The Maynooth Grant (1845) was a reform done in Sir Robert's Peel second ministry. The 1845 Maynooth Grant increased to $26,000 a year and a building grant of $30000. The aim was to improve the quality of the clergy, and to make them more loyal to the Act of Union (this united England and Ireland). 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. Nonconformist ministers and evangelical Anglican clergy shared the same platforms and urged opposition to the proposals of the Commons.
A majority of the Conservative MPs voted against the Bill on the third reading, but the government still won through with Whig and Radical support. Members who remembered what happened in 1829 (Catholic Emancipation) accused Peel of betraying the principles of his Party, and Protestantism, once more.
Other successes include budgetary policy, social policy and business confidence and regulation. The budgetary policy aimed to stabilise government finances. It also aimed to reduce cost of living, increase employment and remove discontent by stimulating trade and prosperity. They planned to do this by ending government on indirect taxation by re-introducing income tax, a policy discussed by the Liverpool cabinet in the 1920s. Another mean was to reduce import duties to encourage industry and consumption. This is because when Peel and the Conservative Party came into party they had inherited deficits and other problems from the Whigs. This resulted in the budgets of 1842, 1844 and 1845.
Within social policy was created, as social concerns could not be neglected. Chartism focused on them. Acts passed under social policy included the 1844 Factory Act, which gave young children a six and a half working day. Women and 13 - 18 year olds were restricted to twelve hours. The Poor Law was also renewed in 1842, which restricted relief for the people, handicapped and destitute people. However, Ashley felt betrayed by a government that accepted colliery owners' amendments to his Mines Bill. This Act outlawed underground work for women, girls and boys under 10 (rather than Ashley's original proposal of 13). Graham's Factory Bill of 1843 was dropped following Nonconformist opposition to the leading role given to the Anglican clergy in the proposed schools. The bill attempted to regulate hours of work for children, and to provide them with schooling. Finally, both Peel and Graham accepted orthodox political economy and sympathised with the mill owners' case. Peel believed that prosperity was the best way to remove social problems, not legislation.
Finally, Business confidence and regulation was another success for Peel. This included three major acts. This included; the Bank Charter Act of 1844, the Companies Act of 1844 and the Railways Act of 1844. The Bank Charter Act aimed to increase confidence in the banking system by giving grater control over bank note issue, the Companies Act set out to regulate and control 'reckless speculation'. The Railways Act increased government powers of regulation an inspection and protected the interests of pooper trailers.
One of Peel's responsibilities as Prime Minster was to explain and defend his policy in the House of Commons. While Peel tried to repeal the Corn Laws, he failed to do this, because he did not argue enough why he wanted this. Corn Laws and Maynooth was his biggest political blunders. This is because many backbenchers as required that they were not elected to change it but to protect the Church and the state as stated in the Tamworth Manifesto. Peel was going to wait for the next election to state the idea. However, he used the Potato Famine of 1845 - 1848 as excuse for total repeal. Peel did not indicate that he wanted repeal and the people thought that Peel did not repeal. The party felt betrayed.
However, Peel had many weaknesses. One was that after 1841 Peel was seen as much of an opportunist. This is because 'the Condition of England question', and Irish affairs were not unimportant but always yielded in propriety to the need to make the country solvent and prosperous. The essential goals were unpinned, as Peel believed that the only route to social harmony was via economic process by was by treading the path of financial and moral corrections. This involved keeping cheap and wealth-generators happy and productive. He justified suspicion about any wider political philosophy by reference to its cost.
One of Peel's failures was his government in the second ministry, partly because of the cabinet. Peel selected people from his first ministry for the new cabinet. This consisted of experience and youth. Peel surrounded himself with people who were good at administration like him. Peel was a very good speaker in parliament as well as an excellent administrator.
The Conservative Party consisted of rich aristocrats. They were less willing to reforms. This was one of the causes of disagreements between Peel and his party. Although Peel tried to give coherence and direction by having experienced and able people in his cabinet, however this had the opposite effect on the backbenchers.
The cabinet was a talented team containing three future Prime Ministers, Lord Stanley (who became Lord Derby), Lord Aberdeen and Gladstone. Peel tired to ensure that all elements in the party were represented at the highest levels. Within the cabinet it had four main groups. These were the old Tories (Lord Lyndhurst, Lord Wharnecliffe, the Duke of Wellington), Peel's contemporaries (Henry Goulburn, Lord Aberdeen), the Stanleyites (Sir James Graham, Lord Stanley, Lord Ripon) and the agriculturists (Duke of Buckingham, Sir Edward Knatchbull).
However, there were two main weaknesses. One was no one questioned Peel's motives and agreed whatever Peel did without considering the consequences. Peel was able to do this because of did this his persuasive language as well as his personality and authority. The second weakness was that the senior members didn't really care of the significance of pressure groups in the House of Commons, for example, Chartism and the Anti Corn Law League.
As a result some people within the cabinet resigned. For example, the Duke of Buckingham (an agriculturist) resigned I n1842, Knatchbull (another agriculturist) resigned in 1845 and Lord Stanley, who also resigned in 1845. However, Stanley was the only significant figure to desert Peel. This highlighted the weakness of the cabinet.
The second reason, why Peel's government failed in his second ministry was partly because of the backbenchers. The backbenchers were resentful. One factor why they were resentful was that no one in the Cabinet questioned Peel's motives. Another factor was that Peel believed that once you are Prime Minister, you should put Queen and nation before the party. As a result, Peel ignored his backbenchers and got full support from the cabinet. For example Maynooth grant increase of 1845. Even though this reform was successful, it brought Peel down as many Party members had been elected in 1841 to protect the Church of England form further attack. This is because their government was now preparing to offer Roman Catholicism in Ireland. Rebel backbenchers rejected the worldly Conservative arguments that justified the policy. This because they felt betrayed. Peel could not poise with religion with foreign matter without being punished.
There are two finial reasons why the backbenchers were resentful. One was that many of Peel's backbenchers held a very different view on the role of the role of government, and did not feel that his polices were 'Conservative' at all. The second reason was that they would be 'followers in drill'. These feeling were shown during the 1844 session with its controversies over factory reform and alteration of sugar duties.
To conclude Peel's second ministry it was successful in the sense, Peel helped the nation. However, this was not enough to survive as party leader. Peel had listened to his party members he may have survived. This is because it would have stopped the resentment from growing. Also after 1841 he was seen as much of an opportunist. This widened the gap between leader and party. It also that Peel very much believed that nation came before party and hence, led to his downfall.
