• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Lord Salisbury and Palmerston.

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

In some respects his perspective on foreign policy was similar to that of Palmerston: to avoid entanglements in foreign wars that were not in Britain's interest, but also at the same time to show a willingness to defend Britain's trade and territory resolutely when they were genuinely under threat. His first government post was as Secretary of State for India under Lord Derby in 1866-67 - but this only lasted seven months. He resigned from this post as he disapproved of the proposals of Derby and Disraeli for the extension of the electoral franchise in the 1867 Reform Bill. In 1868 he became the third Marquis of Salisbury. Lord Salisbury could - to some extent - be viewed as a political and social reactionary. He had a vague fear that any further move to democratic reforms would eventually lead to `mob rule'. He considered that the mass of the people possessed poor political judgement. Many today would consider such views at best as pure patrician snobbery, or at worst as quasi-fascist in nature. However, we should bear in mind that this was a period when the memories of violent revolutionary upheaval (France in 1789 and 1830 and most of Europe in 1848) were still uppermost in some people's minds when issues of social and political reforms were discussed. ...read more.

Middle

A less level-headed leader could easily have blundered into a war with any one of these nations, even over `small' incidents like the French incursion into the Upper Nile or Russian activity in the East. Salisbury was not a demagogue. Nor was his an idealistic style of leadership. He was a `management man' - though an effective one. He appreciated that a combination of skilful diplomacy and reserves of military strength were fundamental in order to preserve Britain's power on the world scale. The Boer War (1899-1902) cast a shadow over his declining years and covered the last three years of his fourth and final premiership. The Boers could not be dealt with in the same way as the political representatives of Paris, Berlin or St. Petersburg. A different approach to the problem was needed to solve this unique situation. Salisbury died in 1903 before this could be fully realised. The rights and wrongs of the South African war are complex. The hostility of President Kruger of the Transvaal to British interests and his personal bellicosity, combined with his policy of seeking German intervention in South African affairs at a time when Germany was well established in East Africa and South West Africa, would have troubled the most pacific British government. No small measure of war guilt is attributable to `Oom Paul's' unrealistic Boer ultra-nationalism, egotism and reckless overplaying of his hand, not to mention his tendency to underestimate Great Britain very badly. ...read more.

Conclusion

Rosebery's ministry was defeated in 1895 on a vote on the Army Estimates and Salisbury formed a coalition government with the Duke of Devonshire and Joseph Chamberlain until an election could be held. Chamberlain had taken a substantial number of Liberal MPs over to the ranks of the Conservatives because they disagreed with Gladstone's attempts to give Home Rule to Ireland. Having split the Liberal Party in the 1880s, Chamberlain went on to do the same to the Conservative and Unionist Party in 1903. This ministry passed the Workmen's Compensation Act in 1897 and a Local Government Act for Ireland in 1898. In the reconstructed administration of 1900 there were so many of Salisbury's relations holding office that it was nicknamed the 'Hotel Cecil'. During this part of the ministry, relations with the Boers living in the South African Republic (the Transvaal and the Orange Free State) deteriorated over the rights of the "foreigners" to vote: Paul Kruger had no intention of allowing the Boers to be outnumbered by other settlers. In October 1899 the Boer War broke out, ending only in May 1902 with the Treaty of Vereenging. As his health failed, Salisbury handed over the Foreign Office to Lord Lansdowne; in July 1902 he resigned as PM on the grounds of ill health and was succeeded by his nephew, Arthur Balfour. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE Politics section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related GCSE Politics essays

  1. "The Colonisation of Africa was Inevitable in the Late Nineteenth Century" Discuss.

    Nevertheless, in order to even further ensure the safety of their 'jewel in the crown', the British aspired to safeguard their sea routes to it. Since 1869, when the Suez Canal was built, these sea routes ran along the northern coastline of Africa, therefore, acquiring colonies in this part of

  2. Malta at the turn of the 19th Century.

    The evacuation of Turkey took longer than expected and the inflow of returning troops, a considerable number of which stopped in Malta, filled our station and barracks. During the Crimean War, the conditions of increased work in the dockyard and in the harbour satisfied our economy.

  1. Assess the Extent to which the Different Powers Prepared 'Their' African Colonies for Independence.

    Even though it is, like most of Africa today, savaged by the AIDS epidemic it has grown amazingly. Infant mortality rates are lower than the sub-Saharan average while Calorie intake and education levels are much higher than average. Between 1965 and 1995 Botswana was the fastest growing country in the

  2. A Detail on the British Empire Between the Great Wars, from 1918 to 1939.

    The Great Depression The great Wall Street Crash in October 1929 truly brought ruin to the American economy, and hit Britain extremely hard: American loans to Europe were now drastically cut, and also the giant market that America had been for foreign goods was now severely reduced, as the people did not have money to buy goods anymore.

  1. How much did Disraeli contribute to British Imperialism and do you think Gladstone was ...

    acknowledgement of 'equal rights for all nations', to maintain the 'concert of Europe' rather than taking divisive action, and to encourage the 'freedom' of nations and individuals'. Above all, Gladstone accused Disraeli of using these romanticised overseas actions to hide issues of important domestic policy.

  2. Comparative Analysis: The churches and their affect on society and politics in the cases ...

    However SWAPO called for a boycott of the conference. The aggressive stance by SWAPO and especially President Nujoma concerning the detainee issue is forcing the CCN to distance itself from its former partner46. However the initial reluctance of the CCN to get involved in any investigation or criticism of the

  1. How has the role and impact of military rulers and civilian politicians differed in ...

    The army and the generals were being openly criticized. Yahya had no choice but to relinquish control to Mr Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto who was the leader of PPP and was in majority in East Pakistan. 4. Bhutto to Zia: After the creation of Bangladesh in 1971, Bhutto who was in majority in West Pakistan became the President of Pakistan.

  2. Why did Britain have no '1848 revolution'?

    After 1848 the decreasing severity of depressions and a rise in real wage levels undermined Chartism as a mass movement, although the 'nature and timing of trends in living standards cannot be reconciled with a simple relationship between increased material comfort and the decline of Chartism'10.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work