In the period to 1902, Cecil Rhodes and Joseph Chamberlain did more harm than good to the British Empire. How for do you agree with this statement?

Authors Avatar

In the period to 1902, Cecil Rhodes and Joseph Chamberlain did more harm than good to the British Empire. How for do you agree with this statement?

Joseph Chamberlain was a radically-minded Liberal Party member, and he became leader of the Liberal Unionists and in 1886 he formed an alliance with the Conservative Party. As a result, in 1895, Chamberlain was given the post of Colonial Secretary, in Salisbury’s Government. He seized the opportunity to execute his imperial vision. However, now he had a wider canvas, on which he might create a closer union between the colonies and Britain, welding together the occupied territories to create ‘an empire greater and more potent for peace than any that history has yet known’. Cecil Rhodes was the prime-minister of the Cape Colony, who created the British South Africa Company that was aimed to enable colonisation and economic exploitation across much of South and Central Africa. Rhodes was a gay figure in pressing for the extension of British control in South Africa with his prime aim being to extend British power from ‘Cape to Cairo’.

Join now!

Joseph Chamberlain and Cecil Rhodes both played very large roles in expanding the control of the British Empire, but outcomes of certain events led to the British Empire being more harmed than benefited.

The factors that portray Joseph Chamberlain did have a positive affect the British Empire are mainly consisting of the reforms he passed, that overall, improved the structure and the economic wealth of the British Empire. Due to his reforms comprising of trade, he produced a high market for British goods, which ultimately boosted the employment and industry in the colonies. Moreover, in relation to healthcare, Chamberlain ...

This is a preview of the whole essay