‘SPLENDID I S O L A T I O N y

CHRISTOPHER HOWARD King’s College, London

‘WE KNOW THAT we shall maintain against all comers that which we possess,’ Lord Salisbury told the Primrose League on 4 May 1898, ‘and we know, in spite of the jargon about isolation, that we are amply competent to do so.’ 1 For nearly two and a half years and particularly in the last six weeks, since Russia had, on 27 March, obtained the lease of Port Arthur, Salisbury had been seeing Britain’s international posi- tion, for the upholding of which he, as prime minister and foreign secretary, had the chief responsibility, described as one of ‘isolation’. a Sometimes this ‘isolation’ was said to be ‘splendid’, sometimes ‘dan- gerous’. His patience had evidently been much tried. Nevertheless, Salisbury’s complaint about fiargon’ had little or no effect. ‘Isolation’ continued to be a recurrent subject of controversy for nearly four more years. ‘Splendid isolation’ is now a hard-worked, although generally unacknowledged, quotation. There can be few works on British foreign policy in the last years of the nineteenth and the first years of the twen- tieth centuries in which this celebrated phrase does not occur.

Already at that period the term ‘isolation’ was used in a variety of senses and the passage of time has not diminished its ambiguity. Does ‘isolation’ simply mean not having allies, or does it mean having neither allies nor friends? In other words, is it a position of freedom or of weak- ness? What, if anything, is the significance of the word ‘splendid’ as a description of Britain’s ‘isolation’? From whom was Britain ‘isolated’? Was it from other powers in general or only from the great powers of Europe? Was ‘isolation’ Britain’s characteristic position during a con- siderable or even the greater part of the nineteenth century, or was it adopted only towards the end of that period? 4 Was Britain’s ‘isolation’

* For the remarks by Chamberlain that no doubt partly d o n e d Salisbury‘s complaint, see J. L. Garvin, L$ of Josebh C M c r k n (London, rg3z-4), %. 259-81, cspedally 260. There had also been disparaging references to ‘isolation’ by Sir Edward Grey and Lord Charles Bercsford in the commons on 5 April 1898. (Hm.wd , 4th series, lvi. 280-1 and

a t historians we the term ‘isolation’ to describe Britain’s attitude to other powers in general, irre~pective of their geographical situation. See, e.g., R. C. K. Ensor, Engkvui, r&o-rgr4 (Oxford, rg36), p. 350. According, however, to A. J. P. Taylor, The Sbuggb fw Mastcry in Europs (Oxford, i g ~ ) , p. 400: ‘Isolation meant almfncsa from the European Balance of Power.’ R. Albrecht-Can%, A Diplomatit Hirtorp of Europa Since the Congress of YimM (London, 1958), p. 232, follows Mr. Ta lor

‘The former view is held by a number orcontinental historians. Hans Hcnfeld, DU M o k Welt r 7 W r 5 (Brunawick, 3rd edition, I*), ii. 38, holds that Britain’s ‘isolation’ went back to 1815.J9k. von Salis, Weltgeschuhte derncuslm zit (Zurich, 2nd edition, Ig55), i. 286, applies the term ‘splendid isolation’ to the entire nineteenth century. F. Gasses, The

32

The Times, 5 May I&$. This is often referred to as the ‘dying nations’ speech.

2853 .

CHRISTOPHER HOWARD 33 something for which Salisbury should be regarded as especially respon- sible, or has his partiality for it been exaggerated?s Finally, when did Britain’s ‘isolation’, splendid or otherwise, come to an end? 1902 is the date usually given, but this traditional view has recently been chal- lenged.8 Perhaps an examination of some of the opinions held concern- ing Britain’s ‘isolation’ at the time when this term was in frequent use will help to resohe these differences.

Both ‘isolation’ and ‘isolate’ are words that have come to form part of the English language only in comparatively modern times. When Dr. Johnson wished to express his opinion that the Hanoverian dynasty lacked supporters in England, he did not say that- they were ‘isolated’. He said: ‘Sir, this Hanoverian family is isoZe‘e here. They have no friends.’ 7 Both words came to be generally accepted in the course of the nineteenth century, but it was not until the mid-eighteen-nineties that references to Britain’s international position as one of ‘isolation’ became really common.

3 y that time it had become clear that all the great continental powers had ranged themselves in alliances. The Triplice dated, of course, from 1882, and on 10 June 1895, in the Chamber of Deputies, Hanotaux, the French foreign minister, to all intents and purposes avowed the existence of an alliance with Russia.* The uncommitted position of Britain, stand- ing aloof as she did from both groups, was thus rendered conspicuous in a way that it had not been previously. But what first caused widespread comment on Britain’s alleged ‘isolation’ was Grover Cleveland‘s threat- ening special message to Congress on I 7 December 1895 in connection with the Venezuelan boundary dispute. Articles at once appeared in a section of the German press calling attention to Britain’s ‘isolated’ posi- tion, and extracts from these articles were published in the leading

Mmurgrmcnt of Bririrh Foreign Policy b e f m ths First World War (Leyden, IS&), p. 98, calla the policy of ‘isolation’ ‘time-honoured’, a phrase also employed in this connection by R. Albrecht- Carrib, op. cit., p. 232. On the other hand, according to Harold Temperley and Lillian M. Penson, Fo&ionr of British Foreign P o l k Cambridge, 1938), p. 516, ‘ “isolation” is too

however, they consider (op. cit., p. 51 7) that ‘the isolation of Britain was fairly complete’. See also Taylor, @. d., p. 341.

The former view is still frequently expryed. CJ. Maurice Baumont, L‘Essor indwtricl d l ’ i r n ~ i m e colonid (Paris, ig4g), p. 213: Le vie- Salisbury incarne avec un calme im- perturbable le “splendide isolement ’.’ See also J. A. Spender, Gr& Brit&, Empire md Corn- monudth 1 S r W (London, n.d.), p. 193; Gosses, @. cit., p. g8; Herzfeld, @. n’t., ii. ~ , 4 3 ; von Salk, @. cit., i. 659. On the other hand, Lady Gwendolen Ccci in her admirable Life of Robert Mar+ of Sdisbury (London, 1921-35), iv. 85, declares: ‘The tradition which ascribes to him [Salisbuy an acquiescence, and even pride, in isolation, is wholly negatived by his

‘He [Salisbury] had no doctrinaire leaning toward, isolation.’ Sce also Lillian M. Penson, ‘The Principles and Methods of Lord Salisbury’s Foreign Policy’. (Cudridge Historical

’ For the traditional view see, e.g., Ensor, op. cit., p. 350. A. J. P. Taylor, on the other hand, argues that ‘the alliance [with Japan] did not mark the end of British isolation; rather it confirmed it’. (Up. n’t., p. 400.) Mr. Taylor’s contention follows, ofcourse, logically from his premise that ‘isolation meant aloofness from the European Balance of Power’. (See n. 3, above.)

‘James Boswell, Lfe of Johnwn, 21 March 1783 (Oxford, 1g34), iv. 165, quoted in O.E.D. ‘30& &s &&I&, I r June 1895.

strong a term to apply to British policy’ d ore Salisbury’s last administration; by 1897-8,

correspondence. k . W. Seton Watson, Britain in Europe (Cambridge, rg37), p. 594, writes:

3 - 4 3 v, 19353 P. 106.1

34 ‘SPLENDID ISOLATION’

British newspapers.* Less than a fortnight later Dr. Jameson started on his futile raid, and on 3 January 1896 the Kaiser dispatched his famous congratulatory telegram to President Kruger. More press comments on Britain’s ‘isolation’ appeared in various countries. Once again they were faithfully reported in the columns of the principal British newspapers.lO

There is reason to believe that Germany was attempting to cause Britain to take alarm at her supposedly weak position and thus to bring her into her own diplomatic 0rbit.l’ ‘Count Hatzfeldt’, wrote Salisbury to Queen Victoria on 12 January 1896, reporting a conversation with the German ambassador, ‘now wants a secret engagement. . . and he enforced this view yesterday in many warnings of the danger of isola- tion.’ A few days later Hatzfeldt himselfreported home on the lack of concern in Britain at what he called the country’s ‘alleged isolation’. ‘People actually boasted about it,’ he remarked, ‘in the proud assurance that England is strong enough to defy all her enemies.’ lS

The journalists, diplomats, politicians and monarchs, who at this period so frequently alluded to Britain’s isolation, did not by any means all use the word to mean the same thing. The articles in the continental press, like the admonitions of German diplomats,14 generally implied that Britain’s ‘isolation’ was a position of weakness. ‘Continental pub- licists in their more acrid moods’, observed the Spectator, ‘are fond of dwelling on the “is~lation~’ of Great Britain,who, they assert, hasnotonly not an ally but not a friend in the world.’ 15 On 13 May 1898 Joseph Chamberlain, in what is often called the ‘long spoon’ speech,’” ex- pressed a view that was in fact much the same as that of the ‘continental publicists’. ‘Since the Crimean War, nearly fifty years ago,’ he said, ‘the policy of this country has been a policy of strict isolation.aWe have had no allies-I am afraid we have had no friends.’ l7

But, of course, to others ‘isolation’ simply meant not having allies, without any implication of weakness, often, indeed, with one of freedom from unwelcome commitments. ‘Our isolation’, declared Goschen on 26 February 1896 at Lewes, ‘is not an isolation of weakness, or of con- tempt for ourselves; it is deliberately chosen, the freedom to act as we choose in any circumstances that may arise.’ 18 ‘If we had succumbed in

The Times and other newspapers, xg-no December 1895, quoting, among others, the

10 i7u Times and other newspapers, 9-10 January 1896, quoting various Austrian, &my Italian and Russian n apers.

11 See W. L. L a n g e r x Dipbmacy of ImpcrioriSm (New York, 2nd edition, 1951)~ p. 247; E. M. Carroll, Germany and the Great Powers, r&&rgrp (New York, rg38), p. 70; Padme R. Anderson, The Background of Anti-Englkh Feeling in G m ~ n y (Washington, %.C., 1939)~ PP. 133-4’.

Hatzfeldt to Holstein, P I January x8g6, in CIOssc Politik, xi. 53. (My translation.)

N&MLuittitg and the N t Pmrcsicchc .QiMg (Krm-<&g). .

u LCms of Qwen Victoria, 3rd series, iii. PI.

1’ E.g., Hatzfeldt v.s.) and Mettemich, as reported by Lansdowne, I December IQOI, in

1 6 s tator, 4 January 1902. 1. & a v e always thought that it was a very wise proverb, “Who sups with the Devil must

11 The Tims, 14 M a y 18g8.

British D o ~ ~ n t s on f L Originsofthe Wm I 8 g 8 - I g y (ed. G. P. Gooch andhtrold Tempcrley), ii. 82.

have a long spoon”.’ (171s Times, 14 May 1898.) The speech was stron ly anti-Russian. 18Zbid., n7 February 18&

CHRISTOPHER H O W A R D 35 the revolutionary war,’ wrote Salisbury on 29 May 1901, ‘our fall would not have been due to our isolation. We had many allies.’ 19 Used in this sense, ‘isolation’ was simply a term that had recently become widely current to describe what was generally regarded as Britain’s ‘traditional policy of freedom from all entanglements’. 2o

There was, too, some uncertainty as to which powers Britain was supposed to be ‘isolated’ from. In a much criticized speech at Leicester on 30 November 1899 Chamberlain referred to Britain as ‘isolated on the continent of Europe’.21 Even those who in the later eighteen-nineties thought of ‘isolation’ as the avoidance of ‘entangling alliances with the great military policies of the world’ 22 no doubt mostly conceived of those ‘great military policies’ in terms of the great powers of Europe. Only a few people, of whom of course Chamberlain was one, realized at that period that a new great power and potential ally had arisen in the Far East. Moreover,neither the alliancewith Portugal nor the guarantee of Belgium appears to have been thought of as qualifjing Britain’s ‘isolation’.

On the whole, ‘isolation’ was not a term that conduced to clarity of thought and expression. I t was liable to be used on occasion to convey the oddest of meanings.23 Moreover, since it was in origin a term of dis- paragement, it naturally found little favour with many of those who were concerned to defend the existing avoidance of alliances. ‘I am not one’, said Campbell-Bannerman, ‘who thinks it is very admirable to boast of our isolation.’ The term that Campbell-Bannerman preferred was ‘freedom of individual action’.26

Nevertheless, whether people spoke succintly, albeit ambiguously, of ‘isolation’, or employed some lengthier but less equivocal form of words, there was a widespread and frequently expressed belief that free- dom from alliances had for a considerable period been a basic principle of British foreign policy. ‘The policy of this country,’ said Chamberlain in the House of Commons on 10 June 1898, ‘hitherto well known to all nations of the world, and declared again and again, was that we would not accept any alliance.’ as For just how long this had been Britain’s policy was a matter concerning which there was some difference of opinion and a good deal of vagueness. ‘For nearly fifty years,’ said As- q ~ i t h . ~ ’ ‘For many years,’ said Kimberley.28 ‘Of late years,’ said Spen- cer.’O In the Commons debate on the Anglo-Japanese alliance Har- court asserted that the policy had been ‘consecrated by the traditions of

lo British L)wwnds, ii. 68. l1 7b T b , I December 1899. ** E.g., by Salisbury, who in a speech at Caernarvon on 10 April 1888 referred to: ‘that

spirit of haughty and sullen isolation which has been dignified by the name of %on-inter- vention” ’ (271~ Tm, 11 April 1888). For another example of Salisbury’r penchant for idiosyncratic use of a current phrase see his Guildhall speech, g November 1896, discussed below.

Hunsard, 4th series, cii. 1293, 13 February 1902. Campbell-Bannerman waa speaking in the debate on the AngleJapanese alliance.

Id. Ibid., l e i . 1347,10 June 1898. Ibid., lvii. 1512, 17 May 1898.

Gbbs (Toronto), 16 January 1896. la S&&hr, 25 January 1896.

*‘ Hamard, 4th series, lviii. 1432, 10 June 1898. “Zbid., cii. 1173, 13 February 1903.

36 ‘SPLENDID ISOLATION’

nearly a century’.30 Henry Norman, a Liberal back-bencher, who had earlier opened the debate, went even hrther, declaring that ‘the policy of England had always been freedom from alliances’.s’ I t is probably true to say that the greater a man’s attachment to the policy of avoiding alliances, the more he tended to emphasize, indeed to exaggerate, the antiquity of that policy. In any case, the overwhelming majority of those who, in the period when ‘isolation’ was so much under discussion, regarded it as Britain’s ‘traditional policy’,32 were unaware-or at most only dimly aware-f the existence of the Mediterranean agreements of 1 8 8 7 , ~ ~ concerning the first of which Salisbury had written: ‘It is as close an alliance as the Parliamentary character of our institutions will per- mit.’ 34

I t was on 16 January 1896, almost a fortnight after the dispatch of the Kruger telegram and more than two years before Salisbury made his complaint about ‘jargon’, that Britain’s ‘isolation’ was for the first time digdied by the addition of the adjective ‘splendid’. ‘Splendid isolation’ is a phrase of Canadian origin. Its real author, although he was not the first to utter these exact words, was George Foster, leader of the Cana- dian House of Commons and minister of finance in the Conservative government of Sir Mackenzie Fk~well .~~ On the day in question Foster was speaking in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne and the words that he actually used were: ‘In these somewhat troublesome days, when the great mother-Empire stands splendidly iso- lated in Europe.’ 86 The first recorded example, however, of the use of the phrase in the form in which it is universally quoted seems to have been by Sir Richard Cartwright, a prominent member of the Canadian Liberal Party,87 who later in the same debate paraphrased Foster’s words, by way of expressing his disagreement: ‘I have a word or two to say on this same subject of “splendid isolation”.’ Cartwright described the phrase as ‘grandiloquent nonsense’ and asserted: ‘True statesmen would have said that England stands dangerously isolated, and not splendidly isolated.’P8

Hunsard, 4th series, cii. 1303, 13 February ,902.

Earl Percy in Hansurd, 4ih series, cii. 1311, 13 February 1902. I1 Zbid., cii. 1276, 13 February 1902.

*a It is difficult to be. certain how much was known at this period about these agreements. There had been a slight leakage in 1888. (H-d, 3rd Series, cccxxii. 152-3, 377, 557-8, I I 7235; L a t h s of Quun Victoria, 3rd series, i. 386-7; W. L. Langcr, Ew@m AUwrcw and Aligmncnlr, New York, 2nd edition, 1956, pp. 465-7.) In a memorandum dated 25 April 1898, that is, some two and a half weeks before his long spoon’ speech, Chamberlain re- corded that Hatzfeldt had that day idormed him of conversations that he had had with Salisbury ‘during the time of the last Conservative Government, in the course of which . .:.. progress had been made towards an alliance with Italy and Austria’. (Garvin, Op. d., 111.

273- ) For the behaviour of Gladstone and Rosebcry in 1892, see below. a4$alisburyto QueenVictoria, 10 February 1887, in LsucrJ ofQucar Victoria, ~rdseries,i. 272. a‘ George Eulaa Foster (1847-1931) held office in various minutries in the period 1885-

1921. He war knighted in 1912. 1. Debas of the House of Commons of the Dominion of Camah (hereafter cited ad Deb&). xli.

176, 16 January 1896. I’ Richard Cartwright (1835-1912) held office in various Liberal ministries. He had been

knighted in 1879. ‘ 8 Debates, xli. 189, 16 January 1896.

C H R I S T O P H E R H O W A R D 37 Neither Foster’s words nor Cartwright’s paraphrasc of them made, so

far as one can judge from the absence of press comment, much im- mediate impact on Canadians. But Foster’s speech was reported in the London Times 3B and quoted-or, rather, slightly misquoted-by Cham- berlain in the course of a speech at a banquet in honour of a new governor of Queensland on 2 I January 1896. ‘Three weeks ago,’ said Chamberlain, ‘in the words of Mr. Foster, the leader of the House of Commons of the Dominion of Canada, “the great mother-Empire stood splendidly isolated”.’ The paragraph of which .this sentence formed part was printed in T h Tims under the cross-heading ‘Splen- did I~olation’,~1 and this phrase was also given prominence in other leading papers.4a ‘Splendid isolation’ was already on its way to becom- ing a stock q~otation.’~

How was it that on 16 January 1896 eminent Canadian statesmen were arguing, not without some heat, about whether Britain’s ‘isola- tion’, as to the fact of which they agreed, was ‘splendid’ or ‘dangerous’? Canadians had been alarmed by the Cleveland message, for they could not but be aware of the unpleasant consequences for themselves that a war between Britain and the United States would entail. Bowell’s government accordingly took immediate steps to strengthen the coun- try’s defences,44 to which the speech from the throne drew the attention of Parliament, when it reassembled on 2 January r896.46 The next day saw the dispatch of the Kruger telegram, on g January the British government announced the commissioning of the ‘flying squadron’ and, three days later, the prime ministers of the Australian colonies publicly assured Salisbury of their loyal support and their determination ‘to resent interference in matters of British and colonial concern’.dO Mean- while, Canadian newspapers reported the continental press comments on Britain’s ‘isolation’ 47 and themselves proffered observations to the same effect. ‘She [Britain] is practically isolated,’ remarked the Toronto Globe on 15 January, ‘so far as European sympathy is concerned.’48 Preparedness, imperial solidarity and the mother country’s ‘isolation’

40 Ibid., zz anuary 1896. Id. J 77u Times, 18 January 1896. ~ s S ~ ~ r , 25 January; S&y Timu, 26 January I g6. 4s The 0xJir.d Dictionav of Qwtdionr rightly attnbuta the words ‘splendidly isolated’ to

Foster, but incorrectly givea the credit for ‘splendid isolation’ to W h e n on the strength of a passage in his speech at Lewa on 26 February 1896. (Goschen’s speech is discussed above in another connection.) The phrase ‘splendid isolation’ had, however, already been used by Cartwright in his speech in the Canadian House of Commons on 16 January and by i7u linrcs on 22 January IS$. See also Albert M. H y m n , Dictionmy of English Phrases and Burton Stevenson, Book of Qto-. The origin of the phrase is also d i s c 4 in the Earl of Oxford and Asquith’s F i B Tms of Pmlimncnt (London, I 926), ii. 247-8, and A. L. Kennedy’s Salirbury (London, 1953)’ p. 268. Not one of these works, however, mentions the name of Cartmight, who appears to have been the first pcrson to utter the phrase in the form in which it is invariably quoted. In Twnty-FinC ?‘ems (London, i g q ) , i. 4, Lord Grey of Fal- lodon atata that Goschen used the phrase in the House of Commons, ‘speaking from the Trranvy Bench’, but gives no refcrence. The phrase has also been attributed to Salisbury, see n. 62, below.

44 George F. G. Stanley, C d s Soldiers (Toronto, I~M), pp. 274-5. 46 Debates, xli. 4,2 January I€@. 4’Globc (Toronto), 12 January; The Times, 13January 1896. 47 Glob8 (Toronto), g January I€@. a Ib id. , 15 January 1896.

38 ‘SPLENDID ISOLATION’

were thus all topics of the hour, when, an 16 January, the address in reply to the speech from the throne was debated in the Canadian House of Commons and Foster uttered the words that in a modified form were destined to become historic.

The same day notice was given of a motion pledging Canada’s loy- alty to the British throne and her determination to preserve the integ- rity of the Empire, but also expressing her desire to maintain friendly relations with the United States.4e The debate on this motion took place on 5 February, when the question whether Britain’s ‘isolation’ was ‘splendid’ or ‘dangerous’ was eloquently and exhaustively examined in an atmosphere of patriotic unity.6o On this occasion, when party differ- ences were temporarily effaced, Cartwright offered a compromise on the point concerning which he and Foster had previously disagreed. ‘We shall say in future,’ he said, ‘not that England stands in a state of splen- did isolation, or of dangerous isolation, but that England stands in a state of splendid but dangerous isolation.’ 61

What wax the significance of the adjective ‘splendid‘ as a description of Britain’s ‘isolation’? Primarily, of course, it was the expression of the complacency of the period concerning Britain’s position as ‘the greatest, the most powerfid, the wisest country in the world’.6a This complacency found elaborate expression in a speech by Wilfred Laurier in the debate in the Canadian House of Commons on 5 February 1896. After refer- ring to the much-debated question whether Britain-r rather, to be strictly accurate, England-was ‘splendidly or dangerously isolated’, he concluded: ‘For my part, I think splendidly isolated, because this isola- tion of England comes from her superiority, and her superiority today seems to be manifest. Apart from the realm of letters and art-in which, in my humble judgement, France is her compeer, and even her superior -in everything that makes a people great, in colonizing power, in trade and commerce, in all the higher arts of civilization, England not only excels all other nations of the modern world, but all nations in ancient history as well.’63 Others who spoke of Britain’s ‘splendid isolation’ probably took this superiority for granted, without bothering to justify it at such length.

But for some the word ‘splendid’ had another and less obvious im- plication. I t expressed the assurance that in her difficulties Britain could count on the loyal support of her self-governing colonies. Foster, in his speech on 16 January 1896, after alluding to the ‘splendidly isolated‘ position of the ‘great mother-Empire’, went on to emphasize that Britain’s ‘pride and glory must base itself upon the strong arms and willing loyal hearts of the citizenship of that Empire from one end of it to the other’.u Moreover, it is no accident that the phrase ‘splendid isolation’ gained universal currency as the result of a speech on a highly

The Times, 18Jaauary r 0 g 6 . 61 Ibid., I 1g7,5 February 18g6. sa W. S. Gilbert, Utopia Limited (London, 1893), Act I, p. 4. 6aPcbatcs, lxi. 1215, 5 February IS$.

Debates, xli. 1186-1222~5 February 16g6.

5‘ Ibid., 176-7, 16 January 189s.

CHRISTOPHER HOWARD 39 imperial occasion by the colonial secretary, Joseph Chamberlain, then enjoying, as a result of his handling of the Jameson Raid, prestige and popularity greater than he had ever known before. 7 h Times next day carried the headline: ‘Mr. Chamberlain on Colonial Loyalty’,66 and later in the week the S’ectator observed that ‘the Colonies think our isolation “splendid”, for in direct proportion to our isolation is both our power to serve them, and our disposition to lean on them in case we our- selves get into a quarrel with other States’.68 Perhaps the point was most forcefully put by Chamberlain in a speech delivered six years later, after a storm of anti-British feeling had been aroused in Germany by a retort that he had made to criticisms of the British Army’s conduct of the war in South Africa.67 ‘We have the feeling, unfortunately,’ he said at Birmingham on 6 January 1902, ‘that we have to count upon ourselves alone, and I say, therefore, it is the duty of the British people to count upon themselves alone, as their ancestors did. I say alone, yes, in a splendid isolation, surrounded and supported by our kinsfolk.’68

Of course, not everyone who spoke or wrote of ‘splendid isolation’ did so with these implications in mind. In a speech on g November 1896 at the Lord Mayor’s banquet, for example, Salisbury referred to his hearers’ ‘splendid is~lat ion’ .~~ I t was unusual for him to utter the phrase at all and what he meant on this occasion had nothing to do with lack of allies or with imperial solidarity. He was referring to Britain’s comfort- able remoteness from the Turkish Empire, at that time the scene of the Armenian massacres, and disassociating himself from criticisms of other powers for not displaying a ‘philanthropic spirit’, which in their geo- graphical situation, they could not afford.”O Salisbury was doubtless in a genial post-prandial mood and probably enjoyed using the popular catch-phrase to convey a meaning very different from that usually in- tended by those whose taste in oratory was more flamboyant than his

‘Splendid isolation’ was, in fact, never one of Salisbury’s favourite expressions.”l Nevertheless, it has come to be closely associated with his name. Indeed, it has been stated, even comparatively recently, that it was he who coined the phrase.”¶ I t is of course true, as Salisbury’s daughter and biographer observed, that he had an ‘aversion from action of which he could not see the end‘, which ‘showed itself in his dislike to invoiving his country in formal and permanent alliance with other p0wers’.~3 Nevertheless, an aversion from alliances was not pecu- liar to Salisbury. His frequently and strongly expressed opinion on this

O W .

llu Times, 22 January 1896. I7 W. L. Langer, The Diplomag of Zniptdism, pp. 774-5; Julian Amery, Lifc of Joseph

Chamberlain (London, 1951), iv. x f 3 - g . 7%~ T i , 7 Januay IQOZ. In Bwgrafihicor Studus of b Life and Political Character of Robert Zlird Marquis of Salisbtq

(London, n.d.; privately printed), p. 38, Lady Gwendolen Cecil refers to ‘what Lord Salisbury always treated as the dead sin in oratory‘, namely, ‘the use of words without a meaning or with but a vague and uni&ed meaning behind them’. I am indebted to Dr. J. F. A. Mason for the loan of this rare and excellent little book.

Sficfabr, 25 January I 8g6.

Ibid., 10 November 1%. ‘0 Id.

’* Taylor, op. cif., p. 346, n. I . Cecil, Biographicai Studies, p. 68.

40 ‘SPLENDID ISOLATION’

subject was shared by many of his contemporaries and especially by members of the Liberal Party. When Chamberlain in his ‘long spoon’ speech gave warning of the consequences of a continued policy of ‘isola- tion’ he provoked vigorous expressions of disagreement from the Liberals in both Houses of Parliament.66 In this matter most Liberals were closer to Salisbury than they were to chamberlain.

Moreover, in 1887 Salisbury had actually gone further in the direc- tion of what he called ‘relations plus intimes’ 66 with continental powers than a Liberal government would have been prepared to do, when he negotiated the exchanges of notes known as the Mediterranean agree- m e n t ~ , ~ ~ the first of which, that with Italy, he recommended to Queen Victoria as an insurance against the dangers that might ensue ‘if.. . England was left out in isolation’.B* When the Liberals were back in office in 1892 Rosebery, according to his own account, told Hatzfeldt that ‘Lord Salisbury appeared to have entered into closer relations with Italy than I had felt myselfjustified in doing. . . . I did not think that I could persuade my colleagues to give any such note’,e* and Glad- stone, in conversation with Waddington, the French ambassador, denied the very existence of the agreement-no doubt in good faith.?o

Nearly ten years later the Unionist government, of which Salisbury was still head, although his vigour had by this time much declined, concluded the alliance with Japan. There was muchdifference of opinion as to the wisdom of the new move,?’ but none concerning the fact that Britain had abandoned an important and long-standing principle of her foreign policy. ‘Our magnificent isolation’, lamented one Liberal organ, ‘has come to an end with a pretty sudden shock.’ ‘Our “isolation”, splendid or otherwise,’ observed another, ‘is forsaken for a dual alliance.’ The Tims described the alliance as ‘a departure from the policy of isolation which England has so long pursued’.7’ In Parliament one Liberal after another emphasized the magnitude of the break with the past;7s the Unionists, although they defended the alliance, did not

g‘ LcuCrs of Qpm Vic&riCr, 3rd series, i. 272; iii. 21; Cecil, Lifc of Salisbury, iv. 21-5; British Docwnds, ii. 68.

gs See the speeches by Kimberley in the House of Lords in Hanrurd, 4th series, Ivii. I 512-14, 17 May I y 2 ? a n d by Dike, Asquith, Labouchere and Harcourt in the C ~ ~ ~ O I M in Himsurd, 4th seria, vu. 13 53,1347-50, 1374-80 and 1418-23, 10 June 1898.

Salisbury to &een Victoria, 10 February 1887, in f i t te rs of Qwn Victoria, 3rd series, i. 272.

Salisbury to Queen Victoria, 10 February 1887, in Lettcrs of Qpm Victoria, 3rd series, i. 272.

Note by Rosebery, 5 September 1892, in British Docwncnh, viii. 4. 7’ Waddington to Ribot, g December 1892, in Documenis dipIomoigusz frutquis, 1st series, x.

106. Thia curiou episode is discussed in Taylor, op. cit., p. 341, to which I owe the two refcrenca just given.

Much Liberal opinion was critical of the a l l i c e . See Daily News, 13 February 1902; also apecchcs by Campbell-Bannerman and Harcourt in the Commons. (Humwd, 4th series, cii. 1193 and 1303, 13 February 1902.) * Daily News, 12 February 19.

s7 Texts in British Docummts, viii. 1-13.

Dailg Chmniclc, 13 February 1902. See the apecches by Spencer, Henry Norman, Campbell-Banncrman and Harcourt in

74 Ihc Times, 13 February 1902.

Hansard, qthseries, cii. I 173,1273,1293 and 1301-3,13 February 1902.

CHRISTOPHER HOWARD 4' deny that Britain was abandoning her 'traditional policy'" and Lans- downe asked his fellow-peers not to allow their 'judgement to be swayed by any musty formulas or old-fashioned superstitions as to the desira- bility of pursuing a policy of isolation'.77 I t was recognized that Britain had given up her 'fixed policy of not making alliances','8 whether or not one chose to term that policy 'isolation' or to describe it by the now well-worn epithet 'splendid'.

'* Earl Percy in Hunsmd, 4th series, cii. 1311, 13 February tgoz. 77 Hmrrard, 4th series, cii. I 176, 13 February tgo2. 7'S&cf&r, 15 February 1902.