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

"Castlereagh's foreign policy 1815-1822 was more successful than Canning's foreign policy 1822-1827" - Explain why you agree or disagree with this statement.

Extracts from this document...


Hannah Wood "Castlereagh's foreign policy 1815-1822 was more successful than Canning's foreign policy 1822-1827." Explain why you agree or disagree with this statement. Whilst Viscount Castlereagh and George Canning were foreign secretary, both achieved many things, some of which still exist in modern day foreign policies. They also can be seen to have failed in some areas, but to find out which of the two was the more successful, both need to be studied to enable one to make a conclusion. In 1815, Viscount Castlereagh became foreign secretary. At the time, his first and main problem would have been the problem of how to deal with France, who had recently been defeated in the Napoleonic wars. The Congress of Vienna 1815 drew up a treaty that formally ended the Napoleonic wars. This all began in 1813 when Napoleon's Empire began to fall, France was invaded and Napoleon later abdicated. 1814 brought the Treaty of Paris which restored peace, reduced France to its 1792 frontiers and restored the Bourbon monarchy. It was then decided that a congress would be held in Vienna, however, all the important decisions would be made by the four great powers: England (represented by Castlereagh), Austria (Prince Metternich), Prussia (Count Hardenburg) and Russia (Tsar Alexander I). Vienna had three main aims. The first was to make sure that the French, who were primarily responsible for the wars, paid for what they had caused. Secondly, the great powers gained some compensation for what had happened in the wars. ...read more.


France by themselves and Russia by themselves, but a combination of the two would have been much too much for Britain to take on.) and to maintain a balance of power in Europe. The reason Britain was so interested in Russian expansion was because Britain had to travel through Turkey to reach India. India became known as 'The jewel in Britain's crown' as it had so many resources that Britain traded as Britain had very few of its own. Russia had no access to the sea for some months as its coastline froze for part of the year. Russia wanted control of the straits between Europe and Asia, which would give her access to the Mediterranean and thus aid the growing business of grain exports. This expansion worried Britain as it was easy to travel through Turkey to reach India as Turkey was weak. With this in mind, Britain decided to support Turkey against Russia. The principles of Castlereagh's State paper of May 1820 remained from 1815 to 1865 unaltered. This can only be seen as a success on the part of Castlereagh. However in some aspects, Castlereagh can be seen to have failed. The Congress system had a tension built into it - the fact that three great powers were autocratic where as Britain and only Britain was democratic, so from the very start there were going to be disagreements. Castlereagh was also poor at communicating with others and especially the public. ...read more.


But along with his successes, Canning failed in some areas too. Canning helped, through his policies, to develop Greek independence but this in the long run weakened Turkey and strengthened Russia - which was definitely not in Britain's interests. South American republics were not Canning's idea; he merely carried out what Castlereagh had started. Castlereagh had also set up a period of peace which Canning ended. This can also be said for South Americas independence as it said to have been Castlereagh to have started off this process. In conclusion I think that Castlereagh's foreign policy between 1815 and 1822 was more successful than Canning's foreign policy of 1822 to 1827 for a number of reasons. Castlereagh laid down principles whereas Canning appears to have simply carried out policies and made things worse by leaving Turkey weak and Russia strong. Castlereagh's policies were misunderstood whereas Caning took the time to explain to the public what he was trying to achieve. This gained him public support and popularity but appears to have cleverly turned everything into a publicity campaign, which from some peoples point of view may make him appear to be less serious and less of a politician. T may have made him look like he took the job less seriously than he should have and that he was more interested in public support than what he actually achieved, which is the opposite of the impression one gets of Castlereagh. A quote that supports this argument is: "There was no fundamental change of policy when Canning took over in 1822. Canning merely accelerated existing trends" (Britain, 1815-1951) ...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 International relations 1900-1939 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 International relations 1900-1939 essays

  1. "Tsarism collapsed at the beginning of 1917 because Nicholas was a weak Tsar who ...

    The workers of Putilov Steelworks were locked out after demanding a 50% pay rise on 7th March, and went on strike. They were joined by workers from other factories and even some of the troops, causing mutiny in the army.

  2. The new deal was not a complete success". How far do you agree with ...

    Also Roosevelt introduced the Tennessee Valley Authority. This was set up in an area where people were most hit by the depression. The reason for why it was set up here was because this area had a lot of physical problems.

  1. To What Extent Was The United Kingdom Successful in Negotiations at the Congress of ...

    of both Austria and Prussia and land being given to Austria (Lombardy - Venetia in Northern Italy and Tuscany). Also very importantly, the Pope was restored to the Papal States. Apart from these major verdicts many other aspects of the treaty are no of a big importance, mainly these consist

  2. "The Versailles Peace Settlement failed to secure British Foreign Policy interests"

    Staying out of any major conflict was also a good idea for Britain, especially with the USA because Britain did not have the finances to support a conflict. The best way to stop the renewal of war was to keep a balance of power; this is a realist theory in international relations.

  1. The Versaillespeace settlement failed to secure British foreign policy interests. How far do you ...

    Privately, he felt that Germany should be treated in such a way that left her as a barrier to resist the expected spread of communism which he greatly wanted to prevent. He did not want the people of Germany to become so disillusioned with their government that they turned to communism as a last resort.

  2. How far did Bismarckachieve his foreign policy aims in 1870-1878?

    his other foreign policies, in particular his aim of isolating France because both Britain and Russia had a strong industry, and Britain had a strong navy which meant that France would have had immediate support in the event of an attack.

  1. How far do you agree with the statement that 'security not revenge' was the ...

    As concluded in Years of Nationalism : "A man has an interest in putting out the flames when his neighbour's house is on fire". As the Congress was held in Vienna, and Metternich was the main architect of the settlement, this principle became a cornerstone of the settlement.

  2. "The most important aim of the foreign policy 1933-36 was to overthrow the treaty ...

    The economic impact of the Treaty of Versailles was considerable with many contributing factors such as loss of resourceful territory, hyperinflation, huge war debts and reparations. Germany lost 13% of its territory which inhabited 10% of it's population as well as 15% of arable land, 75% of iron and 68%of zinc ore and 26% of coal resources.

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