new perspective

new perspective

new perspective

new perspective

new perspective

new perspective

new perspective

new perspective

new perspective

new perspective

new perspective

new perspective

new perspective

skills supplement

Answering AS Level British History questions

Castler eagh and Canning

Russell Williams. Latterly University of Gloucestershire and AS/A Chief Examiner

OCR AS-LEVEL
papers on period studies of British History.
HE QUESTION FOLLOWS THE

EXAMINATION

Question: How successful were Castlereagh and Canning in

securing British interests?

Kathys answer
Castlereagh (1812-22) and Canning (1822-7) were Foreign
Secretaries at a very difficult time for Britain. First, Napoleon
had to be defeated and then an international settlement had to
be agreed which involved negotiations with international
major powers who pursued very different aims. They were
largely successful in securing British interests because the
country continued to be a leading power throughout this
period.
Castlereagh and Canning were not friends. They fought a
duel at the height of the Napoleonic War. Castlereagh was a
poor public speaker whereas Canning was more fluent and
witty. Although Castlereagh worked very hard, this might have
been responsible for his death because he committed suicide
in 1822. Castlereagh was more reactionary in his policies,
supporting the repressive measures of Lord Liverpools
government, and his funeral was cheered by the lower classes
in London. Canning was more moderate in his domestic
policies; he had been a Whig before joining the Tory party and
was willing to consider reform when he became Prime
Minister briefly after Lord Liverpool resigned in 1827.
Wellington won the military victories against Napoleon
but it was Castlereagh who did much to hold together the
Fourth Coalition of Britain, Austria, Prussia and Russia. He
was then Britains leading representative at the Congress of
Vienna and was very important in shaping the settlement.
Other politicians and the public were not very interested in
foreign affairs and Castlereagh was given a lot of freedom to
make decisions about policy. He wanted to balance the
defence of British interests with the avoidance of involvement
in continental affairs. While Austria, Prussia and Russia

restored the pre-Napoleonic monarchies, bartered land and

argued about the control of Europe, Castlereagh had only one
important interest on the Continent: to ensure trade with the
Low Countries, especially Antwerp in Belgium. This is why he
secured control of Heligoland and free trade on the River
Scheldt. It was more important to Castlereagh to secure gains
in the wider world. Britain gained Malta and the Ionian Islands
as trading bases in the Mediterranean and to prevent an
expansion of Russian power in the Mediterranean. The Cape
of Good Hope and Ceylon protected the route to India. In the
West Indies, St Lucia, Tobago and Trinidad became British,
again for commercial reasons. However, he also pressed for
the abolition of the slave trade, a popular demand in Britain.
To resolve tensions between the European powers,
Castlereagh was willing to support the idea of regular
meetings or congresses and Britain became a member of the
Quadruple Alliance in 1815 with Austria, Prussia and Russia.
However, he became increasingly suspicious of the way in
which the autocratic powers, especially Austria and Russia,
wished the congresses to become decision-making bodies to
intervene in the affairs of more liberal countries. He was
particularly suspicious of the Holy Alliance which was
proposed by Alexander I of Russia. Castlereagh agreed that
France should be brought back into international affairs at the
Congress of Aix-la-Chapelle (1818) but became more distant
from the other congresses. He was present at Troppau (1820)
but did not sign the declaration that approved intervention
against revolution. He did not attend the Congress of Laibach.
His State Paper of 1820 opposed the use of force to interfere
in the affairs of other states. He did not support revolutions,
for example, in Italy and Spain - after all he was a strong Tory
- but he believed that these were examples of domestic not
international problems.
Canning agreed with Castlereagh that Britain should not
intervene unnecessarily in the affairs of other states. There
were differences between them but these can be exaggerated.
He was also suspicious of congresses but these meetings were
already less important by the time that he became Foreign

Do you know that there is an open access Concepts article

on The balance of power by Professor John Charmley on our website?
Do you know that there is an article on George Canning by John Lowe
in the, password protected, Study Centre of the site
and a further 39 articles on nineteenth-century British History?

Treat yourself, your colleagues and students, for the Festive Season
and for the rest of the school year, to an eLC eligible site Licence,
now nearly half price to

www.histor y-ontheweb.co.uk
For details and a proforma tel 01234 267856 or e-mail semp@gxn.co.uk

An outstandingly good resource for GCSE, AS and A2 Level Modern History

18

skills supplement - volume 9 number 2 new perspective - for modern history students

new perspective

new perspective

new perspective

new perspective

skills supplement

Castlereagh in 1820

new perspective

new perspective

new perspective

new perspective

new perspective

new perspective

Delegates at the Congress of Vienna

Secretary. If there was a Congress System, it had almost

broken down by 1822. He lacked Castlereaghs personal
knowledge of continental rulers and he was less cautious in
dealing with them. This approach persuaded some European
leaders such as Metternich and some Tories in Britain that he
was a dangerous radical but it also made him more popular
with a greater number in this country. He was a better orator
than Castlereagh and was more aware of the importance of
public opinion; his policies gained support from Whigs as well
as Tories, some of whom, such as Wellington, believed that
his policies were dangerous. His supporters believed that he
should be admired for the way in which he stood up for the
countrys interests and others praised him for his support of
liberal movements. However, his real motives were often as
much economic as political. For example, he recognised new
countries in Central and South America such as Mexico, Brazil
and Colombia that had been part of the Spanish and
Portuguese empires. This was popular with many who
favoured the liberation of suppressed people but trade with
the new countries was, in reality, as important to Canning.
This made him more popular with the merchant and business
classes in Britain. It also helped Britains relations with the
United States of America, whose Monroe Doctrine warned
against intervention of the New World by European powers.
In Europe, he became more interventionist than
Castlereagh in spite of his earlier unwillingness to commit
Britain to action. But he could be flexible and sent English
soldiers and a fleet to Portugal to prevent it coming under
Spanish control. Trade, liberalism and the defence of a
traditional ally were more important than non-intervention.
Perhaps the most difficult problem that faced Canning
was the Greek rebellion against Turkish rule. He wished to
support the Greeks struggle for independence but feared that
Russia, Britains rival, would gain by this and Turkey, Britains
ally would lose. He tried to persuade the other countries to
accept British mediation and died before this policy failed.
In conclusion, both Castlereagh and Canning achieved
considerable but not complete success. Most important,
Britain continued to be a powerful country and was not
involved in a major war from 1815 to 1827. However, under

new perspective

new perspective

new perspective

Canning in 1827

Castlereagh, Britain became more isolated from the allies who

had helped to defeat Napoleon and this isolation increased
under Canning. However, a clear gain for the future was that
Britain gained a reputation for assisting liberalism against
repression.

Examiners Comments
The answer is given 65 marks out of 90 (Band B). It is always
relevant and Kathy concentrates on explanation, avoiding
narrative. The answer is balanced between Castlereagh and
Canning. This is important when questions are about two
people or issues. There is a good introduction which
immediately focuses on the question and avoids too much
background. The conclusion is a clear summary of the
argument. The main part of the answer makes a variety of
valid points. Most of the answer is relevant, for example, the
description of the Vienna settlement only discusses how
Britain was involved.
How could the answer be improved to gain Grade A?
The second paragraph is poor. There is no need to mention
that Castlereagh committed suicide, that his funeral was
cheered and that Canning had moderate domestic policies. You
will probably know much more than is needed to answer a
question. Be careful to limit your answer to what the question
requires. Do not waste time by giving additional information you will not get marks for it!
The question asks about securing British interests and
the answer, although relevant, deals with these indirectly and
occasionally. An A grade answer would have explained clearly
what is meant by such issues as the balance of power, Britains
trading position, defence of the empire and suspicion of
Russian expansion in the East. The answer would have been
improved if these had been the foundations of the answer and
then linked more deliberately to the description of
developments. Make sure that you deal with all of the issues
that are mentioned in a question!
Russell Williams, latterly Lecturer, University of Gloucestershire, is an AS/A Level Chief Examiner.

There are further articles on this, and the Tackling the Documents Paper at AS, series
in the open access Exam and study advice section of our website

www.history-ontheweb.co.uk
new perspective - for modern history students volume 9 number 2 - skills supplement

19