• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

"A consistent approach by Peel could have prevented the disintegration and defeat of the Tories in the 1830's". How far do you agree?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

"A consistent approach by Peel could have prevented the disintegration and defeat of the Tories in the 1830's". How far do you agree? In 1830 the long standing Conservative party led by the Duke of Wellington collapsed, giving way to a new Whig government led by Earl Grey. Peel for the first time in twenty years became a member of the opposition. There is considerable historical debate as how much a role Peel played in the defeat of this party. The most substantial cause for the collapse of the 'Old Tory' party is the issue of Roman Catholic emancipation. By the spring of 1827 political opinion had polarised on one issue- emancipation and shortly after, on one controversial politician-Canning. Although, as later explained, Peel had a role to play in Catholic emancipation, it is important to assess what pressures and difficulties arose from this problem regardless of him. Catholic emancipation caused great bitterness within the Tory party. After the departure of Liverpool in 1827 divisions within the party surface- divisions based on personalities and the acceptance of emancipation. On the one extreme-'Catholic' Tories who supported the idea of emancipation and on the other 'Ultras' who were strictly against any motion in favour of the Catholics. ...read more.

Middle

Secondly his substantial contribution to commons debate, securing the repeal of the Test and Corporations Acts. The events in Ireland showed that he was willing to support the CoE as part of the constitution from the overpowering catholic support in Ireland. However by giving the English Catholics the vote he appeased them as they were a small minority and did not threaten the government. These two events show that Peels support for the Church of England was somewhat dogmatic. As the support for emancipation rapidly increased Wellington had two choices. Either he could pass a Catholic Emancipation Act and let O'Connell take his seat or he could declare the election null and void. Here he ran the risk of violence in Ireland, and possible civil war. Wellington did want to avoid bloodshed. Peel himself realised that an Irish revolt was close at hand so he began preparing the emancipation bill. He did however introduce measured to insure Irish peasants could not stand for election. The possible revolt was out of Peels hands. His responsibility now, was to act in such a way that would protect Britain and its interests. In all respect we can see that Peel, in essence had no choice but to put forward the Emancipation Bill, if not just to avoid revolution in Ireland, but to protect the English constitution. ...read more.

Conclusion

In conclusion it is clearly evident that a consistent approach by peel could not have prevented the collapse of the Tory Party. If he had followed a consistent approach and failed to act on the possible threat of revolution in Ireland it is most likely that the government would have collapsed anyway. Many of the problems were out of Peels hands. He was under extreme pressure to do what was right for Britain, and at the basic level he did this, not only by preventing revolution but by making England stronger as a nation. The issue of parliamentary reform especially was one that Peel had no chance of controlling. In essence Catholic emancipation was like a time bomb to the Tory party, waiting to be triggered (by O'Connell's actions). Therefore the collapse of the Tory party was orientated around a huge combination of external factors and the issue of emancipation that happened to explode in the period of 1830. It is unfair to say that Peel could have prevented this. Even if he had acted it is quite possible that the situation would have escalated considerably more. And this would not have been could for the tory party at all. As can be seen by Peels inconsistent approach. Sam Collins 6TKS Mr Hayes 6/12/02 ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE Politics section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related GCSE Politics essays

  1. Peel 'The Great Betrayer Of his Party' - How Far Do You Agree?

    Peel did not betray his party in his economic reform because he was a brilliant economist and the country was in a financial fiasco after the Whigs lost power, however he did alienate the aristocracy, protectionists and agriculturalists with his 1842 and 1845 budget.

  2. Representation and Democracy in Britain 1830 – 1931

    After the rejection of the third petitions in 1848, the movement dispersed. Ironically, all but the sixth point of the Charter has been passed. 1850 - 1868 Britain as "the Workshop of the World" By 1850, Britain was the `workshop of the world'; no other country was ready to compete with it in industrial production.

  1. Compare and contrast the Chartist and Anti -Corn Law League movements. Explain and illustrate ...

    One of the methods that the Anti-Corn Law League used to some extent was a vigorous propaganda campaign. They created pamphlets and newspapers, and courted the press. The Anti-Corn Law Circular and The Economist were invaluable in spreading he message of the ACLL.

  2. Kashmir Issue and Mediation.

    Talks between Kosygin, Shastri and Ayub Khan were scheduled to start in Tashkent on 3 January 1966.Initially, and indeed until virtually the last moment there was little hope of the talks generating any kind of agreement- the two both parties' positions were simply too far apart.

  1. Why did the Conservative Party split in 1846? - Ed Pearson When Peel announced ...

    late 1830's and early 40's due to a 'common respect for and recognition of the necessity of Peel's leadership, by the end of 1844 that bond was gone.' Therefore just because the party did not 'split' at this point it does not make Peel's actions here any less destructive than his actions during the repeal of the Corn Laws.

  2. How far do you agree that it was Cavour's diplomacy rather that Garibaldi's ideas ...

    Garibaldi was unwilling to compromise even under pressure from more powerful figures. Of course, in reading Trevelyan, we must be aware of his romanticist liberalism: 'The events of 1860 should serve as an encouragement to all high endeavour amongst us of a later age, who, with our eyes fixed on

  1. How successful was Peel's ministry of 1841-1846.

    This was a success as the Bishops welcomed the concession. They were consulted in advance. O'Connell gave his support. However, the political reaction in England was a strong anti-Irish feeling. This is because the proposals to increase the Maynooth grant stirred up the Protestantism and the anti-Catholicism of both the Conservative Party and the country at large.

  2. J. S. Mill Despre Libertate

    firea umana si �nlocuirea ei cu supunerea aproape neconditionata fata de principiile oficiale ale bisericiii, va avea mai multe sanse de afirmare sociala. Unul dintre factorii determinanti fiind acela al puterii sale de a filtra laturile benefice si neajunsurile opiniilor �mpartasite �n " spirit de turma" de catre clasa politica, sociala sau religioasa din care face parte.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work