When, how far and why did the Conservatives become ‘the party of Empire’?
That the Conservative party in the late nineteenth century became associated with empire and the so-called New Imperialism is accepted by all. When, how far and why this occurred, however, is extremely contentious, dividing both contemporaries and subsequent historians. Historiography on the subject was, and still is divided, largely around differing interpretations of Disraeli and his impact on the Conservative party. To some, Disraeli’s rhetoric and vision, if not his actions, are identified with the development of empire as a central theme of the Conservative party. Others, criticizing the ‘legend of Disraeli’ place this change later, often arguing that it is the second Salisbury administration that displays a new and distinctive Conservative attitude towards empire. This essay will offer an analysis of these conflicting arguments in an attempt to determine firstly when, and subsequently how far and why, the Conservatives became the party of empire.
The most suitable starting point is perhaps a consideration of Disraeli’s rhetoric and speeches, notably his Crystal Palace address of 1872, as it is apparently because of these, rather than specific actions, that Disraeli, and by extension the Conservative party, became linked with empire. Certainly Disraeli was the most influential Conservative to broadcast such views, but the impact these speeches had is harder to identify. Eldridge, citing The Times as an example, argues that “apart from the sparkle of Disraeli’s oratory, little interest was shown in the [Crystal Palace] speech by contemporaries”, a view that many historians disagree with. Ward suggests that the Conservative victory in 1874 can be b...
... middle of paper ...
... Conservatism and the Conservative Party in Nineteenth Century Britain, Edward Arnold, London, 1988.
Eldridge, C. C., England’s Mission, Macmillan, London, 1973.
Eldridge, C. C., Victorian Imperialism, Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1978.
Martin, H., Britain in the Nineteenth Century, Nelson, Cheltenham, 1996.
Porter, B., The Lion’s Share: A short history of British Imperialism 1850-1983, Longman, London, Second Edition, 1984.
Shannon, R., The Age of Salisbury 1881-1902, Longman, London, 1996.
Shannon, R., The Crisis of Imperialism 1865-1915, Hart-Davis, MacGibbon, London, 1974.
Southgate, D., The Conservative Leadership 1832-1932, Macmillan, London, 1974.
Steele, E. D., Lord Salisbury: a Political Biography, UCL, London, 1999.
Swartz, M., The Politics of British Foreign Policy in the Era of Gladstone and Disraeli, Macmillan, London, 1985.
Disraeli's Motives in Passing the Second Reform Act “The objective of establishing the Conservative Party as a party of
Eliga H. Gould, The Persistence of Empire: British Political Culture in the Age of the American Revolution (North Carolina: Omohundro Institute, 2000),
In the 1906 election, the number of seats won by Liberals increased from 184 to 377, in contrast the numbers of seats lost by the Conservatives went from 402 seats won in 1900 to 157 seats lost in the 1906 election, this represented the lowest number of seats held by a Conservative government since 1832. This dramatic reversal of constituencies held, is due to a number of reasons. An argument is that, due to some poor decisions made by the Conservative governments, they in fact contributed largely to the landslide result in the 1906 election. ‘They were in effect the architects to the own downfall.’
The history between the British Empire and its dominions always was significantly distinguished through the strong ties which people connected to the mother-country of Britain. However, as always in history changes were about to happen as each dominion urged to become more and more independent. The end of this process is marked by the Statute of Westminster passed in 1931 which granted the former dominions full legal freedom and established legislative equality between the now self-governing dominions of the British Empire. Therefore, the Statute of Westminster is one of the most remarkable acts in Canadian history as it set the road to the development of Canada in which we live today.
5 Robert H. Ferrell, America as a World Power, 1872-1945, (New York: Harper & Row
The Conservatives' Record in Government and Their Likeliness to Lose the General Election in 1906
Canny, Nicholas: The Oxford History of the British Empire,vol I, TheOrigins of the Empire (New York 1998)
Ford, Richard. “Introduction” in : Yates, R., Revolutionary Road, (2001 edition), Methuen Publishing Ltd, London.
The Chartist movement itself came about five years’ after the Reform Act was passed, so how can the rise of the movement mark the failure of the Reform Act, when its sole drive perhaps was not fully related to it? Edward Royle had suggested that ‘the roots of Chartism lay in economic hardship’, and that the movement erupted at a time of an economic crisis. The movement was predominately working-class and thus when inflation began to rise, they were hit the hardest and many saw the Chartist movement as the only hope in their desperate situation. This idea can be further supported by a report on a speech by Joseph Rayner Stephens who comments, ‘This question of Universal Suffrage was a knife and fork question…this was a bread and cheese question.’ This suggests the movements idea of universal suffrage was more to do with a socio-economic issue and this can relate with Edward Royle’s view that the Chartist movement erupted as a result of the bad economic conditions, rather than the betrayal of the ‘Great’ Reform Act. In this sense, it suggests the Chartist movement came about many years after the Reform Act was passed because it wasn’t until towards the late 1830’s the economic situation started to worsen for the working-class, and this led many to turn towards Chartism in the hope for a change.
The Differences of Gladstone And Disraeli In Their Policies Regarding The British Empire and Foreign Policy
Home Rule was an extremely important concept in the British Empire in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. To fully appreciate its significance, it must be viewed in an imperial rather than a purely Irish concept. Before the outbreak of the First World War, the nature of government in the British Empire was changing. Greater independence and forms of domestic governance were granted to Canada, Australia, and South Africa in 1867, 1900, and 1909 respectively. Thus, Britain can be seen to have been gradually liberalising its system of imperial governance, at least for ‘civilised’ components of the empire. This contrasts starkly with the disorderly and chaotic nature of de-colonisation that was experienced by Britain, France, and other European powers following the Second World War.
Hutcheon, Linda. ‘Circling the Downspout of Empire’. The Post-Colonial Studies Reader. London : Routledge, 1995. p130-135.
Evans, Eric J. The Forging of the Modern State: Early Industrial Britain. London and New York: Longman, 1996.
Stokesbury, James L. A Short History of World War I. New York: Morrow, 1981. Print.
Nineteenth century British literature cannot be properly understood, as Spivak points out “without remembering that imperialism, understood as England’s social mission, was a crucial part of the cultural representation of England to the English”.(Ashcroft et al, 269) The British imagination, however, responded to the Empire in different ways. Even during the heyday of the Empire, there had been conflicting attitudes towards the Empire. In 1883, Sir John Seeley wrote in The Expansion of England: