Whose foreign policy was more beneficial to Britain’s interests, Gladstone or Disraeli?
Whose foreign policy was more beneficial to Britain’s interests, Gladstone or Disraeli?
Between 1868 and 1894 both Gladstone and Disraeli dominated British politics; Gladstone being Prime Minister three times and Disraeli twice. In order to compare the two it is necessary to examine how their individual policies benefitted Britain on a whole, in terms of; trade, peace, diplomacy, balance of power and strategic advantage.
Egypt and The Sudan were a major source of concern for Britain during the 19th century. Both Gladstone and Disraeli during their ministries had to solve problems there; however both had different ways in dealing with the African region. In 1875 the Khedive of Egypt was heading towards financial ruin, Disraeli decisively purchased majority shares in the Suez Canal; he received no support for Parliament, only seeking permission from Queen Victoria and borrowed the money from the Rothschild’s family. Though this impulsive manner is the opposite of the traditional Gladstonian route, his risk appeared to pay off. The addition of the Suez Canal brought Britain many benefits, including establishing solid British interests in the Middle East; which was not previously held. The partial possession of the Suez canal also allowed Britain to negotiate lower rates for British ships passing though the area and reduced the travelling time to India and provided easy and speedy mean of deploying military and Naval forces in the Middle East if necessary. Though this was a clear success it did lead to further problems down the line. As Britain had now officially solidified its interests in Egypt through increased Government and private investment, it now held a duty of responsibility; which would end up costing Britain in the future. However in comparison to Gladstone’s handling of Egypt and the Sudan, Disraeli policy remains more beneficial to Britain.
Gladstone’s original intentions in Egypt may have been more honourable and beneficial to England than Disraeli,
Between 1868 and 1894 both Gladstone and Disraeli dominated British politics; Gladstone being Prime Minister three times and Disraeli twice. In order to compare the two it is necessary to examine how their individual policies benefitted Britain on a whole, in terms of; trade, peace, diplomacy, balance of power and strategic advantage.
Egypt and The Sudan were a major source of concern for Britain during the 19th century. Both Gladstone and Disraeli during their ministries had to solve problems there; however both had different ways in dealing with the African region. In 1875 the Khedive of Egypt was heading towards financial ruin, Disraeli decisively purchased majority shares in the Suez Canal; he received no support for Parliament, only seeking permission from Queen Victoria and borrowed the money from the Rothschild’s family. Though this impulsive manner is the opposite of the traditional Gladstonian route, his risk appeared to pay off. The addition of the Suez Canal brought Britain many benefits, including establishing solid British interests in the Middle East; which was not previously held. The partial possession of the Suez canal also allowed Britain to negotiate lower rates for British ships passing though the area and reduced the travelling time to India and provided easy and speedy mean of deploying military and Naval forces in the Middle East if necessary. Though this was a clear success it did lead to further problems down the line. As Britain had now officially solidified its interests in Egypt through increased Government and private investment, it now held a duty of responsibility; which would end up costing Britain in the future. However in comparison to Gladstone’s handling of Egypt and the Sudan, Disraeli policy remains more beneficial to Britain.
Gladstone’s original intentions in Egypt may have been more honourable and beneficial to England than Disraeli,