Henry John Temple: 19th Century British Statesman
Henry John Temple: 19th Century British Statesman

Henry John Temple: 19th Century British Statesman

Available Only on StudyHippo
  • Pages: 8 (2124 words)
  • Published: November 2, 2017
  • Type: Research Paper
View Entire Sample
Text preview

Henry John Temple, who was also referred to as the 3rd Viscount Palmerston, acted as a British statesman during the mid-1800s.

He held office almost continuously from 1807 until his death in 1865, switching political affiliations from Tory to Liberal. He served as the Prime Minister of England twice, first from February 6th, 1855 to February 19th, 1858 and secondly from June 12th, 1859 to October 18th, 1865.

Lord Palmerston, a three-time Foreign Secretary, was at the center of numerous controversial incidents and allegations because of his unwavering determination to safeguard Britain's interests even if it meant paying a high price. These episodes took place from 1830-1834, 1835-1841, and 1846-1851 and were deemed as "incorrect." To ascertain whether his foreign policy amounted to an ongoing criminal offense, defining what constitutes a crime is crucial.

The definition of crime encompasses acts that violate laws or are d

...

eemed illegal. However, there exist other types of crime, such as moral crime, which involves actions that go against set and accepted morals. Palmerston's policy of gunboat diplomacy demonstrates his recklessness, and he was frequently accused of abusing his power and not performing his job duties. This essay will examine the evidence supporting these accusations. Additionally, foreign policy refers to a country's established goals for how it will interact with the world of politics beyond its borders.

This essay aims to evaluate whether Palmerston's foreign policy between 1830 and 1865 constitutes a continuous violation of the law, given the foreign secretary's responsibility to maintain international relations and safeguard their country's integrity. Despite facing accusations of committing offenses worldwide, including within the United Kingdom, Palmerston's conduct will be assessed comprehensively to reach a final verdict.

View entire sample
Join StudyHippo to see entire essay

Lord Palmerston violates international laws twice, with the first instance occurring during the American Civil War. According to international law, supporting one side in the war without actively participating is prohibited. Nevertheless, Lord Palmerston aids the South in their battle against the North by providing them with warships despite not joining the conflict.

The 'Alabama affair' and the 'Trent affair' were two events that caused serious harm to the relationship between Britain and America. The former involved the support and protection of Southern agents by Palmerston, while the latter saw him hiding them on ships and clearly revealing his stance on the war.

Palmerston breached international law in two instances - the Schleswig and Holstein affair, as well as the Arrow affair. In the first case, he was outwitted by Bismarck and failed to uphold his obligation to maintain European power balance as foreign secretary. As for the latter, Palmerston went beyond reasonable measures when China enforced its laws, knowing they wouldn't retaliate. He resorted to blockades and bombardment until he received compensation and an apology - another violation of international law.

Nevertheless, prior to this event, the Chinese Emperor's summer palace had already been destroyed by him. In addition, after a British citizen was killed in a social conflict, he caused the death of 1400 Japanese citizens. The Japanese barely had any chance to reject Palmerston's request for an apology and compensation when British ships attacked ports and caused 1400 deaths. There were instances where his behavior was observed to be reckless. Acting in a reckless manner could be considered as endangering Britain's position by risking things needlessly.

During certain periods, he took the risk of starting a

war to achieve his own goals and blatantly exploited other nations, yet surprisingly few besides his own government spoke out against him. The 'Alabama' and 'Trent' affairs earned him the ire of the United States, among other countries with whom he risked provoking war. By knowingly breaking international law in these affairs, he further riled up the Americans already dealing with the slavery issue and the South receiving aid from a seemingly neutral country. He not only endangered the United States in relation to the Civil War but also South America by disputing their territorial claims. Palmerston expressed concerns about the US's growing strength and expansion and tensions arose regarding their respective rights to South America.

Britain desired South American territory to expand their already vast empire and improve trade in the region. There was also a chance of conflict with Portugal due to their intervention in Donna Maria's claim to the throne. Despite the fact that Maria was the legitimate ruler, her uncle had taken power. Palmerston was determined to reinstate Maria as queen, as she held progressive beliefs. However, accomplishing this goal meant dethroning Miguel, Maria's uncle.

Despite Miguel ignoring him, Palmerston attempted to intimidate him and ultimately called in troops. Strict instructions were given that the troops were only to resort to fighting if provoked, but this move was seen as provocative and could have led to a conflict with Portugal, who were unable to retaliate due to Britain's superior strength. This aggressive strategy not only risked war with Portugal but also with other nations who opposed Palmerston's interventionist policy.

During the 'Don Pacifico' affair, Palmerston's recklessness was evident. This related to the anti-semitic abuse

of a Portuguese Jew who held a British passport. Palmerston took a stand for him and demanded damages against the Greek government, which they refused. As a result, Palmerston sent gunboats, knowing that the Greek navy was small. This action led to destruction of houses and loss of lives on the Greek islands.

Despite the potential risks of sparking warfare with Greece's allies and facing backlash from his own government, Palmerston defended his actions as necessary for protecting a British citizen. It was an odd move considering his previous efforts to support Greek independence from the failing Ottoman Empire. Some would argue that both the 'Don Pacifico Affair' and the Chinese opium wars were unethical, as Palmerston disregarded both British and Chinese laws to assert the 'right' of British opium sales in China, even using force since he believed the Chinese were too weak to resist.

Palmerston used 'gunboat diplomacy' as a political move, which he employed on a whim throughout his time in power. Immorality was also characterised by his actions, such as when he provided boats for the Italian revolutionist Garibaldi to get to the mainland despite supporting monarchies to consolidate Britain's own monarchy. Palmerston was immoral again by not following through on his promises to support Poland during their revolt against brutal repression. This led to a massacre of the Polish people. The 'Haynau Affair' further exacerbated the situation as it ruined relations between Britain and Hungary after Palmerston refused to support General Haynau, who had mistreated one of the Queen's state guests, causing a negative reflection on Britain as one of the greatest countries in the world.

As a foreign secretary, it

is expected that he fulfils his role and avoids compromising his own or the country's position. Nevertheless, there were instances where he acted contrary to his duties, such as the 'Haynau Affair.' During a state visit by General Haynau, a Hungarian diplomat and Queen's guest, he was attacked by mobs. Instead of using the diplomatic approach expected of a foreign secretary to protect British subjects, he exacerbated the situation by labeling Haynau as a criminal and insinuating that his presence caused the incident.

The Hungarians and the Queen were both furious with Palmerston’s actions. The Queen demanded a complete apology, which Palmerston provided but it fell short of their expectations. This event had a lasting negative impact on the relationship between Hungary and England. Palmerston also acted inappropriately in response to Napoleon’s coup d’etat.

Following Napoleon's coup, Britain was among the few nations who recognized him as the rightful leader. However, it was not Palmerston's place to do so as it was the Queen's responsibility. Acknowledging an illegitimate leader made Britain appear immoral and affected how other countries perceived the nation. This situation worsened as Napoleon had also overthrown the French monarchy, which Britain was supposed to support as a monarchy themselves in international affairs. Moreover, Britain was concerned after Napoleon announced his foreign policy aimed at building an empire through expansionism, capable of challenging Britain's position of world dominance through their empires and trade routes. Ultimately, Palmerston's actions resulted in him being dismissed from his post by Prime Minister Russell.

Although Palmerston faced considerable criticism, he effectively served Britain. One of his main criticisms was exceeding his responsibilities. However, it could be argued that in

the 'Don Pacifico Affair' and in the Chinese opium wars, he was simply fulfilling his duties despite committing illegal acts. As foreign secretary, his primary responsibility was to protect British interests and prevent any risks to the nation. Despite allegations of breaking both domestic and international laws, Palmerston's actions were consistent with these aims during both incidents.

Palmerston's duty to protect British citizens led to his involvement in the 'Don Pacifico Affair'. Although he tried negotiating with the Greek government, they refused to compensate and apologize. Despite criticism that Don Pacifico was a controversial British claim as a Portuguese Jew, Palmerston couldn't afford to seem inactive due to Britain's strong reputation globally. Appearing weak would send a wrong message to rival nations and show indifference towards other Britons abroad.

Palmerston resorted to using gunboats and bombarding the Greek islands in order to make the Greeks submit, a move which was considered by some as a disproportionate display of power directed towards a weaker nation. Despite this, his actions conveyed a clear message that he emphasized in his 'Civus Romanus Sum' speech, where he proclaimed his obligation to safeguard all British citizens across the globe, regardless of their nationality or location. Similarly, he was accused of overstepping his authority in both the Chinese opium wars. In the first war, the Chinese had impounded British opium and banned its sale across various Chinese ports.

The secretary had the responsibility of ensuring that Britain's integrity was not undermined. Unfortunately, the confiscation of opium was doing just that by jeopardizing Britain's profits. As a result, Palmerston insisted on substantial compensation to make up for the opium's lost income. The Chinese government

rejected these demands, leading Palmerston to take action once again. He dispatched gunboats to Nanking and atta cked their port, resulting in casualties and destruction of Chinese property. Eventually, the Chinese government relented and compensated the British as per their demands.

Furthermore, Palmerston insisted on the legalization of opium sales in Chinese ports and the admittance of British consorts into the Chinese capital due to the prolonged resistance of China. Additionally, Hong Kong was relinquished to Britain as a vital location for trade and strategic operations. These actions were justified as Palmerston was fulfilling his duties of preserving British integrity and avoiding compromise. However, Palmerston also faced criticism for repeatedly violating laws.

Although Palmerston broke international and national laws multiple times, he believed breaking the law was necessary to maintain Britain's honour and his reputation as a prominent British statesman. One notable instance where he broke international law was during the first Chinese opium war. When the Chinese prohibited the highly profitable opium trade, Palmerston had two options: either overturn the ban or obtain compensation. Since Britain was losing a significant amount of money, he had to take action. Although he attempted to negotiate with the Chinese to release the opium and lift the ban, his efforts were in vain. Consequently, Palmerston resorted to using force, knowing that Britain's interests were at stake. He violated the law by sending gunboats, but ultimately succeeded in overturning the ban and obtained significant compensation from the Chinese.

Despite committing multiple offenses while serving as Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary, Palmerston deemed it necessary to do so in order to uphold Britain's standing in the world and Europe. Despite

being aware of the illegality of his actions, he believed they were crucial for safeguarding Britain from harm. While his use of gunboat diplomacy may have breached legal regulations, it ultimately benefitted Britain's interests. Consequently, it can be inferred that Palmerston's foreign policy between 1830 and 1865 was not entirely criminal as its advantages exceeded its drawbacks.

Although some of Palmerston's policies may have contained criminal elements, his ultimate objective was always to benefit the country. Evidence of this is the fact that throughout his reign, Britain remained at the top of Europe and even the world. Despite occasional threats, Britain maintained its respected position in political affairs and Palmerston was taken seriously when he spoke. This was exemplified when he returned to office after a brief absence and quickly restored peace by successfully preventing Russian expansion. Therefore, I believe that from 1830 to 1865, Palmerston's foreign policy was not a continuous series of crimes.

Get an explanation on any task
Get unstuck with the help of our AI assistant in seconds
New