previously only been the rump of an opposition. Pitt's cousin. Lord Grenville, angered at the terms of the peace, strongly opposed Addington, and eventually concerted with Charles Fox in an anti- Addingtonian 'junction'. Following Pitt's death in January 1806, Grenville was invited by the king to form a ministry, and in forming the Ministry of All the Talents, he combined his own supporters with those of Fox and Addington, to form a broad- based administration. Central to the problems facing the Talents was that of foreign policy, an issue on which the component factions had hitherto disagreed violently. Fox, now Foreign Secretary, made a concerted effort to conclude peace with France, and a British representative was present in Paris for this purpose from June to October 1806. These negotiations failed for reasons outside of the government's control, but serious divisions were later to emerge over policy to\yards the Continent, where war was resumed in October 1806. Two conflicting strategies of colonial conquest and Continental engagement were put forward by their protagonists, resulting in deadlock and disharmony. This thesis will argue that despite the incongruous mixture of men who made up the Ministry of All the Talents, factional divisions were not primarily responsible for the lack of a vigorous and aggressive foreign policy. Instead, the pre-1806 stances of the Foxites and Grenvillites were forced to be remoulded by the changing European situation, and their eventual policy was not based on ideological considerations, but rather an uncertain and confused reaction to events that they could only dimly comprehend. Political Faction and the Formulation of Foreign Policy; Britain, 1806-7 Toby Kenton Hole A thesis submitted for the degree of M.A. University of Durham History Department 1995. The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. No quotation from it should be pubUshed without his prior written consent and information derived from it should be acknowledged. 3 0 APR 1996 CONTENTS Acknowledgements and Abbreviations I: Introduction II: The Fracttiring of Politics, 1801-6 III: Factions and Foreign Politics: From Amiens to Austerlitz 24 IV: The Priorities of Peace 38 V: Conflicts of Policy 58 VI: Factions and Foreign Policy 78 Bibliography 91 Acknowledgements For help in the preparation of this thesis I would particularly like to thank my supervisor, Professor Jeremy Black, for his encouragement and invaluable comments. My thanks also go to Professor John Deny of Newcastle University, who kindly read some of my draft work, and provided valuable advice and criticism. I would also like to thank the staff of Durham University Library, whose assistance in locating papers in the Earl Grey archives saved me a good deal of time and bother. Abbreviations BL. Add. MSS British Library, Additional Manuscripts Division. Cobbett WiUiam Cobbett (ed.) The Parliamentary History of Englandfrom the Norman Conquest to 1803 (London, 1806-20). Fox Correspondence Lord John Russell (ed.), Memorials and Correspondence of Charles James Fox, (London, 1853) Grey MSS Papers of the 2nd Earl Grey preserved at Durham University Library. Hansard T.C. Hansard (ed.). The Parliamentary Debates From the Year 1803 to the Present Time. First Series. (London, 1812) HMC Dropmore Historical Manuscripts Commission Report on the Manuscripts ofJ.B. Fortescue, preserved at Dropmore. (London, 1892-1927) PRO. FO. PubUc Record OfiBce, Foreign Office papers. INTRODUCTION The pohtical history of George Ill's reign is dominated by the debate on the emergence of organised and coherent parUamentary parties, frequently simplified as the fransition from the Whigs and Tories of the mid eighteenth- century, to the Liberals and Conservatives of post-Georgian politics. The fifty years between 1780 and 1830 were notable for the long periods of comparatively stable government, such as Pitt the Younger's ministry of 1784- 1801, and Lord Liverpool's adminisfration of 1812-27. In contrast, these periods of stability were separated by eleven years of conftision, with five governments rising and falling in quick succession. The years from 1801 to 1812 are perhaps unatfractive to historians, who prefer the ordered change offered by a lengthy administration, to the chaos of coalition and frequent change of personnel, that characterises the first decade of the nineteenth century. Yet for the study of the development of the party system, these years can act as a crucial microscope by which historians can examine the leading personahties of the age in both government and opposition. The principals of the different parliamentary factions, who, after 1815 were to be instrumental in consolidating the two-party system of Victorian Britain, provide at times a kaleidoscope of political opinion, clashing violently on some occasions, coalescing uneasily at others. The importance of these years as a period of poUtical development, is all the more significant, when the high concentration of able and ambitious politicians who dominated debate, and by their personalities were responsible for the perpetuation the system of faction, are considered. The leading figures of the late eighteenth-century—WiUiam Pitt, Charles James Fox and William Grenville, patronised the statesmen of the early Victorian era. George Canning, Charles Grey, Viscount Melbourne and Viscount Pahnerston, all received their political tuition in these years, each in turn nurturing their own group of disciples. The fiiendships and animosities generated in this period continued to reverberate into the age of Peel. Others, such as Richard Brinsley Sheridan and Samuel Whitbread, maintained a degree of fluidity in politics, by their determined independence from the parliamentary principals. Unsurprisingly, given the highly divided nature of British politics, examples of consensus are rare. The two largest groups in parliament—the Pittites and the Foxites-disagreed on most of the major issues of the day, and on those few issues upon which the leadership of both party agreed, for instance Catholic emancipation, their own parties suffered deep divisions. The greatest source of division was undoubtedly that of foreign policy, for the experiences of the French Revolution, and the subsequent wars against France, failed to unite the political nation behind Pitt's pohcy of relentless war; strong and diverse opinions on the aims and conduct of the wars, combined to produce confusion and discord, splitting the political groupings into even smaller entities. With the exception of the eighteen months of uneasy truce produced by the Peace of Amiens, Britain was in a state of permanent war with Revolutionary and Napoleonic France from 1793 until 1814. The events m France from 1789 onwards had a profound impact on British poUtics that could not have been foreseen in the immediate aftermath of the fall of the Bastille. Differing attitudes towards the French Revolution destroyed the aheady divided Whig party, with the Duke of Portland, the nominal leader, defecting to the government and contributing to the Pittite ascendancy. The question of whether to treat with Napoleon, and what for what price peace should be purchased, was to dominate political debate in the years after war was declared, with the Pittites themselves, at times, coming close to dissolution. For this reason, the formulation of foreign pohcy provides an excellent model on which to dissect the working of faction at the advent of the nineteenth century. For the purposes of studying the influence of factions on the formulation of foreign poUcy, no government seems a more appropriate model than the ill- fated and ironically-named 'Ministry of All the Talents' which presided over the administration of Britain from February 1806 until March 1807. Despite its short duration, the very formation of the ministry was a remarkable feat of political engmeering. It was the only administration prior to 1817 to incorporate three of the four main factions, and was the closest that Britain came to a 'broad bottomed' coalition or 'national' government in this period. In its composition, the Talents rivalled the Fox-North coalition of 1783, for the diversity and apparent incompatibihty of its members, based as it was, on the duvmivirate of Grenville, the belligerent Foreign Secretary of the 1790s, and Fox, the most inveterate opponent of the war. Viscount Sidmouth, the architect of the Peace of Amiens, sat in the same cabinet as William Windham, whose opposition to the former's administration had assumed a vitriolic and personal slant.