OCR Specification focus:
‘Attitudes to Empire and British interests abroad; foreign and imperial policies of the 1874–1880 ministry; roles of Disraeli and his colleagues; reasons for defeat in 1880.’
Benjamin Disraeli’s Conservative ministry of 1874–1880 was defined by ambitious imperial expansion and assertive foreign policy, reshaping Britain’s global presence but also sowing seeds of political downfall.
Disraeli’s Approach to Empire
Disraeli articulated a vision of Empire as central to Britain’s power and prestige. Unlike Gladstone’s cautious liberalism, he embraced intervention and territorial acquisition to secure strategic advantage. His approach linked Empire with national strength, patriotism, and Conservative identity.
Attitudes to Empire
Empire as prestige: Disraeli believed Empire symbolised Britain’s global greatness.
Economic advantage: Overseas territories offered markets and resources.
Geopolitical competition: Expansion countered rivals such as Russia and France.
Moral duty: He often invoked the idea of Britain’s civilising mission, though this was more rhetoric than practical policy.
Empire: A collection of colonies, dominions, and territories governed by or under the influence of Britain, often serving strategic or economic purposes.
Key Imperial Policies, 1874–1880
Disraeli’s government pursued high-profile imperial moves that stirred support but also controversy.
Purchase of Suez Canal Shares (1875)
Disraeli acquired almost half the shares in the Suez Canal Company, securing a vital route to India.
Seen as a masterstroke of imperial policy, it enhanced Britain’s strategic dominance in the Mediterranean and Near East.
Symbolised assertive, imaginative statecraft, strengthening Disraeli’s popularity at home.
Royal Titles Act (1876)
Disraeli made Queen Victoria Empress of India, reinforcing symbolic unity of Empire.
Appealed to Conservative voters by linking monarchy, empire, and national pride.
Also reflected rivalry with other European imperial powers using exalted titles.
Expansion in Southern Africa
Annexation of the Transvaal (1877) aimed to stabilise the region under British control.
Sparked conflict with the Zulu Kingdom, leading to the Anglo-Zulu War (1879).
An 1879 map showing Zululand, Natal, and the Transvaal, pinpointing the contested frontier and British intervention zone during the Anglo-Zulu War. Source
Early defeats (notably Isandlwana) shocked public opinion, though ultimate victory restored some prestige.
However, high costs and bloodshed tarnished the supposed benefits of expansion.
Foreign Policy Engagements
Beyond the Empire, Disraeli’s foreign policy emphasised safeguarding British interests abroad, especially against Russian influence.
The Eastern Question
The decline of the Ottoman Empire posed risks to Britain’s route to India and balance of power in Europe.
Russian advances in the Balkans threatened British security.
Disraeli was determined to check Russian power and maintain Ottoman integrity where possible.
Russo-Turkish War (1877–78)
Conflict between Russia and the Ottoman Empire raised alarm in Britain.
Public opinion split between sympathy for oppressed Balkan Christians and fear of Russian expansion.
Disraeli prioritised strategic interests over humanitarian sentiment.
Congress of Berlin (1878)
Disraeli, with Foreign Secretary Lord Salisbury, successfully renegotiated the Treaty of San Stefano.
A map of the Balkans illustrating the post-Berlin settlement of 1878, showing the redefined borders and the emergence of semi-independent states under European influence. Source
Britain secured Cyprus, enhancing control in the Eastern Mediterranean.
Disraeli returned claiming “peace with honour”, boosting his personal standing.
However, critics argued Britain backed the failing Ottomans and neglected moral responsibilities.
Eastern Question: The diplomatic and political problems arising from the decline of the Ottoman Empire and the ambitions of European powers to control its territories.
Roles of Disraeli and His Colleagues
Benjamin Disraeli: Architect of assertive imperialism, tying Empire to Conservative politics.
Lord Salisbury (Foreign Secretary): Played a crucial role in negotiations at Berlin and in shaping cautious but firm diplomatic stances.
Colonial administrators and generals: Figures such as Lord Chelmsford in South Africa influenced outcomes of conflicts, though sometimes disastrously.
Domestic Reactions and Opposition
While many celebrated Disraeli’s boldness, opposition grew over the costs and morality of his policies.
Liberals, under Gladstone, denounced imperialism as immoral, costly, and destabilising.
Humanitarian groups criticised Britain’s support of the Ottoman Empire despite reports of atrocities against Balkan Christians.
Public opinion became divided: some admired the grandeur of empire; others saw reckless adventurism.
Reasons for Conservative Defeat in 1880
Despite moments of success, the 1874–1880 ministry ended in electoral defeat. Contributing factors included:
Military failures: Early losses in the Anglo-Zulu War, and difficulties in Afghanistan (Second Anglo-Afghan War, 1878–80), weakened claims of competence.
Economic downturn: Agricultural depression and industrial problems affected popular confidence.
Moral opposition: Gladstone’s Midlothian Campaigns attacked Disraeli’s imperialism as immoral, appealing to nonconformists and radicals.
Public fatigue: High costs of wars and perception of needless bloodshed undercut earlier enthusiasm for assertive imperialism.
Midlothian Campaigns: A series of political speeches by Gladstone (1879–80) condemning Disraeli’s foreign policy and imperialism, which rallied Liberal support.
Ultimately, Disraeli’s imperial and foreign policies from 1874–1880 showcased ambition and vision, but controversies, economic difficulties, and military strains eroded public confidence, leading directly to the Conservatives’ 1880 defeat.
FAQ
Reaction was mixed. Many Conservatives celebrated the title as a way of honouring the monarchy and reinforcing the grandeur of Empire.
Liberals, however, criticised the move as unnecessary flattery and an attempt to distract from domestic issues. Some radicals saw it as costly symbolism rather than meaningful policy.
British newspapers carried dramatic accounts of the war, especially the shocking defeat at Isandlwana in 1879. This coverage stirred public debate about government competence.
While some papers portrayed the war as heroic imperial duty, others accused the government of reckless expansionism. The press amplified political divides between Conservatives and Liberals.
Cyprus offered Britain a naval base close to the Suez Canal, safeguarding the route to India.
It also allowed Britain to monitor Russian movements in the Eastern Mediterranean. The island became both a symbolic and practical extension of Britain’s imperial defence system.
The annexation ignored Boer demands for self-government, creating resentment that would later fuel conflict.
Additionally, it placed Britain directly in opposition to powerful African kingdoms, including the Zulus and Pedi. This aggressive stance drew Britain into costly wars.
The phrase highlighted Disraeli’s belief that Britain had preserved stability while protecting its own interests without resorting to war.
It was a powerful piece of political theatre that boosted Conservative prestige at the time. However, critics argued it disguised Britain’s failure to protect smaller Balkan nations and moral concerns.
Practice Questions
Question 1 (2 marks):
In which year did Disraeli acquire the shares in the Suez Canal Company, and why was this significant for Britain?
Mark Scheme:
1 mark for correct year: 1875.
1 mark for significance: recognition that it secured Britain’s strategic route to India / strengthened British influence in the Mediterranean.
Question 2 (5 marks):
Explain two reasons why the Conservatives were defeated in the 1880 election.
Mark Scheme:
Up to 3 marks for explanation of the first valid reason.
Examples: military failures (Anglo-Zulu War or Second Anglo-Afghan War), economic depression, or Gladstone’s Midlothian Campaigns.
1 mark for identification, 1–2 marks for clear explanation and development.
Up to 3 marks for explanation of the second valid reason (as above).
Maximum of 5 marks in total: both reasons must be distinct.
To achieve full marks, the answer must show understanding of how each factor contributed to electoral defeat (not just listing).
,_crop.jpg){kind=link}