In a famous 1992 Simpsons episode, Wade Boggs got in an argument with Barney Gumble at Moe's Tavern over the greatest British Prime Minister. Boggs argued "Pitt the Elder!" while Barney shouted "Lord Palmerston!", with Barney eventually knocking Boggs out for his opinion.
My question, as someone less well-versed in British Prime Ministers and their historical rankings: do either come close to being considered the greatest Prime Ministers by contemporary historians, and why? What changes did they bring about that might make them considered a more effective Prime Minister?
I've wanted to know this for years! As a result, I've been refreshing this page for the last hour waiting for an answer. I can't offer much detail but I can steer you in the right direction. Both men are considered to be great statesmen, for different reasons.
Pitt is known for being a great leader. His time in office saw Britain become a dominant power in Europe, surpassing the old colonial powers of Spain and France and laying down the foundations for our own Empire.
Lord Palmerston's came much later, when the Empire was at its peak. While not as popular at the time, contemporary historians look at him more favourably. He is known for his support for national self determination, government by consent and anti-slavery stance.