InfoBritain

 

Henry Addington

Prime Minister 1801 - 03

Henry Addington held office between the two terms of William Pitt the Younger. He was a prime minister who illustrates how important appearances are in politics. Addington's reputation was ruined by his time as prime minister, and according to Philip Zeigler this was not the result of what his government did, but of how it was perceived.

Henry Addington was born 30th May 1757, eldest son of an eminent doctor, Anthony Addington. At school Henry gathered a loyal following around him. The young man also got to know fellow school boy William Pitt the Younger - Anthony Addington was doctor to Pitt's father, William Pitt the Elder. School days were perhaps the peak of Henry Addington's career. He was an academic star, with a loyal following, and connections in all the right places. But after finishing his education at Brasenose College, Oxford, and at Lincoln's Inn, Addington entered Parliament as MP for Devises in 1784 and immediately fell into the shadow of his childhood friend Pitt the Younger. While Pitt was installed as prime minister at age twenty four, Addington's early career in Parliament was quiet. He found his niche as speaker in 1789. He was impartial, which was a rare attribute in a speaker in 1789. But in this role Addington's tendency to pomposity went unchecked. This left him open to the ridicule that would one day ruin him.

After many years serving under Pitt, Addington's chance to become prime minister came in 1801. Pitt the Younger tried to force George III to accept a policy of equal rights for catholics. This measure was required to support the union of Britain and Ireland. But George III felt it was his duty to defend the protestant faith. After many years of illness the king was in a mentally fragile state, and Pitt feared forcing the issue would be seen as threatening the king's sanity. Pitt resigned, and Addington was the only acceptable candidate available to fill the vacancy. The two year government that followed was generally competent. After peace negotiations with France failed in May 1803, Addington followed a sensible if unspectacular course of doing nothing. Napoleon's army was sitting in France ready to invade, but if they tried to do so the Royal Navy was waiting for them. And if they stayed waiting in France, disease and indiscipline threatened bored men. If only Addington could continue to do nothing then Britain would survive. But there was constant pressure for a more spectacular policy.

Military tactics were sound, and the same was true of economic management. Income tax had been introduced by Pitt the Younger in 1796 to help pay for war against France. Addington now improved Pitt's system, instituting "taxing at source" . Pitt's income tax of two shillings to the pound had given £5.3 million in revenue, while Addington's system gave £4.7 million from one shilling to the pound. Nevertheless none of this made for spectacular leadership. As Philip Zeigler says: "In the last resort... it was a question of confidence. All government rests fundamentally on an act of faith; the belief of ministers that they have the right to command, and of the people that they have the duty to obey." (The Prime Ministers Vol 1 P246) Inspite of the fact that Addington was competent, his prudent policies did not inspire confidence. Olga Soffer has suggested that competence is often a secondary consideration in the success of leadership. In examining the development of human society during the last ice age, she describes the rise of "irrational" leadership, controlled by religious leaders whose information by definition cannot be checked for accuracy. (SeeThe Neandertal Enigma P 317) Unfortunately there is something in people that distrusts Addington's characteristically straight forward approach. Competence is fragile and can always be challenged. Leaders who rely more on faith, monarchs with their panoply of religious symbolism, and to a lesser extent charismatic prime ministers, are more secure. As Zeigler says, in the end it comes down to faith, and faith is not necessarily created by straight forward ability. The fate of Henry Addington certainly seems to demonstrate this.

Addington's government quickly became a joke. His successes were ignored, and mistakes were made much of. For example, an error was made in recruitment for the armed forces, giving a number of men beyond the resources available to train them. With his authority collapsing the prime minister resigned on 29th April 1803. Charismatic Pitt the Younger returned as prime minister, while Addington retired into lesser offices. Here he was to gain the reputation of a reactionary, with an inflexible enthusiasm for law and order. Unlike Pitt, Addington was not the sort of man to have faith that people and events would come right. He was not an optimist, and inspite of his qualities and his achievements, it was his lack of faith in its broadest sense that perhaps ruined him as a prime minister.