Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:24:48.037Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

THE CHARACTER OF PITT THE YOUNGER AND PARTY POLITICS, 1830–1860

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 September 2004

MICHAEL LEDGER-LOMAS
Affiliation:
Peterhouse, Cambridge

Abstract

William Pitt the Younger died in 1806 but had a long afterlife in political argument. Historians have argued that a reactionary cult of Pitt in early nineteenth-century toryism died with Catholic emancipation, but this article suggests that invocation of Pitt's character was more widespread and durable, because linked to the assertion and defence of party identities. Whig hostility to Pitt remained strong even in the middle of the nineteenth century. Lord John Russell attacked his character flaws to celebrate the continued vigour and distinctness of Foxite political culture within the Liberal party. Conversely, use of Pitt in argument about what the tory party should be like did not end with reform. In the 1830s, traditional celebration of Pitt as a stern opponent of revolutionary agitation survived within a supposedly moderate conservatism. In Peel's second administration, arguments about whether Pitt had been firm or flexible, liberal or intransigent, reflected and added to disputes about how much religious and economic liberalism Peel should endorse. It was schism between Peelites and protectionists, the article suggests, which broke the clear link between celebration of Pitt's character and one party, allowing a more wide-ranging, because less politically charged, appreciation of Pitt to develop.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
2004 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

I am extremely grateful to Jon Parry, both for supervising the M.Phil. dissertation on which this article is based and for his comments on its various drafts. I thank too Boyd Hilton and Gareth Stedman Jones for their comments as examiners of the original dissertation and to Peter Mandler and the Historical Journal's anonymous referees for helpful suggestions on an earlier draft. My research was funded by the AHRB.