Disraeli wanted to continue with Britain’s support of Turkey as he saw it as key in keeping Russia out of Europe. The dwindling Austrian Empire would be in greater danger if the Ottoman Empire collapsed which would threaten the balance of power that Disraeli advocated. It would be fair to say that being a Conservative he was not one for great, rapid change, which removing support of Turkey would bring and preferred to continue with Britain’s traditional policies, he also tended to look at short term solutions which continuing support was. As a lover of empires he also took the empires’ side over the rogue, troublesome smaller nations, especially as they sought and gained the support of Russia.
Gladstone on the other side had sympathy for the Balkan Christians and for the rights of smaller nations especially those who wanted to rule themselves, he saw this as more important than the possible threat of Russia who in reality had never launched a large European invasion and could have easily destroyed the Ottoman Empire if she had so wished. As a man of principles he did not like to see such wrong doings carried out, especially against his fellow Christians.
The Berlin Memorandum in May 1876 offered a diplomatic solution to the problem as it involved Austria Germany and Russia. However Disraeli opposed it, fearing it was a conspiracy to partition the Ottoman Empire, and with Russia making gains it would lead to a greater threat. It is likely that Gladstone would have agreed with this memorandum as he favoured international consensus and diplomacy. This was evident in the case of the Alabama ship where he accepted the ruling of the international court of Arbitration’s ruling for Britain to pay compensation.
In September Gladstone published his pamphlet entitled The Bulgarian Horrors, which divided the country and increased the personal hatred between the two men. Gladstone seemed to be inviting the Russians to invade, whereas Disraeli threatened Russia with war if she continued to assist the Balkan rebels. Gladstone had been in retirement and some historians such as Jenkins argue that he used the Bulgarian issue as an excuse to get back into the political landscape dramatically. This is a valid point, which would label Gladstone with a substantial amount of opportunism something he often described as being a negative quality of Disraeli. Shannon believed that Gladstone’s intervention in the ‘Bulgarian agitations’ was a case of mere opportunism. This provides support of Disraeli’s view that Gladstone was a hypocrite. It seems opportunism was a quality both men seemed to posses although Disraeli would agree with this analysis, whereas Gladstone would not, which in turn would question his ethical and honest approach to politics that he advocated, further proving him to be similar to Disraeli but with a moral face.
Russia then decided on military intervention, which threatened Constantinople. In January 1878 Disraeli retaliated by sending a fleet to combat them. Britain did not have an ally therefore could not fight and did not encourage Turkey that there was the chance of another Crimean War. Russia was overstretched and as a result there was no war.
The San Stefano treaty in March 1878 gave Russia territorial gains and ‘Big Bulgaria’ was created, however Disraeli refused to accept these results, he argued the London Conference of 1871 stipulated that all powers had to agree over clauses of such treaties. As he did not agree with the stipulations of the treaty, which he believed which would create a Russian puppet in the form of Big Bulgaria, San Stefano did not last, he made offensive moves towards the area in a show of strength. Disraeli was deemed to be successful at the Congress of Berlin, which dismantled San Stefano and provided far more favourable terms for Britain such as gaining Cyprus and access to the Black Sea at any time, this was a prime example of Disraeli using his famed diplomacy to full effect and most importantly earned results, which he believed to be most favourable for Britain, importantly this was the last conflict until the First World War mainly due to this treaty which benefited all, as Russia was compensated with Bessarabia, while Turkey lost little and regained Macedonia. However he pushed Bulgaria and Turkey into becoming disillusioned with Britain as they turned out to be economic have-nots. This pushed them to supporting Germany in the First World War. This is a key example of Disraeli’s short-term solutions. Lee argues that in rejecting the Berlin Memorandum he developed a lack of cohesion between large European nations, which led to the First World War. Smith agrees and concludes that Disraeli “came into office in 1874 without a single concrete proposal in his head”. This further promotes the idea of his short-minded ideas, which he had little time to develop or contemplate, and his opportunism. Gladstone’s ideas tended to concentrate on long term solutions but it would be wrong to say he did not quickly rise to opportunities that promoted themselves as he gained small parts of West Africa and areas of Egypt and Sudan by capitalising on opportunities in 1882, it would be fair to say both men’s minds were extraordinarily quick to react to situations however they focused their minds on different ways of approaching a problem. Gladstone looked at long-term solutions regardless of how it affected his popularity whereas Disraeli carried out policies that he believed would not harm his popularity, which tended to be short-term solutions.
During Disraeli’s ministry he also got Britain involved with a variety of other incidents although generally not as large as the Eastern question, such incidents he got involved with proved him to be active in his imperial policies as well as just foreign. He invaded Afghanistan, which led to a massacre of British troops in Kabul, which he was widely blamed for by the public. He failed to control expansion in South Africa in 78-78, which led to a huge massacre of British troops by the Zulus at Isandhlwana, which in turn led to the battle of Ulundi. Wood argues that these were two ‘mortal blows’ for Disraeli leading not being re-elected in 1880. These are evidence of Disraeli’s rashness and lack of interest in issues out of the public, media and political spotlight as he failed to monitor these situations carefully and sort out growing problems before they came to a head.
Disraeli was a great lover of empire, which was perhaps why he fought to keep it, as shown in the incidents of Afghanistan and South Africa. He tended to view imperial policy in a romantic way rather than as a business or strategic tactic and generally believed the larger it was the better for Britain it would be this is evident in his opportunistic gain of Cyprus in the Berlin Conference. The empire was a presentation of Britain’s global strength and power, which he believed to be a vote winner for the working class. This is the belief of Koebner and Schmidt who believed Disraeli used empire as a piece of self-advertisement. Lowe maintains his imperial policies bolstered support domestically, which is something Palmerston managed to good effect. Palmerston’s death had left a vacancy of outgoing foreign policy maker, which Disraeli was eager to fill.
The Bulgarian horrors had imperial connotations as it affected the sea route towards India, which is a reason why Disraeli got so involved. Gladstone also favoured empire but wanted equality within it and to provide self-determination wherever possible. This is evident within his policies of Ireland although under home-rule he allowed significant steps to be taken towards Ireland’s self-determination. Ireland is also a good example of his belief in having no discrimination. The 1869 Irish Church Act puts this belief into practice. Lee believes Gladstone saw the Empire’s mission to “spread the benefits of British civilisation” which shows him to favour it as Disraeli did although Gladstone was more willing to let countries who were growing out of the empire to be let go whereas Disraeli wanted them to remain.
Gladstone followed six principles regarding foreign policy. He saw empire as important; believed all nations had the same rights, wanted to avoid wars, keeping boundaries the same, keep people at peace and unified, all under his final principle of the love of freedom. These are generally followed as he kept out of the Franco Prussian war and followed the Black Sea clauses. He also used diplomacy and showed an early instance in keeping relationships between countries by accepting the international court of arbitration’s ruling over the compensation to be paid to America over the damage done by the British ship Alabama.
Gladstone has been famed for his foresight in his recognition of the growing problem in Ireland and the need for international co-operation to name but a few. However Disraeli showed he was also interested in long-term investments by purchasing 44% of shares in the Suez Canal, which became a major sea route. This is also another example of his belief in securing British interests across the world. This example of Disraeli’s ability to look at long term also could narrow the divide between the two men.
Gladstone launched the Midlothian campaign against Disraeli. In this campaign claimed that Disraeli wasted resources and had a complete lack of ethics which he headed with the term Beaconsfieldism, deriving from Disraeli being Lord Beaconsfield. This campaign gained much public support and was a major contributing factor to the Tories being voted out in 1880. A further example of Beaconsfieldism was the appointment of Queen Victoria as Empress of India although she never visited India before or after her appointment. There were extravagant parties thrown to celebrate this, which Gladstone deemed unnecessary and wasteful. Disraeli gained further favour from the Queen and perhaps the general public. This is a further example of his romantic and impractical view of Empire as this measure changed little but cost a lot. AJP Taylor agrees, pointing out Disraeli was all image and no substance.
It has been argued that all politicians are opportunistic. Magnus believes Gladstone was “wholly sincere” whereas Jenkins believes he was at least as opportunistic as Disraeli. Feuchtwanger emphasised such opportunism by concluding that Gladstone used Italy and the Liberal party to return into politics, coupled with Jenkins idea of opportunism with The Bulgarian Horrors pamphlet this case is defiantly valid, showing both politicians to have similarities. However they also had their differences over foreign and imperial policy as they did over all issues during their political lives. Gladstone was less concerned over public image and concentrated on doing what he believed to be the right thing regardless of whether the public agreed, this was especially evident over the Alabama case. In this case he also did what he loved, which was to set a good example to the rest of the world, in this instance accepting the international ruling. Disraeli was far more concerned with his public image. He was more active in foreign policy whereas Gladstone tended to be more concerned with issues closer to home, another example of his foresight as that is crucial to the electorate of contemporary Britain. However he was active in Africa during 1882 in issues he could have easily avoided. This is evidence of Gladstone following his principles for the most part, but especially promoting them in opposition however in office these principles sometimes took a back seat to easily gaining territories. Gladstone was unprincipled in his threats of resignations if he did not get his way, which he did throughout his time as a politician. It is also interesting that none of his resignations or retirements lasted very long.
Gladstone’s views would certainly reflect today’s views far more than Disraeli’s would, at present we leave live in a time of great peace in Europe and globally if it was not for exceptional circumstances, leading us to believe Gladstone had a better way of dealing with foreign issues, views of diplomacy, international interests and ethics, all of which are embraced today.
To conclude, both men were unprincipled in some aspects of their policies, favoured empire, were active in invasions at some point and both men were equal in their hatred of one another. These men have divided politicians and historians like no other two politicians, however closer analysis proves the men were not so different in their goals as some would have us believe. Both were opportunistic and tended to seek what was best for them. However they had their differences which outweighed their similarities, Gladstone concentrated on long term solutions, was internationally minded and promoted his ethical side, whereas Disraeli was the reverse of these. Both men were mavericks and had little loyalty to their parties. It would be fair to say that in opposition and when speaking about one another they were outspoken and highly critical. However once in government they both got caught in the fervour of imperial strength and might, this brings us to Lord Acton’s famous saying that “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely”, which claimed Gladstone as a victim as although he was a very principled, ethical and religious man when in power these were occasionally pushed to the side in place of the same political advantage and one-upmanship that Disraeli used.
