2 of 3 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
England would like to forget him, April 29, 2011
This review is from: The Great Man: Sir Robert Walpole: Scoundrel, Genius and Britain's First Prime Minister (Hardcover)
Imagine if there were no complete biography of George Washington. That's the situation with Sir Robert Walpole, the first and longest-serving prime minister of England. And "The Great Man" isn't either. Edward Pearce would not disagree.
True, it covers Walpole from birth to death, but in a brisk, gossipy way. That is not to say that it is unserious, but it is not the fully-noted scholarly autobiography that the Regius Professor of History J.H. Plumb started and abandoned after two volumes.
In a coda, Pearce wonders why England, certainly well-supplied with historians and publishers, shies away from examining Walpole. The simple answer, that England is embarrassed, is not offered.
But no better answer is offered.
The 18th century was full of cant about the liberties of Englishmen, but they had little liberty, the Scotch and Welsh less, and the Irish were practically slaves. In English colonies overseas, there were outright slaves. The legal dictum that the air of England maketh a man free did not extend to the level of becoming a principle.
Walpole seems not to have had a single principle, except that he should lead the ministry of a Protestant king. It is not even obvious that he was loyal to the Guelph family, though he had to work with them.
He may perhaps have had a second principle, loathing for the Catholic Stuarts. He certainly spoke as if he did, but Pearce leaves open the possibility that this was mere waving of a bloody shirt, cynical and effective long after any real threat to the Protestant Succession was over.
Walpole is well known for two maxims, let sleeping dogs lie and every man has his price.
He nearly proved the latter. As head of a Whig ministry for a generation, he easily abandoned every Whig principle -- such as religious toleration -- in exchange for votes. No one in his party stood for conscience, and since the Tories were constitutionally against it, there was no conscience spoken for by anybody.
Pearce, a newspaperman, is memorably snide about all this. The gossipy Lord Hervey is labeled the "under-Queen," and many another character of the time, some of them rather complex personalities, is categorized as briefly. The writing style is engaging, though an American will miss a lot of references to late 20th century British popular culture.
What lifts this biography above the level of summer reading is Pearce's underlying seriousness, never quite hidden by the joking. For example, he devotes considerable attention to the Black Act (crediting E.P. Thompson for exposing its meaning in "Whigs and Hunters," which I agree was one of the more shocking historical studies of the last half century), which added about 50 hanging offenses to the already bulging list. He comments that none of the supposed despotisms on the other side of the Channel had anything like such a law.
It was, in fact, like the Nuremberg Laws, only motivated by class rather than race, and Walpole combined the tolerance of a Hitler, the probity of a Nixon and the breadth of a G.W. Bush.
And yet, and yet, although Walpole had, at best, contempt for poor folks, he did not like to slaughter them without a better purpose. He hated war, preferring peace and trade. His policy saved tens of thousands of poor men from being immolated in glory.
It would not, or at least it did not occur to Pearce in 2007 to make the comparison, but recent events suggest to us that the corrupt dictator that most resembled Walpole in our time was Hosni Mubarak.
Both men fell from power in a spasm of phony democracy.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No