Disraeli’s mastery of diplomacy again paid dividends at the Congress of Berlin in 1878. However, the success of the congress followed some fierce debate between Disraeli and Gladstone over the Bulgarian Atrocities and the Eastern Question. In Bulgaria the Turks had been abusing their power in the Ottoman Empire and persecuting the Balkan Christians, this caused mass outrage and all leading European powers sent the Berlin Memorandum to the Turks. Disraeli and Britain however, did not. He was considering the options, he deeply mistrusted the Russians and the suspected the Austrians and the Germans of trying to help her partition the Ottoman Empire. However, the new Sultan of Turkey abused Disraeli’s apparent backing and massacred 12,000 men, women and children. Gladstone was quick to jump on Disraeli’s mistake and published a widely circulated pamphlet The Bulgarian Horrors and the Question of the East; it did much to sway public opinion against the Turks, and Disraeli by proxy. Gladstone even went so far as to encourage Russia to expel Turkey from Bulgaria. In this instance perhaps it was Gladstone who acted recklessly, with Russia taking heed of his words invading Turkey. Disraeli hurriedly secured assurances that Russia would leave Constantinople and the Dardanelles alone. However, as they Russian drew to within 100 miles of Constantinople Disraeli demanded an armistice and ordered British warships to Constantinople. British public opinion was now in full favor of the Turks and Disraeli, the Russians backed down and Disraeli, in the eyes of Blake, “averted an earlier European War with his decisive intervention.” Gladstone’s appears to contradict himself; on the one hand accusing Disraeli of being “reckless” and “mischievous”, then in this incident sparking an international incident by attacking Disraeli for his cautious approach.
The details of the armistice were to be worked out at the Berlin Congress presided over by Bismarck, the German Councillor as an “honest broker”. Popular opinion at the time, and since, has seen the Congress as a great victory for Disraeli. An opponent in the House of Commons being moved to say “For once… Britain can be truly and wholeheartedly proud of its greatest statesman.” Blake sees the Congress as “perhaps Disraeli’s greatest personal achievement” and credits his performance at the Congress with the following 30 years of peace. There is no doubt that Disraeli and his foreign secretary Lord Salisbury dominated the Congress. However, revisionist historians believe that Disraeli’s input, as in many areas, was merely the rhetoric while Salisbury supplied the detail. The terms of the Congress ended in favour of Britain; with ‘Big Bulgaria’ abandoned, Austria occupying Bosnia-Herzegovina and Britain in control of Cyprus. Not all historians believe these outcomes to be in the best long-term interests of the country. AJP Taylor for instance believes Austrian rule of Bosnia “contained the seeds of future disaster” and was the beginning of the friction between the Austrians and the Serbs that would eventually spark the Great War of 1914. After the Congress even Gladstone was silenced for a while, and there is a general consensus that had Disraeli held a general election shortly afterward it would have been a Conservative majority. However, unresolved issues like Afghanistan and the Zulu War slowly tarnished the ‘victory’ in Berlin.
To criticise the Zulu War of 1879 as ‘reckless’ is easily justifiable, but perhaps Disraeli deserves exception. It wasn’t Disraeli’s war it was instigated when the well known expansionist, High Commissioner Sir Bartle Frere, disobeyed Disraeli’s strict orders and invaded Zululand thus sparking a ‘native war’. Disraeli was faced by a conundrum and although fuming at his disobedience resolved to send Frere reinforcements into South Africa. These troops secured a victory for Britain, but left Disraeli’s power undermined. Gladstone’s criticisms seem to have been bypassed as Disraeli didn’t give the explicit order for invasion. However, some historians have claimed that Disraeli was aware of Frere’s staunch expansionist beliefs and posted him knowing, and perhaps calculating on, his propensity to disobey orders, in this context Disraeli is unequivocally guilty of recklessness in the message he sent out and the damage done to the prestige of the office of Prime Minister in military dealings.
Afghanistan showed yet more disobedience from one of Disraeli’s ‘expansionist’ men, thus furthering the damage from the Zulu War. Afghanistan highlights Disraeli’s sometimes obsessive fear of the Russians, he saw Afghanistan as a buffer state to protect Indian interests from Russian intentions. Lowe argues Disraeli tried to build up good relations with the Amir of Afghanistan “in the hope that he would have nothing to do with the Russians, who also had thoughts of bringing Afghanistan within their “sphere of influence”.” To take Lowe’s argument in relationship to the question, one could argue that Disraeli was acting with expansionist intent toward Afghanistan. However, a more sensible reading of events is that Disraeli was merely safeguarding the interests of the ‘Jewel in the Crown of Empire’. The one argument that does hold water is Disraeli’s appointment of Lord Lytton as the Viceroy of India was yet another calculated placement of an expansionist minded player in a seat of power, and serves to fuel the historical debate over Disraeli’s intentions; was he simply naïve or did he know that Lytton and Frere would disobey orders giving him what the Americans call ‘Plausible deniability’?
In conclusion, Gladstone and Disraeli’s heated personal relationship led to many confrontations and attacks. Disraeli had set the tone for these verbal battles with his brutal and personal routing of Peel, Gladstone’s mentor. In their careers the two sparred frequently and in many of his attacks Gladstone regularly skewered Disraeli on a point of principle or conduct. However, in this attack Gladstone has selected the wrong criticism for Disraeli’s conduct of Foreign Policy; ethically dubious yes, strong-arm tactics yes, superficial even. But not reckless expansionism.
