{"id":16525,"date":"2025-08-08T08:30:00","date_gmt":"2025-08-08T07:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/historyofparliament.com\/?p=16525"},"modified":"2025-07-31T15:06:37","modified_gmt":"2025-07-31T14:06:37","slug":"canning-little-senate-1798-1813","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/historyofparliament.com\/2025\/08\/08\/canning-little-senate-1798-1813\/","title":{"rendered":"Canning’s ‘little senate’, 1798-1813"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

George Canning<\/a> (1770-1827) was the most talented Member of the House of Commons of his generation, but his political career, which took him (briefly) to the pinnacle, was chequered and controversial. He entered the House in 1793 as a devoted Pittite, and by 1798 had there a band of ten personal followers, chiefly friends from Eton and Christ Church. Between 1801 and 1809, both in and out of office, he commanded the loyalty of a similarly sized group of Members; but, as Dr David Fisher shows, it was not until the sessions of 1810-13, following his acrimonious resignation as foreign secretary, that he deliberately manipulated his `little senate\u2019 for his own political purposes.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"Half-length<\/a>
The Right Honourable George Canning (1770-1827), MP; Thomas Lawrence (c.1820); National Trust, Attingham Park; \u00a9 National Trust Images<\/a> <\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

One of the younger generation recruited by William Pitt<\/a>, Canning was soon in the prime minister\u2019s complete confidence and proving himself an asset to the government in debate. He was under-secretary at the foreign office, Jan. 1796-Mar. 1799, when he was appointed a commissioner of the India board, which post he held in conjunction with that of joint paymaster-general from May 1800. The group of Members personally attached to him in the 1796 Parliament included four of his earliest and closest friends: Charles Rose Ellis<\/a>; Lord Granville Leveson Gower<\/a>; William Sturges Bourne<\/a>, and Edward Wilbraham Bootle<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Canning resigned with Pitt in March 1801, when the Speaker, Henry Addington<\/a>, became prime minister. For the next three years Canning worked towards securing the return to power of Pitt, who until March 1804 declined to turn against the ministry. In the 1802 Parliament, Canning had at one point 13 personal adherents, who included the Pittite country gentlemen, William Ralph Cartwright<\/a>, Sir Robert Lawley<\/a> and Sir John Wrottesley<\/a>. On the renewal of war with France in the spring of 1803, he rallied this ginger group in an attempt to have Addington ousted for Pitt.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When Pitt formed his second administration in May 1804, a disillusioned Canning, whose hopes of a broad-based ministry were dashed by the king\u2019s veto of Charles James Fox<\/a>, reluctantly took office as treasurer of the navy. On Pitt\u2019s death and the formation of the Grenville-Fox coalition government in January 1806, Canning went into opposition, aiming to provide the king with an alternative to ministers whom he disliked when the time was ripe. He rebuffed a number of attempts by Lord Grenville<\/a> to recruit him, including an offer of the chancellorship of the exchequer in March 1807, when the debacle over the Catholic relief bill brought the government down. An important addition to his personal Commons squad in 1806 was the experienced Pittite administrator and financial expert William Huskisson<\/a>, though he was by now a significant political figure in his own right, and neither a close friend nor an acolyte of Canning.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Canning became foreign secretary in the duke of Portland\u2019s administration, but by October 1809 he was out of place, having fought a duel with his cabinet colleague Lord Castlereagh<\/a>, the war secretary, lost out to Spencer Perceval<\/a> for the premiership in succession to the dying Portland and resigned when Perceval persuaded Lord Wellesley to take the foreign office. At the opening of the 1810 session, when the new ministry faced a concerted opposition Whig attack on the disastrous Scheldt military expedition of the previous summer, he planned to act independently of existing parties, supporting or opposing ministers on specific questions as he judged fit, while generally upholding Tory principles against the reformers. At this point, his personal following numbered nine: Lord Binning<\/a>; his cousin Colonel George Canning<\/a>; John `Dog\u2019 Dent<\/a>; Ellis; Huskisson; Robert Holt Leigh<\/a>; Leveson Gower; Sturges Bourne, and Wilbraham Bootle. During the course of the parliamentary proceedings on the Scheldt affair, 23 Jan.-30 Mar. 1810, he recruited to his `little senate\u2019 Barrington Pope Blachford<\/a>, Hylton Jolliffe<\/a> and William Taylor<\/a>. He directed the votes of his squad in the series of divisions on the Scheldt fiasco, though they were allowed some individual discretion and did not vote consistently as a bloc. Broadly speaking, they sided with government against the opposition amendment to the address, 23 Jan., cast mixed votes or stayed away when Lord Porchester moved successfully for inquiry into the expedition, 26 Jan., and divided with opposition in the divisions on the self-exculpatory narrative that Lord Chatham, who had commanded the enterprise, had sent to the king, 23 Feb. and 5 Mar. 1810. On Porchester\u2019s censure motion, 30 Mar. (soon after Wellesley\u2019s failed attempt to enforce his return to office), Canning, believing that he held the government\u2019s fate in his hands, endorsed the policy of the expedition and persuaded Perceval to soften the government\u2019s counter-resolution of exculpation, but moved an amendment of his own containing that part of his proposal that Perceval had rejected. He and almost all his followers divided with ministers, who secured satisfactory majorities, in the first three divisions, but for the last, on the resolution exonerating the Portland ministry from blame, he set his squad free, and seven of them voted against government.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Between then and the dissolution in September 1812 Canning and members of his `senate\u2019 opposed the Perceval ministry on a number of issues, including sinecure reform (17 May 1810), the regency settlement (1 and 21 Jan. 1811) and the orders in council (3 Mar. 1812), but Canning spoke up for them on other questions, notably the conduct of the Peninsular war. During the 1812 session he secured additional recruits in the persons of George Bellas Greenough<\/a>, Edward John Littleton<\/a> and John William Ward<\/a>, but Wilbraham Bootle gravitated to government. Throughout this period Canning, who formed an uneasy alliance with Wellesley and his five adherents, was being courted by both ministers and opposition. When Lord Liverpool<\/a> formed his ministry after Perceval\u2019s assassination in May 1812, Canning and Wellesley loomed large in the protracted negotiations, which ended with them still out of office, ostensibly because Canning and Castlereagh could not agree terms on which they could work together.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At the 1812 general election Bellas Greenough, Binning, Dent, Sturges Bourne and Taylor were not returned, but the treasury credited Canning with a dozen friends, including the new boys Thomas Bernard<\/a>, George Abercrombie Robinson<\/a> and Robert Percy `Bobus\u2019 Smith<\/a>. Canning, who won a personal triumph at Liverpool, continued his line of `mitigated hostility\u2019 to government in the first session of the new Parliament; but in the 1813 summer recess, perceiving that the partisanship of his followers and the awkward alliance with Wellesley were restricting his options, he formally disbanded his `senate\u2019 and terminated the connection with Wellesley. This smoothed the way for his return to the ministerial fold, first as ambassador to Portugal in 1814, when he secured places and honours for several of his friends, and as president of the India board with a seat in the cabinet in March 1816.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

D.R.F<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Further Reading<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Wendy Hinde, George Canning<\/em> (1973)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A. Aspinall, `The Canningite Party\u2019, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society <\/em>(ser. 4), xvii (1934), 177-226; and `The Last of the Canningites\u2019, English Historical Review<\/em>, l (1935), 639-69<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is a revised version of the article ‘Canning’s ‘little senate’, 1798-1813′ by David R. Fisher,<\/em> originally posted on historyofparliamentonline.org<\/a>.<\/em><\/em><\/em><\/em><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

George Canning (1770-1827) was the most talented Member of the House of Commons of his generation, but his political career, which took him (briefly) to the pinnacle, was chequered and controversial. He entered the House in 1793 as a devoted Pittite, and by 1798 had there a band of ten personal followers, chiefly friends from Eton and Christ Church. Between 1801 and 1809, both in … Continue reading Canning’s ‘little senate’, 1798-1813<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":244848225,"featured_media":16545,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_coblocks_attr":"","_coblocks_dimensions":"","_coblocks_responsive_height":"","_coblocks_accordion_ie_support":"","_crdt_document":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"enabled":false},"version":2},"_wpas_customize_per_network":false},"categories":[578856807,20918757,4706867,368880,774275989,774275560],"tags":[35890,774276074,606963],"class_list":["post-16525","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-georgian-lords","category-18th-century-history","category-19th-century-history","category-factions","category-george-canning","category-georgian","tag-featured","tag-little-senate","tag-william-pitt"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/historyofparliament.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/George_Canning_Prime_Minister_of_The_United_Kingdom.jpg?fit=504%2C600&ssl=1","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p2QYNW-4ix","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":2180,"url":"https:\/\/historyofparliament.com\/2018\/02\/27\/speaking-in-the-newspaper-richard-brinsley-sheridan-in-april-1798\/","url_meta":{"origin":16525,"position":0},"title":"Parliaments, Politics and People Seminar Series – Speaking in the Newspaper: Richard Brinsley Sheridan in April 1798","author":"History of Parliament","date":"February 27, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Today's blog is from Prof. Robert W Jones,\u00a0who is professor of eighteenth-century studies in the School of English at the University of Leeds. He is also the principal investigator for the Leverhulme-funded project, \u2018The Political Work of Richard Brinsley Sheridan\u2019, which will produce a four-volume, Political Works of Richard Brinsley\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Georgian Lords"","block_context":{"text":"Georgian Lords","link":"https:\/\/historyofparliament.com\/category\/sections\/georgian-lords\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":3559,"url":"https:\/\/historyofparliament.com\/2019\/09\/05\/dancing-into-the-houses-of-parliament-the-role-of-balls-to-georgian-electoral-campaigns\/","url_meta":{"origin":16525,"position":1},"title":"Dancing into the Houses of Parliament: the role of balls in Georgian electoral campaigns","author":"Robin Eagles","date":"September 5, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"The latest blog from the Georgian Lords investigates the importance of dance in the eighteenth-century political process. Our guest author, Hillary Burlock, is a PhD student at Queen Mary, University of London, researching the politics of dance in eighteenth-century politics, and currently holds a BSECS\/Georgian Papers Programme research fellowship. Eighteenth-century\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Georgian Lords"","block_context":{"text":"Georgian Lords","link":"https:\/\/historyofparliament.com\/category\/sections\/georgian-lords\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/historyofparliament.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/08\/default.jpg?fit=1010%2C576&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/historyofparliament.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/08\/default.jpg?fit=1010%2C576&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/historyofparliament.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/08\/default.jpg?fit=1010%2C576&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/historyofparliament.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/08\/default.jpg?fit=1010%2C576&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":5735,"url":"https:\/\/historyofparliament.com\/2020\/10\/20\/lock-down-18th-century-oxford\/","url_meta":{"origin":16525,"position":2},"title":"Town v. Gown? Attempting to lock down early 18th century Oxford","author":"Robin Eagles","date":"October 20, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Today we're heading back to Oxfordshire and this month's local history focus. In our latest blog, Dr Robin Eagles, editor of the Lords 1715-1790 project, looks into the political leanings of the inhabitants of 18th century Oxford... At the time of George I\u2019s accession, Oxford had a clear reputation as\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Georgian Lords"","block_context":{"text":"Georgian Lords","link":"https:\/\/historyofparliament.com\/category\/sections\/georgian-lords\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/historyofparliament.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/10\/ycba_ycba_b1996_22_26-001.jpg?fit=1200%2C883&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/historyofparliament.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/10\/ycba_ycba_b1996_22_26-001.jpg?fit=1200%2C883&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/historyofparliament.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/10\/ycba_ycba_b1996_22_26-001.jpg?fit=1200%2C883&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/historyofparliament.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/10\/ycba_ycba_b1996_22_26-001.jpg?fit=1200%2C883&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/historyofparliament.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/10\/ycba_ycba_b1996_22_26-001.jpg?fit=1200%2C883&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":13210,"url":"https:\/\/historyofparliament.com\/2024\/05\/30\/dissolving-parliament\/","url_meta":{"origin":16525,"position":3},"title":"Dissolving Parliament","author":"Robin Eagles","date":"May 30, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"Today, on 30 May 2024, Parliament will be formally dissolved following a 'Dissolution proclamation' from the King. This is the first time that this proclamation has been required since 201o, following the repeal of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act in 2011. But how was Parliament formally dissolved in the 18th\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Georgian Elections Project"","block_context":{"text":"Georgian Elections Project","link":"https:\/\/historyofparliament.com\/category\/sections\/georgian-elections\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/historyofparliament.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/1613470875.jpg?fit=1200%2C780&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/historyofparliament.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/1613470875.jpg?fit=1200%2C780&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/historyofparliament.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/1613470875.jpg?fit=1200%2C780&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/historyofparliament.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/1613470875.jpg?fit=1200%2C780&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/historyofparliament.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/1613470875.jpg?fit=1200%2C780&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":13385,"url":"https:\/\/historyofparliament.com\/2024\/06\/28\/breaking-the-political-mould\/","url_meta":{"origin":16525,"position":4},"title":"Breaking the Political Mould: a new 18th-century political party","author":"Robin Eagles","date":"June 28, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"With a multiple of parties vying for your vote in the 2024 General Election, the Whig and Tory monopoly of the 18th Century would have presented a much more limited choice for Georgian voters. However, in today's blog for the Georgian elections project Dr Robin Eagles explores how one new\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Georgian Elections Project"","block_context":{"text":"Georgian Elections Project","link":"https:\/\/historyofparliament.com\/category\/sections\/georgian-elections\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/historyofparliament.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/john-glynn-john-wilkes-and-john-horne-tooke-1.jpg?fit=800%2C551&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/historyofparliament.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/john-glynn-john-wilkes-and-john-horne-tooke-1.jpg?fit=800%2C551&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/historyofparliament.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/john-glynn-john-wilkes-and-john-horne-tooke-1.jpg?fit=800%2C551&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/historyofparliament.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/john-glynn-john-wilkes-and-john-horne-tooke-1.jpg?fit=800%2C551&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":13241,"url":"https:\/\/historyofparliament.com\/2024\/06\/05\/tory-to-whig-and-back-again\/","url_meta":{"origin":16525,"position":5},"title":"Tory to Whig and back again","author":"Robin Eagles","date":"June 5, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"In recent weeks the factional nature of political parties has become apparent, with previous members speaking out against their leaders and news of MPs defecting to other parties. But in the 18th century the line between the main political groups was even more murky, and many politicians (as well as\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Georgian Elections Project"","block_context":{"text":"Georgian Elections Project","link":"https:\/\/historyofparliament.com\/category\/sections\/georgian-elections\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/historyofparliament.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/1stviscountbolingbroke.jpg?fit=610%2C800&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/historyofparliament.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/1stviscountbolingbroke.jpg?fit=610%2C800&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/historyofparliament.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/1stviscountbolingbroke.jpg?fit=610%2C800&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x"},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/historyofparliament.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16525","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/historyofparliament.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/historyofparliament.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/historyofparliament.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/244848225"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/historyofparliament.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=16525"}],"version-history":[{"count":12,"href":"https:\/\/historyofparliament.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16525\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":18208,"href":"https:\/\/historyofparliament.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16525\/revisions\/18208"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/historyofparliament.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/16545"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/historyofparliament.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=16525"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/historyofparliament.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=16525"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/historyofparliament.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=16525"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}