How fair is it to Say that Peel betrayed his Party?

Freya Ollerearnshaw

To decide whether Peel did in fact betray his party, I will first analyse the values and traditions of the Tory party and then explain whether or not Peel stayed true to these values.

The Tories were characteristically Protestant and therefore firm believers of the upkeep of the Church of England and Protestant faith. As Chief Secretary in Ireland in Liverpool’s government, Peel made his views known that he would campaign for the Protestant cause. Consequently he became know as the champion of the Church of England, gaining the nickname ‘orange peel’ and receiving much support from the ultras.

Ireland was increasingly becoming a problem area for the British government. The Catholics were tired of being treated as second class citizens because of their allegiance to the Pope in Rome. They wanted Catholic Emancipation to be granted which would give Catholics the right to become MP’s and hold office in government. Peel had strongly protested against Catholic Emancipation because it would break up the union of Ireland and England as well as weaken the influence of the Church of England.

However, under Wellington’s ministry, Peel went against his previous convictions and granted Catholic Emancipation. The reasons for his complete change of principal reveal a trait to his character of being a statesman rather than a politician. Both he and Wellington realised that if Catholic Emancipation was not granted, there was a strong chance that a rebellion would break out in Ireland causing the downfall of Wellington’s government. At this point in time, the House of Commons was divided and unorganised to such an extent that no government would be able to sustain itself for more than a couple of weeks. This combined with the possibility of civil war in Ireland made Peel feel that his only option was to grant Catholic Emancipation.

Peel had a firm belief that he should put the needs of the nation above those of his own Party. Although his actions prevented possibly rebellions or even civil war, they were considered unforgivable by many Tories who believed that Peel had betrayed the Party. His nickname changed to ‘lemon peel’ and the voters of Oxford University forced him out of his parliamentary seat. Peel was prepared to make personal sacrifices for the greater good; loyalty to his party took second place behind his duty to serve the people.

In the years following, Peel managed to slowly rebuild the Part’s ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

In the years following, Peel managed to slowly rebuild the Part’s confidence in him by making the Party stronger, increasing it’s appeal and influence and once again pledging himself to the protection of the Church of England. However, the main reason for him being accepted back into the Part was the lack of suitable replacement and there was still mistrust in him among the part’s strongest supporters.

Peel also managed to bring back the confidence of the Ultras by pledging his support for the Corn Laws, which were under threat by the Whigs in 1841. Many of the Tories were landowners so the Corn Laws benefited them greatly.

In 1834, the Tories came back into power with Peel as their Prime Minister. His ability to do this shows that he was successful in reuniting the party and bringing back an element of trust. However, problems continued in Ireland. The Irish Catholics wanted more rights and Peel felt he needed to offer them concessions in order to preserve the union between Ireland and England. He therefore produced the Maynooth Grant, which gave Catholic priests a better education and training. He also passed the Charity Banquets Act 1844, which enabled amounts of money to be paid to the Catholic Church.

This saw strong opposition from within the Tory Party. They saw Peels move as an endangerment to the power of the Anglican Church of England. They organised a massive petition against the bill and a majority of Tories voted against it. It also caused Gladstone to resign from government in protest to Peel’s actions.

Furthermore, Peel proposed a Bill to educate Irish regardless of their religion called the Irish Colleges Bill. This move came under attack from both sides. The Catholic Church described him as godless and the Tories also opposed. All this led to a backbench revolt- the trust, which Peel had worked, so hard to gain was lost.

Arguably, Peel’s most significant betrayal of his Party was his repeal of the Corn Laws. They had been introduced in 1815 to protect British farmers from competition abroad by heavily taxing foreign corn. They were a symbol of the landed class’s superior status and were deeply recently by the middle and working class as they protected one class at the expense of the others.

It is probable that Peel always believed that the eventual repeal of the Corn Laws was inevitable yet he had pledged to protect them in the election of 1841 in order to gain support and come successfully into power.

By 1845, Peel felt that the repeal of the Corn Laws was essential in the interests of the nation. He believed strongly in free trade to increase prosperity and the repeal of the Corn Laws was the next step in his push for it. He didn’t believe that the Repeal would have a negative impact on the prosperity of the landed class, as there did not exist large amounts of foreign corn ready to flood the market. Also, the Corn Laws had meant that the farmers felt no urgency or motivation to increase efficiency, as there had been no competition. Free trade would encourage them to be more competitive on yield and price, which would benefit the nation, which was growing rapidly in population and needed the extra produce.

Another factor that influenced Peel’s opinion was the increasing concern he had for the influence of the Anti Corn Law League. It encouraged class conflict and threatened the stability of Parliament. To get rid of the Corn Laws would be to eliminate the threat of the Anti Corn Law League. All these benefits of repeal held more importance to Peel than being seen to be consistent.

The Irish famine of 1845 gave Peel an excuse to push through the repeal, saying it would be the ‘remedy’ to the failure of the potato crop. However, there were serious flaws in this reasoning as there were no stockpiles of grain waiting to be exported to Ireland.

Peel’s colleagues were unconvinced. When the Bill was introduced, two cabinet ministers, Stanley and Bentinck resigned. Peel was bitterly attacked by his own Party, Disraeli and Bentinck led the internal opposition to Peel. They saw his decision o repeal the Corn Laws as a terrible betrayal of the Party. As party leader, they believed that Peel's first priority should be to protect the interests of his Party and supporters.

The repeal totally destroyed the Tory party. Opponents to Peel formed the Protectionist Party who worked to prevent free trade supporting MP’s from returning to Parliament. Peel resigned and the Whigs took over. The Tories were in such a divider state that they were unable to win an election for nearly 30 years. Peel has been critisized for destroying the Party he crated. Many contemporaries believe he betrayed them.

Peel did not set out to betray his Party or values but when presented with a situation where upholding Party principals would have a negative impact on the welfare of the nation, he refused to do this and therefore was seen to betray his Party. During the years which he rebuilt his Party and brought them back into power, Peel was merely Party leader and did not have the nations needs to consider, but when he became Prime Minister he abandoned the expectations of a Party leader and did not stay true to the Party. The Tories failed to accept Peel’s priority o the people, believing instead that his job was to look after their interests.