|
| |
Why Study Minor Historical Figures?
From: London School of Economics and Political Science
| By:
Janet Hartley |
EDITOR'S INTRODUCTION |
 Charles Whitworth was a relatively obscure English diplomat who served the crown during the precarious years of the early eighteenth century: what could be the use of studying and understanding his life? Janet Hartley, biographer of Whitworth and senior lecturer in international history at the London School of Economics and Political Science, considers the importance of small histories, of studying the lives of minor historical figures. She argues that the great currents of history can sometimes be seen quite differently through the prism of an individual life. Indeed, it is through the career and correspondence of Charles Whitworth, that we gain an insight into the slow yet determined rise to power of Russia, one of the Olympians of international relations in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. |
 have almost completed a biography of Charles Whitworth. He was from solid gentry stock, but not from a family of any great wealth or influence. After being educated at Westminster School and Trinity College, Cambridge, he entered the Board of Trade as a clerk. Whitworth left the Board of Trade within a few years to pursue a diplomatic career. He held posts at Ratisbon (Regensburg), in Austria, Prussia, Russia and the United Provinces, and ended his career at the Congress of Cambrai. He died at the age of 50 shortly after the ending of this last commission; he was buried at Westminster Abbey. |
 | |
| Charles Whitworth | |
|
Why study the life of someone who is not a major figure? What is the importance of a diplomat whose role was to take orders from the ministers in London? Whitworth himself said of himself and his fellow diplomats that 'we are look't upon like Wills in the Wisp, glare for a while, & then go out of a sudden in some quagmire or other'. There are good reasons to study secondary figures but I should like to argue that three essential criteria are needed to do so successfully: the existence of good primary sources; the subject needs to be an acute and intelligent observer; and the subject needs to have been in the right place at the right time |
Primary sources
The necessity of good primary sources may seem to be an obvious point, but reconstructing the life of most early eighteenth-century officials is not always possible. In Whitworth's case there are some short gaps in his own papers, but it has been possible to reconstruct his career at this distance from the papers of other ministers and diplomats. Whitworth was an indefatigable writer, and his papers are remarkably full. I have been able to get a fairly complete picture of the life of an early eighteenth-century diplomat and also to get an insight into the character of my subject. This is probably the main justification for undertaking this study--certainly it is what makes it both possible and enjoyable. |
But it is not merely the quantity of papers which matters, of course, but also the quality. Whitworth did not simply write formal dispatches to the secretaries of state. His papers also include commercial correspondence and private letters to fellow diplomats and to more junior officials (that is, to men of his own status) which are often far more revealing. To these men Whitworth poured out all his frustrations about his career, but also wrote with far greater freedom about the situation abroad and his view of the threats posed to British interests. Whitworth also wrote to family members about his health, his finances (including his unfortunate investment in South Sea stock), and about the discomforts of life abroad. He married late in life and I have found a few letters, in French, between husband and wife. Whitworth does not seem to have been a romantic, or at least that is not the way he chose to project himself to his male friends. 'On Monday I shall get my wedding over as privately as possible', he wrote. To another friend he was even blunter: 'you will judge of my Choice: I will only tell you that it was not for Beauty!'. |
The 25 years of Whitworth's diplomatic experience coincided with the very gradual professionalisation of the diplomatic corps, a subject which I have been able to develop in the biography. Nevertheless, Whitworth's life reveals the frustration and discomforts of diplomatic life in this period, ranging from the slow payment of arrears, tedious ceremonial rituals and the difficulties of receiving post from England to the discomfort and dangers of travel, poor accommodation, foreign food and uncongenial company. As early as 1702 Whitworth had commented that 'I look upon my Post as my Wife which I have taken for better or worse'. |
Russia (where Whitworth was minister from 1705 to 1712) was the most uncomfortable posting in this respect, made more so by Whitworth's dislike of heavy drinking, which was the main diversion of the English merchant community in Moscow, particularly in the winter, and which was used as tactical weapon by Peter the Great. One visit from the tsar, Whitworth reported, 'drunk me up all the Stock I had laid in for the whole Campaign'. In fact, according to a contemporary account by an English shipbuilder in Russia, Whitworth was credited with stopping the practice of forcing foreign representatives to drink all evening with the tsar and his companions, with armed guards on door to keep them in. Whitworth's papers are full of descriptions of the unpleasantness of diplomatic life and pleas for a post to be found for him at home. This is a description of life in Moscow, written in August 1706: |
Wee have as cold rainy weather now as you have in November; Wee have no manner of Company neither Courtiers soldiers nor Merchants, the first being at the Army & the others getting money at Archangel; Wee have neither Plays, Musick nor painting, Wee have no good fruits, no good venaison, & little good Wine; & the Women are ugly, silly and ill bred: My greatest diversion is to go twice a week to a little English Chappel, & there Good Lord deliver us is the hearty prayer.... |
Acute and intelligent observation
Not all early eighteenth-century diplomats were either intelligent or acute observers. This was not an attractive career for the rich and powerful. One can write biographies of rulers or dictators irrespective of their intellectual prowess. Secondary characters, however, have to be able to offer the biographer, and the reader, some insights which make their views worth recording. |
Whitworth showed from the early stages of his career that he had the ability to analyse situations and individuals and to project British interests. He wrote long perceptive reports, mainly on the rise of Russia and the impact of the Northern War, but also on Austrian policy in the War of Spanish Succession, and on British trade in the Baltic and German lands. His posthumously published Account of Russia as it was in the Year 1710 outlines the Russian economic capacity to wage war and, in particular, the development of the army and the navy. |
Whitworth's comments from abroad show that he often acquired a more sensitive understanding of the issues than ministers at home. For example, he was more aware of the delicacy of the alliance with Prussia and he also consistently argued that Britain must take action against Russia, as her territorial acquisitions in the Baltic threatened not only British economic interests but also, potentially, her naval power. He was in advance of most British ministers in this respect. He also could see more clearly than the ministers at home that the root of Prussian procrastination over an alliance with Britain lay in her understandable fear of her new powerful neighbour, Russia. Whitworth's postings in Prussia (1716-17, 1719-22) are also important as they reflect the conflict between British and Hanoverian interests after George I, the Elector of Hanover, became King of Great Britain 1714. The conflict between British and Hanoverian interests have been a general theme of many works on the period, but it is relatively rare to be able to assess this relationship through the experiences of a diplomat on the ground, who had to correspond with Hanoverian and British ministers as well as manage Hanoverian concerns. To start with, Hanoverian matters were seen by Whitworth as a nuisance rather than a matter for serious conflict. But by late 1720 Whitworth was commenting from Berlin that the 'Consequences may be dangerous' of further disputes and that that 'little Squabbles at Hannover about the frontiers certainly do harm at Prussia'. |
Place and time
These are probably the key to the importance of Whitworth. A biography of a diplomat who lingered in a backwater, or one who had remained in the same post throughout his career, would not be so rewarding. But Whitworth was a diplomat during the time of the War of Spanish Succession (1702-1713/14) and the Great Northern War (1700-1721), and had key postings relating to both conflicts. |
Whitworth's first posting was to the imperial city of Ratisbon and to Vienna at the time when the War of Spanish Succession began. He was then involved in negotiations over alliances at the end of the war, and his last posting was to the Congress of Cambrai, which was supposed to resolve the outstanding issues of the war. The Great Northern War dominated his postings to Russia and Prussia. He was in Prussia at the time of Russian triumph at the peace of Nystad in 1721, and sent a series of long reports and dispatches about the nature and extent of the Russian threat, or the 'grand Bug Bear of the north' as he styled Russia. |
In particular, Whitworth's first posting to Russia from 1705 to 1710 was a crucial period for a reassessment of Russian strength, as it coincided with the transformation of Russia from an exotic but insignificant power on the fringes of Europe to a power with the potential to threaten British interests and disturb the balance of power in northern Europe. Whitworth initially shared the negative views of Russia: 'I beg your protection in this barbarous country' he wrote to Marlborough before he departed. Most telling is the reason behind his appointment. Whitworth was sent to Russia with only the vaguest of diplomatic functions--essentially to find out how the land lay, and to sound conciliatory. In fact, he was sent as the bequest of one group of tobacco contractors to further their interests. As Whitworth wrote to a friend: 'since I have nothing but Export & Importation in my mouth they [Russian ministers] are apt to mistake me purely for a Tobacco Agent'. |
Russia, therefore, was seen not as a potential diplomatic partner, let alone rival, but as a convenient dumping ground for colonial products like tobacco. Whitworth became immediately embroiled in a dispute between rival English tobacco entrepreneurs. One group had split from the other merchants, and had set up a factory in Russia to press and roll tobacco. A rival group claimed that this potentially threatened exports of their, finished, colonial tobacco to Russia. The result was that Whitworth was instructed to act on their behalf, so that he and his assistants: |
spent the best part of the night in destroying the severall instruments and materials, some whereof were so strong, that they oblidg'd us to make a great noise in pulling them to pieces..... I likewise broke the great spinning wheel, and above three score reels for rowling; I then destroy'd three Engines ready set up for cutting Tobacco.... several large Engines for pressing the Tobacco into form have been pulled to pieces, their screws split, the wooden moles broke, the coper carried away, and about 20 fine sieves cut to pices, nor is the least thing left standing, except some great plain wooden presses, wherein they put the Tobacco after it is rolled and wetted.... and some ordinary wooden tables and the very next day my servants burnt all the remains of the wood, which wee had broke.... |
This was the rather undignified work expected of a diplomat in early eighteenth-century Russia. |
In contrast, by 1710 when Whitworth left Russia, the position had dramatically changed. The defeat of the Swedes by the Russians at the battle of Poltava in 1709 sent shock waves through Europe. Whitworth commented on the 'unexpected defeat of the wholle Swedish army before Poltawa', that 'This victory will in all probability give a great change to the affairs of all the North'. Whitworth sent a prescient warning: 'if these people have success and ease, you must expect to find them troublesome, & capable of giving into the wildest projects'. This change was reflected in several ways by 1710. The English government had initially responded to Russian requests for mediation with deliberate evasion. Now British ministers actively sought an end to the conflict and it was the turn of the Russians to rebuff this. The government considered withdrawing all British artisans and specialists in Russia. Further efforts were made to supply essential naval stores from the American colonies and to reduce dependence on the Baltic. But the dramatic change came in terms of the new respect which England/Britain, and Whitworth, had to show Russia. In 1705, Whitworth noted, not without justification that Peter complained that England 'has great occasion for their Trade, but little value for their Prince or people'. This was no longer the case. |
The change can be illustrated by the results of an extraordinary incident. On the evening of 21 July 1708, Andrei Matveev, the Russian ambassador to England, was stopped by some bailiffs, 'a Brutall sort of People', turfed out of his coach and unceremoniously dumped in a debtors' prison, where he stayed until he was released at two in the morning. The incident caused a diplomatic storm as it challenged the right of diplomatic immunity. Whitworth's handling of the affair demonstrated the new prestige which Russia had now attained. At first, ministers in London, and Whitworth, had hoped the whole embarrassing affair could be smoothed over with promises of due satisfaction. But the Russians were not prepared to let the matter rest, made worse by the fact that Peter insisted that the bailiffs should be publicly executed! Indeed, the Russians saw that they could make some mileage out of the situation and force Britain to treat them as a power of equal status or, as Whitworth put it, 'they are resolved to give you as much trouble as they can'. Whitworth's skills were put to test--he argued, promised satisfaction, cited certain outrages which had taken place against him, produced the shaming list of Matveev's debts, and attempted to bribe, all without effect. The case dragged out without resolution. Finally the British government gave in, at almost exactly the time that the news of the victory at Poltava was received. Whitworth was given the character of an Ambassador Extraordinary--and so became the first English/British ambassador to Russia--purely for the sake of delivering a formal apology from Queen Anne to Peter. Russia could no longer be treated as a second-rate power. |
Whitworth summed up his views on Russia in December 1709: 'the Court is difficult and dangerous, the Country disagreable'. But it was a different country from the one he had arrived in early 1705. And the potential and actual power of Russia dominated the rest of the period, as we have seen from Whitworth's comments from Prussia in 1721. Whitworth, as the diplomat in Russia during this crucial time, was able to project himself thereafter as a Russian expert and, for that matter, an expert in commercial and trading matters. It is this which ultimately makes the life of an ordinary diplomatic, 'drudging for my country' in his words, both interesting and important. |
|
| |
