What do you think?
Rate this book
Lord Salisbury was a Conservative politician, prime minister from 1885-1886, 1886-1892 and 1895-1902, and the last to hold that office in the House of Lords. Foreign affairs were always Salisbury's main interest, and he acted as his own foreign secretary during most of his administrations. The great issue of the time was the expansion of the empire, and competition with other colonial powers, particularly in Africa. His last term as prime minister saw the initially disastrous Second Boer War, which shook British confidence and heralded the end of 'Splendid Isolation'.
154 pages, Paperback
First published October 1, 2006
3 people are currently reading
13 people want to read
About the author
Eric Midwinter
73 books4 followersEric Clare Midwinter was an English author, broadcaster and academic. He was a consumer advocate, a social policy analyst, a historian of the sport of cricket and an expert on British comedy.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
July 11, 2019
“The use of conservatism is to delay changes until they become harmless”
Lord Salisbury is one of Britain's lesser known prime ministers (which by itself might not be such a bad thing). He served as PM for a total of 13 years (although interrupted by Gladstone) beginning in 1885. Eric Midwinter has written this book as part of a series on the PMs of the 20th century and therefore it provides a sort of readers digest version of the late 3rd Marquess of Salisbury's life (and mostly) work. The book manages to present different aspects of Salisbury (despite the fact that it author is clearly left-leaning).
Robert Arthur Talbot Gascoyne-Cecil (1830-1903) was born into an old aristocratic family. His great grandfather Robert Cecil advised Elizabeth I and ever since then his family has been involved in politics. He spent 9 years working as an independent journalist before he became an MP and the rest is as they say history… or not.
To better understand Salisbury’s political heritage one should see the importance of two contemporary revolutions: the political and the industrial. 1789 had seen the French revolution which had ended in bloodshed and a large European war. Stability had been achieved by the Vienna conference of 1815 but revolution was still in the air in 1848 when another wave of revolutions spread across Europe. Realpolitik was the attempt to balance super powers against each other was in Kissinger’s words an attempt at a stable world order. Salisbury was very much a part of that diplomatic way of keeping checks and balances in society. He believed that the community of Europe was key to Britain’s safety and therefore shied away from entangling alliances in order to deftly maneuver the political stage.
By using diplomacy he sought to keep stability and sought to avoid war by demonstrating the will to prepare for one ostentatiously. He therefore managed to prolong the peace of 1815 for another 20 years (which ultimately ended in 1914). He was not a keen empire builder but “the flag followed the trade”. It is indeed paradoxical that the man who was to preside over the largest empire in the world was of the opinion that British ‘greatness’ was largely an illusion that could only be preserved by clever diplomacy. Midwinter uses the analogy of the snooker player to explain the Lords skills as a diplomat: having played a diplomatic shot [he] knows exactly where the balls will halt and particularly the white ball, that is to say England.
The industrial revolution (which began in Britain) heralded rapid change, the reverberations of which we are still feeling today. When Salisbury was born more than half of the population lived on the countryside and when he died 77 percent lived in towns; the massive change from people having self-sustaining farms to becoming factory workers and 1880’s saw the first use of the word contraception. How is one supposed to cope with that? One way is to issue rapid social reforms and thereby create new political powers to soothe citizens. Another is to try sustaining the very institutions which form the basis of communal life, that is church and traditional order.
Salisbury was a religious man and believed that Anglicanism was ‘not only a religion but a civic pact with pervious generations’. It also provided a bulwark against class warfare. Religion was a way for people to relate to each other by sharing a common historical identity. Democracy by its very nature focuses on the values of the living whereas for Salisbury (as for Burke) society was a contract between the dead, the living and the yet unborn. Duty and honor are two concepts which seem very important to Lord Salisbury. He “preferred to see himself as a policeman, maybe a stolid village bobby, faced with what he called workers of mischief” (p. 91). This image seems in itself an archetypical English one: one should not interfere with other people’s business unless its absolutely necessary. The policeman should not be seen as some authority figure who commands others to behave in a certain way by force but rather like a zoo keeper who is trying to preserve ecosystems by carefully balancing each part so that the equilibrium is maintained.
The marquess “was a stout contender that men acted always and narrowly out of self-interest” which was one of the reasons he opposed parliamentary suffrage. “He forever anticipated that unalloyed democracy would be a steamroller, demolishing all traditional order.” There was therefore a risk that ‘mere anarchy [would be] loosed upon the world’. People can be charmed by charismatic politicians (Hitler was democratically elected) and because the election runs in cycle one could lose the long term perspective. Salisbury therefore tried to find pragmatic solutions which would keep benefit society both in the long- and short term. One example of this was his ennoblement of successful businessmen which had the effect of maintaining a certain social value to being noble. Perhaps most of all held up the right of the individual: government should not infringe upon the right of contract and “the feebleness of our government is our security” as he himself put it. An effective and powerful government can wreak havoc upon its citizens (and the rest of the world).
Then there is the character of Salisbury; the specifically English character. He seems to epitomize the English being in many ways. When one reads his writing one meets a careful sceptic who often uses waspish humor to say something quite drastic and it is here where his true character shines through (even though “[he] was a man of unremitting reticence in private matters and who regarded the expression of private emotions as being indecent.” (p. 19). The fact that he wrote 1.5 million words from 1864 to 1865 hints at the kind of work ethic which Salisbury evidently had. A world without twitter (nor TV for that matter) allowed for a different kind of politician to emerge: one lacked charisma but instead had the political acumen to avoid the major catastrophes. One who can bide his time and carefully plan his next move.
In hindsight he was correct in predicting the slow death of his cherished order – the divorce rate being extremely high in Europe, the church having lost all influence and the notion of a deeper sense of loyalty to one’s country seeming patently absurd. One wonders if a politician of Salisbury’s caliber would have managed to avoid the first world was (as there were many crises during his reign which were solved by Salisbury keeping cool and sober). Worth noting is that historian Niall Ferguson blames World War 1 on British politicians in his book “The pity of war”.
I will end on a note which seems to summarize Salisbury’s views: “No lesson seems to be so deeply inculcated by the experience of life as that you should never trust experts [...] They all require to have strong wine diluted by a very large admixture of insipid common sense.” (p. 121) A quote which gently shows an important aspect of what it means to be a conservative.
Lord Salisbury is one of Britain's lesser known prime ministers (which by itself might not be such a bad thing). He served as PM for a total of 13 years (although interrupted by Gladstone) beginning in 1885. Eric Midwinter has written this book as part of a series on the PMs of the 20th century and therefore it provides a sort of readers digest version of the late 3rd Marquess of Salisbury's life (and mostly) work. The book manages to present different aspects of Salisbury (despite the fact that it author is clearly left-leaning).
Robert Arthur Talbot Gascoyne-Cecil (1830-1903) was born into an old aristocratic family. His great grandfather Robert Cecil advised Elizabeth I and ever since then his family has been involved in politics. He spent 9 years working as an independent journalist before he became an MP and the rest is as they say history… or not.
To better understand Salisbury’s political heritage one should see the importance of two contemporary revolutions: the political and the industrial. 1789 had seen the French revolution which had ended in bloodshed and a large European war. Stability had been achieved by the Vienna conference of 1815 but revolution was still in the air in 1848 when another wave of revolutions spread across Europe. Realpolitik was the attempt to balance super powers against each other was in Kissinger’s words an attempt at a stable world order. Salisbury was very much a part of that diplomatic way of keeping checks and balances in society. He believed that the community of Europe was key to Britain’s safety and therefore shied away from entangling alliances in order to deftly maneuver the political stage.
By using diplomacy he sought to keep stability and sought to avoid war by demonstrating the will to prepare for one ostentatiously. He therefore managed to prolong the peace of 1815 for another 20 years (which ultimately ended in 1914). He was not a keen empire builder but “the flag followed the trade”. It is indeed paradoxical that the man who was to preside over the largest empire in the world was of the opinion that British ‘greatness’ was largely an illusion that could only be preserved by clever diplomacy. Midwinter uses the analogy of the snooker player to explain the Lords skills as a diplomat: having played a diplomatic shot [he] knows exactly where the balls will halt and particularly the white ball, that is to say England.
The industrial revolution (which began in Britain) heralded rapid change, the reverberations of which we are still feeling today. When Salisbury was born more than half of the population lived on the countryside and when he died 77 percent lived in towns; the massive change from people having self-sustaining farms to becoming factory workers and 1880’s saw the first use of the word contraception. How is one supposed to cope with that? One way is to issue rapid social reforms and thereby create new political powers to soothe citizens. Another is to try sustaining the very institutions which form the basis of communal life, that is church and traditional order.
Salisbury was a religious man and believed that Anglicanism was ‘not only a religion but a civic pact with pervious generations’. It also provided a bulwark against class warfare. Religion was a way for people to relate to each other by sharing a common historical identity. Democracy by its very nature focuses on the values of the living whereas for Salisbury (as for Burke) society was a contract between the dead, the living and the yet unborn. Duty and honor are two concepts which seem very important to Lord Salisbury. He “preferred to see himself as a policeman, maybe a stolid village bobby, faced with what he called workers of mischief” (p. 91). This image seems in itself an archetypical English one: one should not interfere with other people’s business unless its absolutely necessary. The policeman should not be seen as some authority figure who commands others to behave in a certain way by force but rather like a zoo keeper who is trying to preserve ecosystems by carefully balancing each part so that the equilibrium is maintained.
The marquess “was a stout contender that men acted always and narrowly out of self-interest” which was one of the reasons he opposed parliamentary suffrage. “He forever anticipated that unalloyed democracy would be a steamroller, demolishing all traditional order.” There was therefore a risk that ‘mere anarchy [would be] loosed upon the world’. People can be charmed by charismatic politicians (Hitler was democratically elected) and because the election runs in cycle one could lose the long term perspective. Salisbury therefore tried to find pragmatic solutions which would keep benefit society both in the long- and short term. One example of this was his ennoblement of successful businessmen which had the effect of maintaining a certain social value to being noble. Perhaps most of all held up the right of the individual: government should not infringe upon the right of contract and “the feebleness of our government is our security” as he himself put it. An effective and powerful government can wreak havoc upon its citizens (and the rest of the world).
Then there is the character of Salisbury; the specifically English character. He seems to epitomize the English being in many ways. When one reads his writing one meets a careful sceptic who often uses waspish humor to say something quite drastic and it is here where his true character shines through (even though “[he] was a man of unremitting reticence in private matters and who regarded the expression of private emotions as being indecent.” (p. 19). The fact that he wrote 1.5 million words from 1864 to 1865 hints at the kind of work ethic which Salisbury evidently had. A world without twitter (nor TV for that matter) allowed for a different kind of politician to emerge: one lacked charisma but instead had the political acumen to avoid the major catastrophes. One who can bide his time and carefully plan his next move.
In hindsight he was correct in predicting the slow death of his cherished order – the divorce rate being extremely high in Europe, the church having lost all influence and the notion of a deeper sense of loyalty to one’s country seeming patently absurd. One wonders if a politician of Salisbury’s caliber would have managed to avoid the first world was (as there were many crises during his reign which were solved by Salisbury keeping cool and sober). Worth noting is that historian Niall Ferguson blames World War 1 on British politicians in his book “The pity of war”.
I will end on a note which seems to summarize Salisbury’s views: “No lesson seems to be so deeply inculcated by the experience of life as that you should never trust experts [...] They all require to have strong wine diluted by a very large admixture of insipid common sense.” (p. 121) A quote which gently shows an important aspect of what it means to be a conservative.
June 17, 2023
8/10 - the best written of these 20PM books that I've read. Really interesting figure that I knew basically nothing about before.
April 8, 2021
Salisbury was once described as the most conservative Conservative that ever lived, and it really confused me why they chose a left leaning historian to write this book. That being said, it was a very well written book and very informative.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews