SOURCE: Hatch, R. B. “George Crabbe, the Duke of Rutland, and the Tories.” Review of English Studies 24, no. 96 (1973): 429-43.

[In the following essay, Hatch analyzes how Crabbe's liberal political tendencies were influenced by his role as the chaplain of the conservative Duke of Rutland, concluding that the effect was not as great as is generally perceived.]

One of the most curious incidents in George Crabbe's life was his unexpected appointment as chaplain to the Duke of Rutland. As is well known, Edmund Burke first obtained for Crabbe the position of curate in his native town of Aldborough, and when this arrangement proved unsatisfactory, he secured for him the chaplaincy to the Duke of Rutland. Crabbe's son comments several times in his Life that Crabbe was unhappy at Belvoir Castle because he felt himself unable to take part in the social duties expected of a ducal chaplain.¹ A second reason often given to explain Crabbe's unhappiness at Belvoir is that his political and social views were opposed to those of the company at the Castle. A typical view, and certainly an influential one, is that of René Huchon, when he states that Crabbe held ‘Liberal opinions’ and often had to defend ‘Burke, Fox and the Whig party against the Duke of Rutland, a fervent admirer of Pitt, and against the Duchess herself, the most uncompromising of Tories’.²

This thesis of the ‘Liberal’ chaplain in the ‘Tory’ house of the Duke of Rutland has often been used as an explanation for various elements in Crabbe's early poems. For instance, in his examination of The Newspaper Robert Chamberlain attributes Crabbe's reason for writing the poem to the recent election (the general election of 1784), where the party led by Charles James Fox and Edmund Burke, with the Duke of Portland as its nominal leader, had been roundly defeated by Pitt and the Duke of Rutland. Chamberlain feels that Crabbe ‘felt impelled to offer his patron public testimony of his own sympathy’.³ However, when Chamberlain turns to The Newspaper itself, he appears somewhat surprised and a little disconcerted to find that the poem does not in fact contain any public testimony to Burke. The belief that the poem contained a public testimony was based on the assumption that Crabbe was a Whig and that he would naturally wish to help Burke. When Chamberlain can find no such testimony, he hastens to explain that Crabbe was a Whig who was living under the roof of the Tory Duke of Rutland. He asks: ‘Just what, though, could the moderately liberal chaplain in the Tory household of the Duke of Rutland have to say about the defeat of a Radical Whig?’ He then gleefully answers his own question: ‘Not very much’.⁴ The argument is circular and self-defeating, and for this reason alone, one would have thought that the original premise—the conflict of politics between George Crabbe and the House of Rutland—would have been questioned.

In addition, this belief that Crabbe's politics were opposed to those of the Duke of Rutland has been used by critics as an explanation of the different sentiments in the two books of The Village. At first sight such a theory seems tempting, since The Village was begun when Crabbe was an impoverished London poet and finished after he had become the Duke's chaplain. In Crabbe's own words, ‘a considerable portion’ was written under the supervision of Edmund Burke.⁵ Thus if there had been political differences between Crabbe and Rutland, it would seem only natural for Crabbe to attempt to mute any offensive political overtones in the poem. It is not my intention to dispute that Crabbe's changed circumstances probably gave rise to some change in his attitudes and ideas; when he became chaplain to the Duke his experience of life suddenly broadened, and it would have been odd if his outlook had not changed. But critics have also suggested that Crabbe altered and suppressed his political ideals in order to avoid offending the Duke, and this is a much more dubious proposition. I wish to examine the evidence for the long-held belief that Crabbe's political and social views were opposed to those of the Duke of Rutland, and then to decide whether Crabbe's position at Belvoir caused him to mute or disclaim his ‘Liberal’ ideas.

The first thing to note is the vagueness of the phraseology of the question. A definite answer to the question whether Crabbe's ‘Liberal’ ideas were opposed to the ‘Tory’ principles of the Duke of Rutland presupposes that its terms are precisely stated. But in the political framework of the 1780s the meanings of the terms ‘Tory’ and ‘Whig’, and for that matter ‘liberal’ and its counterpart (presumably ‘conservative’) are not easily explained and do not allow of simple definitions. No one interested in the relationship of literature to the politics of the eighteenth century can afford to ignore the scholarship which has followed in the wake of Sir Lewis Namier's book The Structure of Politics at the Accession of George III (1929).⁶ Namier gave the timely warning that political parties in the eighteenth century were a different species from those of the twentieth, and on this particular question he stated that ‘The political life of the period could be fully described without ever using a party denomination’, and that ‘there were no proper party organizations about 1760, though party names and cant were current’.⁷ Although he was probably overstating his case, such warnings should have cautioned literary critics from placing too much trust in the terms Whig and Tory. Historians have shown conclusively that in the period from 1760 to 1784 a description of English political life in terms of a two-party system is impossible. The use of the concept of a ‘party’ is itself suspect, and if it is to be retained then certainly more than two ‘parties’ existed at this time.

In the present day a political party is easily recognized by various signs. Generally it will have a defined programme of action, an organizing committee, a group of people who are recognized as its policy makers, a leader, and membership cards. If this idea of a party is extrapolated into the eighteenth century (as several Crabbe scholars seem to have done) the politics of this time will be badly distorted. To speak of Whigs and Tories in Queen Anne's reign is not unprofitable, because at the beginning of the century the terms signified at least an attitude towards foreign policy.⁸ But after the year 1745, when hopes of the Stuart cause were crushed, this distinction disappeared. After the retreat from Derby, politics became a matter of gaining position in His Majesty's Government. Men formed themselves into little groups, such as those under Rockingham, Bedford, Grenville, and Rutland, so as to be able to obtain a position under the ministry formed from whatever coalition was in power. Thus to speak of Whigs and Tories at this time can be misleading if it presupposes two different political parties. If the terms Whig and Tory are retained—and indeed it seems impossible not to refer to them—one should understand that these words do not designate two opposing political parties, each attempting to set up a government based on his own party programme. Horace Walpole said, ‘In truth all the sensible Tories I ever knew were either Jacobites or became Whigs; those that remained Tories remained fools’,⁹ a comment substantiated by many eminent historians of this century. To call Rutland a Tory does not elucidate matters. What is required is a summary of the Duke of Rutland's political views to determine whether it might have been necessary for Crabbe to alter or suppress his social ideals to conform with them.

II

When discussing Rutland's political views, one should bear in mind that until the time he was made Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in 1784 he was not keenly engaged in politics. Often he was away from London during parliamentary sessions, preferring to spend his time at Cheveley or Belvoir. During the years immediately preceding the fall of Lord North's ministry, the Marquess of Rockingham had often to write urgent notes requesting the Duke to attend the House, even at times of crucial divisions.¹⁰ Of course the Duke's lack of concern for parliamentary business does not mean that he was uninterested in the political matters of borough influence; as a great peer he was naturally anxious to establish his influence with the leaders of the government, for this was an effective means of ensuring patronage both for himself and his friends.

While the Duke may have been diffident about matters of political policy and somewhat lax in attending the House on business, there is no doubt that he inherited a general Whig legacy of ideas and opinions from his father the famous John, Marquess of Granby.¹¹ Even T. E. Kebbel, one of the strongest proponents of the theory that Rutland was a Tory, does not fail to recognize that in the mid-eighteenth century the members of the Manners family were Whigs.¹² Charles, fourth Duke of Rutland, was immensely proud of his aristocratic background, and certainly attempted to follow the traditions of his family. On the other hand he was not prepared to follow blindly any particular party or group of men, and it appears to have been his decision to oppose the Government on their handling of the war with America¹³ that encouraged him to lend his support to Rockingham's policy of opposition to Lord North. Accordingly, Rockingham soon began to call the Duke to his counsels. Ian Christie, in his admirable summary of the last years of Lord North's ministry, has given an assessment of the various groups opposing Lord North. He observes that the Rockingham group, with Burke as its spokesman, was the largest and most influential, but he includes amongst the smaller groups attached to Rockingham that led by the Duke of Rutland. Christie concludes that the Duke of Rutland's group was not wholly under the influence of the Marquess of Rockingham but that it was closely attached.¹⁴ How close was this attachment is evidenced by the way Rutland finally sent Rockingham his blank proxy to use as he wished.¹⁵

Yet if the Duke of Rutland and the Rockingham Whigs were very close in their politics, surely this is evidence which refutes, at least in part, the myth that the Duke's politics were opposed to those of politicians such as Edmund Burke. Burke, it will be recalled, was Rockingham's foremost formulator of policy. In the Life, George Crabbe Jr. expresses some surprise that Edmund Burke had obtained Crabbe the chaplaincy to the Duke of Rutland. He comments that ‘in spite of political difference, the recommendation of Burke was all-powerful with the late Duke of Rutland …’.¹⁶ Burke probably wrote the letter informing Crabbe of the Duke's willingness to take him as his domestic chaplain some time in March or April 1782 (the date cannot be established exactly as the letter is now lost, but since Crabbe's reply is extant and dated 16 April 1782, Burke's letter must have been written shortly before this date). The Duke of Rutland formally appointed Crabbe his domestic chaplain in May 1782.¹⁷ At this date Rutland was undoubtedly pleased to help Burke obtain a position for Crabbe, since both the Duke and Burke were supporters of Rockingham. The opposition coalition, which included Rockingham, Fox, Burke, Rutland, Abingdon, Shelburne, and the rest of the leaders, lasted intact and firmly opposed to George III until July 1782. Thus Crabbe's son's statement that Burke obtained the position for Crabbe ‘in spite of political difference’ is obviously incorrect.

If one remembers that Crabbe's son wrote the Life in 1834, some fifty years after the event in question took place, and that he was not well informed about politics, his mistake can be easily understood; for shortly after Crabbe obtained his position at Belvoir, events took place which set Burke and Rutland on opposing political courses. When Rockingham died on 1 July 1782, the King used his constitutional right to offer the lead of the new administration to Shelburne. Fox refused to join, and withdrew his support. Rutland, who had not been given a place in Rockingham's ministry, was called shortly after by Shelburne to the cabinet. After July 1782, therefore, there is every reason to believe that some antagonism developed between Rutland's party, supporting Shelburne, and people such as Burke, who followed Fox. Indeed a letter from Major Stanhope to Rutland explains how this split developed, and is particularly helpful in clarifying the Duke's position at this complex period of English politics:

We were both attached to the same men and the same measures until the unfortunate separation of those men which took place upon Lord Rockingham's death. You then sent for me and desired me to follow the direction of my own judgment, assuring me that you left me to be guided by my own conviction. Since then, you have never been confidential with me upon political or any other subjects. If you had expressed your wish that I should support Government, I should have had no alternative but to obey or resign my seat. Had you left me to myself I should have doubted before following my own judgment. But when, unsolicited by me, you proposed in the most unreserved and handsome manner that I should follow Mr. Fox if my principles inclined me to oppose Government, I did not apprehend that I should offend you by so acting. I appeal to your candour to judge of my conduct.¹⁸

Stanhope's letter suggests that the Duke did not at first have any strong preference for either the followers of Shelburne or the followers of Fox. He appears to have allowed Stanhope to vote for either Fox or Shelburne. However, in the last months of 1782, letters from Shelburne to the Duke of Rutland¹⁹ suggest that Shelburne asked the Duke for active support against his rivals Fox and Burke. Stanhope's letter indicates that Rutland decided, sometime in January or February 1783, to give his entire support to Shelburne against Fox and Burke. The Duke became a member of Lord Shelburne's cabinet on 14 February 1783.²⁰ However, Burke first opened tentative discussions about the possibility of Crabbe's obtaining a place at Belvoir some time around March 1781,²¹ and as has been seen, he obtained the position for Crabbe in May 1782—long before the political differences between Burke and Rutland arose.

While Crabbe's biographers were wrong in stating that the Duke and Crabbe had always been opposed, and wrong in their belief that Burke obtained Crabbe's position ‘in spite of political difference’, they were correct in pointing out that during Crabbe's period as domestic chaplain to the Duke, some political antagonism existed between Burke and Rutland. Since there has been general agreement that the Duke treated Crabbe with affection and respect, there is no question of personal animosities, and it is therefore important to determine the nature of the political differences in order to ascertain the extent to which they would have affected Crabbe. What I hope to show is that the political differences between Rutland and Burke were almost wholly the result of power and personality struggles. This is not an attempt to gloss over their political differences after February 1783, but to show that they were not based on any fundamental differences of policy likely to affect Crabbe's beliefs and his writing.

To understand why Rutland supported Shelburne against Fox after Rockingham's death, one must introduce his connection with William Pitt the younger. The Duke of Rutland's admiration for Chatham led him to seek the opportunity of meeting Chatham's son,²² and a friendship grew up between them which led to the Duke's supporting Pitt for the candidature of one of the two seats at Cambridge University at the general election of 1780. When Pitt failed to win this seat, the Duke's influence with Sir James Lowther (afterwards Lord Lonsdale) gained for him in 1781 the pocket borough of Appleby. In helping Pitt to obtain a seat the Duke believed he had found yet another follower. Pitt wrote to him: ‘Let me rather hope that I shall have the satisfaction of fighting under your banner in the cause to which we are alike attached [ending the American war], and of proving to the world how much I know the value and feel the honour of such a connection.’²³ Within a short time, however, the Duke found he had recruited not a follower, but a leader.

Rockingham's death on 1 July 1782 proved the crucial turning-point in Rutland's political life, for when Shelburne formed his ministry he elevated Pitt to Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Pitt brought Rutland into the ministry. Since Fox and his followers refused to join Shelburne, this placed Burke and Rutland in opposing camps for the first time.²⁴ The important point to grasp is that the opposition between these camps was as much the result of personalities as of political differences. When in February 1783, Pitt and Shelburne realized that they needed further support in the House, they approached Fox once again to join them. George Tomline noted: ‘Neither Mr. Pitt nor lord Shelburne saw any reason, why they should not act with Mr. Fox.’²⁵ But when Pitt personally asked Fox to serve under Shelburne, Fox refused, although not without a strong hint that some sort of agreement might be reached with Pitt alone.²⁶

Crabbe's biographers have attempted to make Pitt and the Duke of Rutland followers of the policy of some mythical Tory party, in opposition to Fox and Burke who were supposed to follow the tenets of the Whig party. But this is utter nonsense. The main distinction between Fox and Shelburne was that Fox believed in organized political groups whereas Shelburne wanted a strong executive in which all members gave their patriotic allegiance to the king. Shelburne was anxious to bring Foxites and Northites into his administration, but as individuals, not groups. That Pitt and Rutland finally gained power while Fox remained in the wilderness was simply the outcome of political intrigue. If Pitt had been included in the Rockingham government of 1782, or if Fox had not disliked Shelburne, then Pitt, Rutland, Burke, and Fox might have remained together as one group. Such conjectures are of course not to be taken seriously, but even the possibility of the suggestion indicates that Rutland and Burke were not nearly so far apart in their political thinking as Crabbe's biographers would have one believe.

When the Duke of Rutland gave his full support to Shelburne against Fox and Burke in the early part of 1783, he did not change any of his political ideals. He did not suddenly embrace a new set of political beliefs—an illusory set of ‘Tory’ policies. The names of Burke and Fox would not have been as popular at Belvoir as they once had been, and Crabbe may have found himself in some difficult or embarrassing positions after February 1783 when the company at Belvoir might discuss his patron Edmund Burke as ‘the enemy’.²⁷ No doubt he would not have relished political conversations in which Burke was discussed in these terms. But this does not in any way imply that Crabbe would have had to restrict his own political and social ideas. The Duke remained constant to his political ideals; so did Burke. The only difference was that they were now separated by a personality struggle.

III

A curious feature of the many attempts to assert a tie between Crabbe's poetry and the politics of the Duke of Rutland is that critics have ignored Crabbe's lack of interest in politics. The poems of this time—The Village, The Library, The Newspaper, and The Candidate—never touch upon this theme. The title The Candidate may have a political ring, but Crabbe is referring not to political candidates but to poetic ones. Confusion has arisen because Crabbe's social ideas have been given a political interpretation. The question of reform played an important part in the political discussions of the years 1780-5, and the belief seems to linger that one party, the Tories, attempted to resist all changes in the system of parliamentary representation and any attempts to improve the living conditions of the poor. At this period, however, when reform was in the air, and almost everyone was imbued with the critical spirit towards some aspect of political and social life, the terms ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ are inadequate to describe the complexities of individual attitudes. Whereas Burke's support of Roman Catholic emancipation would class him as a liberal, his refusal to countenance an increase in the representation of parliament would make him in modern times a conservative. Shelburne, on the other hand, supported reform of parliament but was opposed to Catholic emancipation. A person such as Horace Walpole might wish to see the government give greater aid to the poor, but he could hardly favour Burke's ‘liberal’ bill to reduce sinecures when his own income rested on them. Various literary critics have fastened the label ‘Tory’ to the Duke of Rutland, and then used this label to conjure up a story that the Duke was displeased with Crabbe's social concerns. Yet even if the Duke had been a Tory, in the years 1775-85 this would be no reason to assume that he was opposed to electoral reform and attempts to better the conditions of the labouring poor.

Crabbe would have found much to admire in the Duke of Rutland's enlightened humanitarian interests, and there is no reason to suspect that the Duke did not welcome his chaplain's sympathy for the underprivileged. The Duke's generosity, both among his friends and the people of the working class, is well documented. In Ireland he gained an excellent reputation as a firm but humanitarian Governor. Soon after his arrival there, the Duke sent £1,000 to help the manufacturing poor. The Archbishop of Armagh wrote to thank him:

I have received your draft for 1,000 l., and shall distribute the money, as you direct, for the benefit of poor manufacturers in the different parishes. A donation of this kind must be understood to proceed from a friendly disposition to the welfare of this country.²⁸

No doubt such alms-giving could be construed as a purely political move to appease the people of Ireland, to show that the new Governor was kindly disposed towards them. But even if the £1,000 is seen in this light, one cannot deny that Rutland understood the importance of keeping the people happy. Many Governors would have dealt with an unruly populace by bringing out the military; Rutland attempted to win them over with kind actions. Recognizing also that the poor needed legislative aid, Rutland attempted to ease some of the taxes. In a private letter to his secretary, he made a special plea that the condition of the poor should be improved:

I hope the Legislature will in the next session take the grievances of the poor into their consideration, and, if possible, give them redress. The two great points which press are the tithes and the hearth-money. I desire you will turn them in your thoughts, and see if any effectual substitution occurs to you.²⁹

Rutland's interest in the poor and sympathy for their hardships must have pleased Crabbe, and certainly could not have caused any of the tension between them which Crabbe's son notes.

Because of their fixation with the Duke of Rutland's ‘Tory’ beliefs, literary critics have never bothered to look closely at Rutland's political opinions; instead they have assumed that he must have been opposed to all reform measures. Yet when one turns to consider Rutland's opinions on the question of reform, he is found to be eminently liberal. His refusal to join the Fox-North coalition of April 1783 gave him a high reputation in the eyes of Reformers. When Fox formed this ‘infamous coalition’ with Lord North in order to defeat Shelburne and gain power many reformers saw this as a sell-out.³⁰ Fox, Burke, and the other Whigs had campaigned against North for years on the basis that North was opposed to reform. Pitt declared angrily that he knew of ‘a just impediment’ why the union should not take place. At this time reformers such as Christopher Wyvill saw but one gleam of hope for the future; several of the great nobles had remained true to their commitment to reform and had refused to join the coalition. Amongst these were Rutland, Richmond, and of course Shelburne. Wyvill was particularly pleased that the Duke of Rutland followed Pitt into opposition; for when the Yorkshire Association had first attempted to place its petitions for reform before Parliament, the Duke of Rutland had been one of the foremost to help.³¹

Moreover, as soon as the King asked Pitt to form an administration in December 1783, hopes for electoral reform rose once again. Pitt's desire for reform at this period was well known. The Duke of Richmond, at one time known as ‘the Radical Duke’, wrote to Rutland describing how their party's plans for reform were progressing:

I have great hopes, from the temper of the people here, that our favourite object of a Parliamentary reform is gaining ground apace. The popularity of Mr. Pitt and his administration is excessive.³²

At this period reformers such as Wyvill believed that Pitt, Richmond, and Rutland could lead the House to reform.³³

One of the reasons why in the past Rutland has been considered a reactionary was his decision in late 1782 to support Shelburne's ministry. Those Victorians who saw Fox as one of the fathers of their parliamentary system condemned Shelburne's ministry as reactionary, because they saw that Shelburne distrusted the party system and wished to destroy it. Yet on questions of reform, Shelburne was no reactionary; he was an outspoken advocate for reform of representation. One of the reasons for the Duke of Rutland's decision to support the Shelburne ministry was Shelburne's sincere commitment to end the war and bring in reform. Richard Watson commented on the Duke's motives: ‘The Duke of Rutland wrote to me at Yarmouth—that he had determined to support Lord Shelburne's administration, as he had received the most positive assurances, that the independency of America was to be acknowledged, and the wishes of the people relative to parliamentary reform granted.’³⁴ When the Duke decided to support Shelburne's administration, he did so on the express condition that reform of Parliament be effected as soon as possible.

Another reason why literary critics have overlooked Rutland's strong liberal commitment to reform was his support for William Pitt. Pitt's reputation as a reactionary in the late 1790s has given him such a ‘Tory’ reputation that all associated with him have automatically been labelled ‘Tory’ and reactionary. Kebbel, in his biography of Crabbe, describes the formation of the ministry under Pitt in December 1783, as if some apocalyptic event, the advent of the Tory party, had taken place:

The Dukes of Rutland had been Whigs, but never very keen partisans. And now the young head of the house, who had only just completed his twenty-ninth year, touched, as were hundreds of other young men at the same time, by the appeal of their sovereign against the dictation of an exclusive oligarchy, threw himself heart and soul into the Tory cause. …³⁵

Kebbel had been reading too much propaganda from Devonshire House; the real situation was quite different. In the early 1780s, Pitt as well as the Foxites were sincerely working for reform.

IV

The notion of Crabbe's Whiggism originates with his son, who mentions: ‘I must also add, that, although he owed his introduction to Burke, his adherence, however mild, to the whig tenets of Burke's party may not have much gratified the circles of Belvoir.’³⁶ What were these ‘whig tenets’? Critics have usually interpreted them in the light of the economic reforms passed by the Rockingham party, and have concluded that the ‘whig tenets’ refer to reform. But if this is the correct interpretation, is it true to say that ‘the circles of Belvoir’ objected to the economic reforms of Burke, Clerke, and Crewe? Not at all. As a private member, Pitt, the leader of Rutland's party, voted for Burke's reform in 1782, helping to make it law.

If this argument is pushed one step further, the idea that Crabbe's ‘Whig’ support of Burke's ‘liberal’ Economic Reform bill was distasteful to the Duke of Rutland is shown to be obviously false. ‘Economic Reform’ is the sole basis for Burke's reputation as a reformer. While the economic reforms were important in reducing government expenditure, one should realize that they did not in any way cover the reform of representation in the House of Commons. Burke, as is well known, rejected any ‘liberal’ reform which would enlarge the representation in the House. However, soon after Burke's bill for economic reform had been passed, Pitt proposed a motion for ‘a moderate and substantial reform’ of Parliament,³⁷ a motion which was far more liberal than Burke's, and which would have had far-reaching consequences. The Duke of Rutland's support of Shelburne was also support for radical reform, since Shelburne was known to be strongly in favour of reformed representation in the House. The important conclusion to be drawn from these points is that Crabbe's supposed ‘whig tenets’, far from being unacceptable to the circles of Belvoir, were what they conceived to be minimal conditions. Pitt and Rutland saw ‘Economic Reform’ as only the first stage of a reform which would enlarge the representation of the House of Commons. Thus support for Burke's ‘Economic Reform’ could not have been distasteful to the Duke of Rutland. The Duke wanted economic reform and a great deal more.

Crabbe's son's remark about Crabbe's adherence to ‘whig tenets’ may not of course have referred to the question of reform at all. He may have been thinking of Burke's desire to curtail the power of the king. Both Burke and Fox felt that Pitt had betrayed their cause when he accepted George III's offer of December 1783 to become First Lord of the Treasury. Yet Fox's belief that the king should not appoint ministers, and that ministries should be formed solely from the party with the greatest support in the House, was far in advance of his time. Very few members, even of his own following, accepted his theory as anything but visionary. Crabbe, of course, makes no mention of these purely political ideas. No evidence is available to show that he was ever remotely interested in such constitutional wrangles. His concern was with the poor and how to better their lot. In so far as the social question becomes a political issue, then it becomes relevant to a study of Crabbe. But surely there is no gain in attempting to involve Crabbe in purely political questions, questions which he never mentions.

Crabbe's son also makes a brief reference to how Crabbe ‘had more than once to drink a glass of salt water, because he would not join in Tory toasts’.³⁸ What exactly he meant by this remark is not clear. Certainly the Duke of Rutland was no Jacobite. The word ‘Tory’ often meant someone who was not keen on constitutional reform, but if the word ‘Tory’ is being used in this sense, then in the early 1780s Burke would have to be reckoned the Tory, not Rutland or Pitt. One of the reasons why Burke distrusted Pitt after 1783 was that Pitt strongly favoured electoral reform. One has the suspicion that a ‘Tory toast’ may have been no more than a toast to the King and a derogatory reference to the opposition—to the Foxites.

Huchon took up the hint about Crabbe's politics found in the Life and expanded it to a full-length theory to show Crabbe's antagonism to the politics of the Duke of Rutland. Although recent critics such as Robert Chamberlain seem to have taken their cue from Huchon, and to have accepted his theory that Crabbe was a Whig, Huchon adds nothing to the evidence about the supposed conflict of politics, except one letter from Crabbe to Burke in which he finds ‘a categorical profession of his [Crabbe's] political creed’.³⁹ This letter should be quoted at length since it is often cited as proof that Crabbe was a Whig:

Sir, I have long delayed, though I much wished to write to you, not being willing to take up any part of your time with the impertinence of congratulation; but now I feel that I had rather be thought an intruder on your patience, than not to be a partaker of the general joy. Most heartily, indeed, do I rejoice, being well assured that if the credit and happiness of this kingdom can be restored, the wisdom and virtues of my most honoured friend, and his friends, will bring forward so desirable an event; and if not, it will be some satisfaction to find such men lost to the confidence of the people, who have so long demonstrated their incapacity to make a proper use of it.⁴⁰

Although this one paragraph is all that Crabbe has to say on his supposed Whig sympathies, Huchon maintains, that this letter is a ‘flattering eulogium of the Whigs and severe censure of the Tories’.⁴¹ What Crabbe does in this letter is to congratulate his patron on finally gaining a position of power (Edmund Burke had been made Paymaster), and to express the same dissatisfaction with the ministry conducting the war as was felt by the entire war-weary nation. The fall of Lord North meant that Rockingham would have a chance to end the war, which at this time only George III wished to continue. Furthermore, one must be careful in determining whom Crabbe was censuring in his circumlocution, ‘such men … who have so long demonstrated their incapacity to make a proper use’ of the confidence of the people. Certainly they would not have been people like Pitt and Rutland. Both Pitt and Rutland were opposed to the war; indeed the youthful Pitt was almost included in the Marquess of Rockingham's ministry at this time.

Although Crabbe was a friend of both Burke and Fox the friendships were based on personal relationships, not devotion to a particular party. One should remember that Crabbe was also a friend of Thurlow, who was definitely a ‘king's man’, and that Crabbe did not dedicate The Newspaper to any of the Whig leaders, but to Thurlow. This action, however, does not make Crabbe a follower of Thurlow; it shows that he was much less committed to any party than most people have been willing to admit.⁴² The dedication also reveals that Crabbe, as a literary man, had freedom of choice in politics. The situation in 1784 had changed from Addison's time when a writer with a patron in politics was expected to support the policies of his patron.

As further evidence that Crabbe did not consider himself a partisan Whig, it may be recalled that when Crabbe went to London to seek employment in the world of letters, he first approached politicians like North and Thurlow for help. This choice was partly the result of his father's slight acquaintance with North on election matters,⁴³ but also quite natural. A hopeful young poet would presumably approach the ministers in power, believing them to have the most patronage to dispense. Only after these men had refused their help did he approach the opposition—Shelburne, and then Burke. Even after Crabbe had gained Burke's assistance, he did not become so rabid a follower of Burke that he rejected offers of help from other politicians. Thurlow gave him £100 and two small livings in the south of England. When Crabbe sought out eminent politicians, he did so, not on any political grounds, but in order to obtain help from those most likely to give it.

The conclusion to be drawn is that the long-held assumption—Crabbe's liberal ideas were distasteful to the Duke of Rutland—is incorrect. The Duke held liberal ideas himself, and was enthusiastic to see labourers helped and reform of Parliament implemented. Certainly Crabbe may have found himself in delicate situations at Belvoir Castle, for after 1783 the Duke of Rutland and Burke no longer belonged to the same company. And Crabbe's son is probably correct in the belief that his father found difficulty in walking the tightrope between his patrons in order to give offence to neither. But these political differences between Rutland and Burke were not over liberalism. Thus the argument that the politics of the Duke of Rutland forced Crabbe to assume a false conservative attitude has no basis in fact. It has arisen because of a misinterpretation of the political situation in the 1780s.

Notes

1. The Poetical Works of the Rev. George Crabbe, ed. George Crabbe Jr. (London, 1834), i. 111-27 (Ch. v).

2. René Huchon, George Crabbe and his Times 1754-1832, trans. Frederick Clarke (London, 1907), p. 142.

3. R. L. Chamberlain, George Crabbe (New York, 1965), p. 54.

4. Chamberlain, op. cit., p. 54.

5. ‘Autobiographical Sketch’, in The New Monthly Magazine, iv (1815), 514.

6. Some of the major works related to this discussion are R. Pares, King George III and the Politicians (Oxford, 1953); D. G. Barnes, George III and William Pitt, 1783-1806 (Stanford, 1939); and I. R. Christie, The End of North's Ministry 1780-1782 (London, 1958).

7. The Structure of Politics at the Accession of George III, rev. edn. (London, 1957), pp. x and xi.

8. See J. H. Plumb, The Growth of Political Stability in England 1675-1725 (London, 1967), Ch. v.

9. Memoirs of the Reign of King George the Third, ed. G. F. Russell Barker (London, 1894), i. 192.

10. See letter from the Marquess of Rockingham to the Marquess of Granby, 5 Mar. 1779. Historical Manuscripts Commission, 14th Report, The Manuscripts of His Grace the Duke of Rutland (London, 1894), iii. 17. Charles Manners was Marquess of Granby until 1779 when he succeeded to the dukedom.

11. See I. Christie, op. cit., p. 221.

12. Life of George Crabbe (London, 1888), p. 45.

13. The gist of his speech outlining his principles is given in Namier and Brooke, The House of Commons 1754-1790 (London, 1964), iii. 101. Horace Walpole, who also mentions this speech, felt that Granby's stand against the war was a blow to Lord North. He says ‘This speech and declaration were a great disappointment to the Court’ (The Last Journals of Horace Walpole, ed. A. F. Steuart (London, 1910), i. 458).

14. Christie, op. cit., p. 221.

15. Letter from the Marquess of Rockingham to the Duke of Rutland, 7 Apr. 1780 (H.M.C., Rutland MSS, iii. 28).

16. Life, Ch. v, p. 112.

17. See Crabbe's letter to Burke, 15 May 1782. Crabbe says ‘It is my Duty to inform you that His Grace appointed me his domestic Chaplain on Sunday last …’ (The Correspondence of Edmund Burke, ed. T. W. Copeland (Cambridge, 1963), iv. 454.

18. Letter of 15 Feb. 1783 (H.M.C., Rutland MSS, iii. 68).

19. H.M.C., Rutland MSS, iii. 64.

20. Huchon states incorrectly that the Duke was made a minister in Dec. 1782 (op. cit., p. 143); Namier and Brooke, in The House of Commons (iii. 101), give the correct date.

21. Burke must have intimated something on the subject to Crabbe at this time, since Crabbe, in his poem The Library, pays a compliment to Rutland. Crabbe says that the poor man is fortunate who can find ‘some noble RUTLAND, Misery's friend and thine’ (l. 670). The Library was published on 24 July 1781. Crabbe mentioned this allusion to Rutland in his letter to Burke of 27 Mar. 1781: ‘If the line wherein the Duke of Rutland is indirectly mentioned, be such as would offend his grace, or if you disapprove it,—it is almost unnecessary, I hope, to say it shall be immediately altered’ (see The Correspondence of Edmund Burke, ed. E. Fitzwilliam, ii. 415).

22. In his first reported speech, the Duke said that he was a follower of ‘Chatham's principles’. See Namier and Brooke, The House of Commons 1754-1790, iii. 101.

23. Letter of 9 Mar. 1781 (Correspondence between the Right Honble. William Pitt and Charles Duke of Rutland, ed. John, Duke of Rutland (Edinburgh & London, 1890), p. 2).

24. Gibbon's calculations show that of the 558 members, approximately 140 followed the leadership of Shelburne, 120 followed Lord North, and about 90 followed Fox. Some two hundred members were left unattached who could be swayed by the oratory of the House of Commons. See J. Steven Watson, The Reign of George III (Oxford, 1960), p. 250.

25. George Tomline, Memoirs of the Life of The Right Honorable William Pitt (2nd edn., London, 1821), i. 89.

26. Ibid.

27. After 1784 Pitt often uses this phrase ‘the enemy’ to describe the opposition led by Fox; see Correspondence between Pitt and the Duke of Rutland, ed. cit.

28. Letter of 29 Feb. 1784 (H.M.C., Rutland MSS, iii. 77).

29. Letter of 20 July 1786 (Correspondence between Pitt and the Duke of Rutland, ed. cit., p. 157).

30. For example, see Richard Watson's comments in Anecdotes of the Life of Richard Watson (London, 1817), pp. 104-5.

31. See J. Steven Watson, op. cit., p. 230.

32. Letter of 25 Apr. 1784 (H.M.C., Rutland MSS, iii. 90).

33. See letter from Wyvill to the Rev. James Wilkinson, 9 Dec. 1784, in Christopher Wyvill's Political Papers (York, 1794-1804), iv. 119.

34. Richard Watson, op. cit., p. 93.

35. Life of George Crabbe, p. 45.

36. Life, Ch. v, pp. 126-7.

37. Quoted from W. Cobbett, The Parliamentary History of England (London, 1806-20), xii. 1417-18.

38. Life, Ch. vii, p. 176.

39. Op. cit., p. 135.

40. Letter of 16 Apr. 1782 (Correspondence of The Right Honourable Edmund Burke, ed. Fitzwilliam, ii. 475-6).

41. Op. cit., p. 135.

42. The version which Lord Holland gives of the help Crabbe received from political leaders illustrates this point: ‘The improvement in Mr. Crabbe's fortune was, in a great measure, owing to himself [Charles James Fox]. While Lord Thurlow was in office, he overcame his reluctance to asking favours of a political enemy, and urged that Chancellor to encourage genius by giving Mr. Crabbe some preferment. Lord Thurlow did something for him; and the Duke of Rutland, who had been applied to by Lord John Townshend, did more’ (Memoirs of the Whig Party During My Time, ed. Henry Edward, Lord Holland (London, 1852), i. 255-6).

43. See Life, Ch. iii, p. 56; and Huchon, op. cit., p. 81.