Biography of George Canning (1822-27) |British Politician

Biography of George Canning (1822-27)

George Canning was born in 1770. Although a man of humble origin, he rose to eminence through his good education at Eton and Oxford.

He was a brilliant man. He was the Foreign Secretary of England from 1807 to 1809.

There was a gap between 1809 and 1816. In 1816, he became President of the Board of Control. In 1821, he resigned on the issue of the treatment, meted out to Queen Caroline.

When he was making preparation to come to India as Governor-General, he was made the Foreign Secretary of England on account of the sudden death of Castlereagh. He was Foreign Minister from 1822 to 1827. He was witty, a skilled debater and a brilliant speaker. He was the leader of the House of Commons.

Like Castlereagh, Canning was a friend and a pupil of Pitt, the Younger,’ but the two became rivals of each other. In outlook, one was the antithesis of the other. Castlereagh was an aristocrat and cool and practical in his judgment. He was swayed by a desire to protect Britain’s interests by drawing his country with other powers into a close international understanding.

However, his policy depended to a large extent on his personality and on his remarkable influence over the statesmen of the Continent. Canning also believed in the necessity for peace, but he did not believe that it could be achieved through co-operation. His view was that Britain should not concern herself with Europe except in times of serious crises when her intervention was necessary as much for the defence of her own interests as for the restraint of aggression.

Then she should intervene forcefully and decisively. In the normal times, Britain should abstain from interference in European politics. His policy was more nationalist than that of Castlereagh. On taking office, Canning is stated to have declared. “For Europe, I shall be desirous now and then to read England.” He summed up his creed in the motto: “Every nation for itself and God for us all.” Seton-Watson has added to it a corollary in these words: “Devil take the hindmost.”

Canning was more in accord with the spirit of his age than Castlereagh. The nineteenth century was an age of nationalism and Castlereagh’s internationalism was not in keeping with it. An elector addressed himself to Gladstone in 1831 in these words, “Damn all foreign countries what has England to do with foreign countries?” This sums up the British attitude towards Europe. Canning himself summed up the feelings of the Englishmen in these words: “Let us not in the foolish spirit of romance, suppose that we alone could regenerate Europe.”

Woodward has rightly remarked that Canning differed from Castlereagh, not in his object, but in his methods. Their objective was the same, although their methods differed. Canning acted upon the same policy which had been laid down by Castlereagh in his State Paper of 1822. On taking office, Canning made that State Paper the basis of his policy, although he gave it a characteristic twist.

He accepted the breach between Great Britain and her Allies and did not attempt to remedy it. “We shall have no more Congresses, thank God”, was his remark. Castlereagh’s vision of co-operation disappeared. Canning hated to co-operate with the Holy Alliance Powers on the ground that he was fond of his country’s institutions and believed that other countries would benefit by the introduction of institutions on the British model. He wished English institutions to serve as the models for Europe.

Spain:

Canning had first to deal with Spain. At the Congress of Verona, France was appointed the executor to restore the reactionary regime in Spain. Conning protested against this intervention and England left the Congress under protest. He was opposed to the general principle of intervention or the policing of Europe by the reactionary Powers. In spite of Britain’s protest, the Duke of Angouleme was sent to Spain to restore Ferdinand VII.

After his restoration, Ferdinand tried to go to extremes in his reactionary policies. Canning was indignant at this intervention. However, he found himself helpless to oppose the French without an open war with all the European Powers. He had to content himself with a strong protest. When Ferdinand began to think of establishing his control over the

Spanish colonies in South America, Canning made up his mind to check it. He adopted a high tone in his speeches. To quote Canning, “I resolved that if France had Spain, it should not be Spain with the Indies.” Canning recognised the independence of the Spanish Colonies in South America. With one stroke, British commerce was protected, and, the revolting colonies were freed from the danger of a French attack and the principles of the Holy Alliance were flouted.

He boasted in the House of Commons in these words. “I have called a New World into existence to redress the balance of the old”. His claim was justified. Although the Spanish colonies had won their own independence, it was the British sea power which protected them from interference. In the face of naval action by Britain, the French did not dare to carry their arms beyond Spain itself. All this was done by Canning by merely a threat. Canning was also assisted by President Munro who enunciated at this time his famous Munro Doctrine in a message to Congress.

Portugal:

In the case of Portugal, Canning had to take a strong line of action. He made it clear that England would not tolerate the spread of reactionary forces in Portugal. He extorted from France the declaration that she would not extend to Portugal her support of reaction in Spain.

He persuaded the King of Portugal to recognise the independence of Brazil. In 1826, the King of Portugal died and Don Pedro, not wishing to leave Brazil, presented the Portuguese with a constitution. Ferdinand VII of Spain began to intrigue in Portugal in favour of reaction.

The Portuguese Government appealed to Great Britain for assistance. Canning sent British troops within four days of the receipt of the appeal and thus the Portuguese constitution was protected by the British bayonets.

When Canning announced this step in Parliament, he made a remarkable speech in which he made the following declaration. “We go to Portugal, not to rule, not to dictate, not to prescribe constitution, but to defend and to preserve the independence of an ally. We go to plant the standard of England on the well-known heights of Lisbon. Where that standard is planted, foreign domination shall not come.”

Greek War of Independence:

Canning adopted a strong line of action in the case of Greek War of Independence. He was not prepared to allow Turkey to go on oppressing the Greeks. By his intervention he not only secured a strong and independent position for Great Britain, but was also able to break the Holy Alliance. With a view to protect the British trade with the Levant from an attack, he recognised, in 1823, the Greeks as belligerents.

In 1827, he entered into the Treaty of London with Russia and France. The object of that treaty was to secure the independence of Greece. The Treaty of London was a master-stroke. It isolated Austria and split the Holy Alliance. By attaching Russia to Britain, Canning put a check on Russian ambitions in the Eastern Mediterranean. The establishment of a new Greek State promised advantages to British trade.

In his Greek policy, Canning got much support from the pro-Greek agitation in France and Great Britain. It is true that Wellington, his successor, tried to undo his work by joining hands with Turkey and making a truce with her, yet the Treaty of London secured Greek independence. Soon after his death, the combined fleets of Russia, France and Great Britain destroyed the Turkish and Egyptian fleets in the Battle of Navarino in October 1827. Although Russia alone reaped the harvest, Canning’s policy of recognising Greek independence was successful.

Within five years of his assuming office, Canning set Britain upon the path which she followed for 50 years. He protected British interests and encouraged liberal and constitutional movements abroad. He prevented any general interference by the reactionary powers with the development of liberty and national freedom in Europe and overseas.

International co-operation on a wide scale was gone. Canning took pride in the fact that he was responsible for disrupting the Holy Alliance. Under his guidance, Although Russia alone reaped the harvest. Canning’s policy of recognising Greek independence was successful.

Within five years of his assuming office, Canning set Britain upon the path which she followed for 50 years. He protected British interests and encouraged liberal and constitutional movements abroad. He prevented any general interference by the reactionary powers with the development of liberty and national freedom in Europe and overseas.

International co-operation on a wide scale was gone. Canning took pride in the fact that he was responsible for disrupting the Holy Alliance. Under his guidance. Great Britain regained her freedom of action.She could intervene in European affairs where, when and how she pleased without any danger of being used by continental states for the furtherance of their own selfish ends. In this policy. Canning had the support of public opinion.

He realised the necessity of national unity in matters of foreign policy and wished to have his countrymen behind him so that foreign governments may understand that he spoke for Britain as a whole aAlthough Russia alone reaped the harvest. Canning’s policy of recognising Greek independence was successful.

Within five years of his assuming office, Canning set Britain upon the path which she followed for 50 years. He protected British interests and encouraged liberal and constitutional movements abroad. He prevented any general interference by the reactionary powers with the development of liberty and national freedom in Europe and overseas. International co-operation on a wide scale was gone. Canning took pride in the fact that he was responsible for disrupting the Holy Alliance. Under his guidance. Great Britain regained her freedom of action.

She could intervene in European affairs where, when and how she pleased without any danger of being used by continental states for the furtherance of their own selfish ends. In this policy. Canning had the support of public opinion.

He realised the necessity of national unity in matters of foreign policy and wished to have his countrymen behind him so that foreign governments may understand that he spoke for Britain as a whole Although Russia alone reaped the harvest. Canning’s policy of recognising Greek independence was successful.

Within five years of his assuming office, Canning set Britain upon the path which she followed for 50 years. He protected British interests and encouraged liberal and constitutional movements abroad. He prevented any general interference by the reactionary powers with the development of liberty and national freedom in Europe and overseas. International co-operation on a wide scale was gone. Canning took pride in the fact that he was responsible for disrupting the Holy Alliance. Under his guidance, Great Britain regained her freedom of action.

She could intervene in European affairs where, when and how she pleased without any danger of being used by continental states for the furtherance of their own selfish ends. In this policy, Canning had the support of public opinion.

He realised the necessity of national unity in matters of foreign policy and wished to have his countrymen behind him so that foreign governments may understand that he spoke for Britain as a whole a Great Britain regained her freedom of action.

She could intervene in European affairs where, when and how she pleased without any danger of being used by continental states for the furtherance of their own selfish ends. In this policy, Canning had the support of public opinion.

He realised the necessity of national unity in matters of foreign policy and wished to have his countrymen behind him so that foreign governments may understand that he spoke for Britain as a whole and spoke with all her force and all her resources at his command. His frank speeches and the publication of despatches initiated the policy of putting before the electors the means of forming their opinion of foreign policy.

According to Temperley, “In Canning’s view, it was essential that future foreign policy should be both intelligible and popular.” However, Canning did not allow the public to dictate his policy. He “made foreign policy popular without ceasing to make it effective.” He disclosed only enough information to secure public support because she had no leanings towards democracy. In spite of this, this innovation was regarded to be a revolutionary tendency in the reactionary countries.

According to Cecil, Canning’s political philosophy was a well-defined compact of opinion. It can be gathered up into a bundle of phrases. At the root of his ideas lay the thought of the nation as the unit of statesmanship. He saw so far clearly and scarcely troubled to look beyond.

We find him abandoning the conceptions of Castlereagh, contending not only against the Holy Alliance, but against a Concert of Europe, foreswearing Congresses, refusing conferences and asking every nation to look to itself and leave the rest to God.

He made the notion of a balance of power prominent in his speeches. He accepted as a matter of course the conflict of interests, groups and principles as the basis of his foreign policy. To quote Castlereagh, “Some years ago, I stated that the position of this country in the present state of the world was one of neutrality, not only between contending nations but between conflicting principles; and that it was by neutrality alone that we could maintain that balance, the preservation of which I believe to be essential to the welfare of mankind.”

Canning admitted that it was “much better and more convenient for us to have neighbours whose institutions cannot be compared with ours in point of freedom.” Canning was not immoral. He believed in treaties and the maintenance of treaties. He believed in peace and justice. He had no clear sense of the unseen foundations of society. He had no regard for that common will towards a common welfare which is the basis of international civilization.

Canning’s sympathies were with a grade of society which is the backbone of the country. He had the practical efficiency, the strong assurance, and the material outlook that were to make the middle period of Victoria’s reign what it became in politics and trade. He lacked the high international courtesy, the sense of European solidarity and the spirit of peace.

Combative, competitive and insular, Canning broadened a path for British policy where Palmerstone was presently to strut crowing with crest erect. According to Lord Acton, “No Foreign Secretary has equaled Canning.” However, there are others who do not give him that high praise but still admire him for his qualities of head and heart and his achievements in various fields.