"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.

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. The third was to prevent further French aggression which may have threatened the peace and resulted in another war. A key issue from Vienna was trying to maintain a balance of power (maintaining no single power dominated the rest). This would ensure that all the powers remained on good terms. As Lord Acton said:

“All power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

In some ways the Congress of Vienna was unsuccessful because it ignored principles such as liberalism (liberal ideas) and nationalism. However, it can be seen as mainly successful because it didn’t humiliate France, which prevented further aggression (and therefore another possible outbreak of war) and, importantly for British interests, Britain gained useful possessions overseas. There is evidence for supporting the claim that Vienna was successful in there being no wars until the 1830’s. For starting the period of peace in Europe and for the successful conclusion to the French wars, Castlereagh is given the credit.

1815 also brought with it Castlereagh becoming part of the Quadruple Alliance. The members of the Alliance were Austria, Great Britain, Prussia and Russia. They agreed to have meetings at fixed periods and the main interest of the Alliance was to preserve the Peace of Europe. Two months before the Quadruple Alliance was formed another Alliance came into being – The Holy Alliance. The members of the Holy Alliance were three monarchs; Tsar Alexander I of Russia, Francis I of Austria and Fredrick William III of Prussia. This was a reactionary alliance as all three monarchs were trying to ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

“a piece of sublime mysticism and nonsense.”

There was a need for both of these alliances because the Holy Alliance was purely for preserving autocracy and the Quadruple Alliance (formed by Great Britain who was democratic as opposed to autocratic) was concerned with keeping the peace in Europe. For Castlereagh, the Quadruple Alliance was a way of upholding the Vienna settlement -it wasn’t a way of interfering in European affairs.

The Congress system was an attempt to maintain peace and order throughout Europe and

Congresses were held to resolve disputes. The first congress was the congress of Aix-la-Chapelle 1818. It met to consider what to do about France which had paid off the 700 million franc indemnity and was settling down under Louis XVIII. It decided that the army of occupation should be removed and that France should take part in congresses, so France was admitted to what became the Quintuple Alliance.

The Congress of Troppau Castlereagh refused to attend the Congress of Troppau 1820 as he knew would be a response to revolts in Spain, Portugal, Piedmont and Naples. He instead sent his half brother, Lord Stuart, as an observer. The Congress of Laibach 1821 was the same as Toppau in reference to Castlereagh’s disapproval and he again sent Lord Stuart to show his disapproval. At Laibach, Austria and Russia were ready to send soldiers against Italian revolts and as Castlereagh didn’t want to use the alliance to quell revolts, he refused to attend.

Castlereagh is also responsible for the base of foreign policy for many years after he was foreign secretary. These principles were in his May 1820 state paper. At the time his objectives in foreign policy were to check French expansion, check Russian expansion and support Turkey, to protect British trading interests, prevent a combination of France and Russia (Britain could ‘handle’ 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. Being able to talk to people and express reasons why you are doing certain things can be seen as a very important skill of a politician and Castlereagh didn’t have this skill. Many people seem to have misunderstood him as is illustrated in a rather harsh obituary on the death of Castlereagh:

“The name of Castlereagh will long be connected with tyranny abroad and all that is slavish and oppressive at home.”

(The Scotsman Newspaper)

After Castlereagh commits suicide in 1822, George Canning takes over as foreign secretary. Canning had many aims whilst he was foreign secretary. Canning was not an enthusiastic supporter of liberalism and revolution abroad, but he did believe that whenever there was a bad government, change must come. Like Castlereagh, Canning didn’t approve of great powers interfering all over the world as they saw fit. Whereas Castlereagh had merely protested against the Metternich policy of intervention, Canning intended to be more decisive and actually help the revolutionaries in Greece and Portugal. However, this is what Castlereagh had been contemplating. Canning’s overriding concern was to protect British interests rather than to preserve the Alliance.

“His policy was based on a careful, even opportunist calculation of what would best preserve peace and promote England’s prestige and prosperity.”

(Wendy Hinde (Canning’s Biographer))

Canning’s specific aims were to prevent the French from interfering in Spain, preserve the new Portuguese constitution, maintain the independence of the Spanish colonies with which Britain had developed valuable trade and help the Greeks, while at the same time making sure that the Russians didn’t gain too much advantage of the situation.

Canning feared that the French and Spanish might invade Portugal and may even be tempted to regain lost colonies. To prevent the French and Spanish from doing so, the British navy was sent to defend the Portuguese and their defense was successful. Plus, this course of action had restored Britain’s prestige.

Canning, like Castlereagh had many successes through his time as foreign secretary. He achieved recognition of the south American states. In 1823 France offered Spain to restore the Bourbon monarchy (restore autocracy). This news appalled the British government as all the work of eighteenth-century British statesmen to get France out of the New World would be undone so Canning proposed that the United States and Great Britain join to warn off France and Spain from threatening to take over new republics. John Quincy Adams (Secretary of State) argued against the proposal saying:

"It would be more candid, as well as more dignified, to avow our principles explicitly to Russia and France, than to come in as a cockboat in the wake of the British man-of-war."

Adams won over the cabinet and resident Monroe delivered what is now known as the Monroe Doctrine which declared four basic points. The United States would not interfere in the internal affairs of or the wars between European powers; the United States recognized and would not interfere with existing colonies and dependencies in the Western Hemisphere; the Western Hemisphere could not be colonized in the future and any attempt by a European power to oppress or control any nation would be viewed as a hostile act against the United States.

Canning’s successes continued in the development of a constitution in Portugal, the ending of the Quadruple Alliance (Canning didn’t approve of it), Greek independence, South Americas independence and he gave huge emphasis on British interests. Canning was more independent and nationalistic as opposed to Castlereagh’s approach. He believed in a “Diplomatic free-for-all” in which every country looks after their own which would eventually achieve peace.

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)