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

When Peel repealed the Corn Laws his own backbenchers were in uproar because they disagreed with them because they were protectionists and believed in the old Tory beliefs. Most of the Conservative Party were against the repeal of the Corn Laws but with the support of the Whigs Peel was able to repeal them. This led to the emergence of 'Young England' a group of aristocrat protectionists led by Disraeli. His argument split the Conservative Party, Peelites and Protectionists. In a speech that attacked Peel, Disraeli stated that Peel was betraying his party and that Peel was swayed too much by the Anti-Corn Law League; Peel was also accused of not having any of his own ideas in government and just using policies that other people had already come up with. Peel effectively did betray his party in this matter but he did have his reasons to repeal the Corn Laws. He had already taken the tariffs off many goods and to repeal the Corn Laws was just another tariff to be taken off and it was evolutionary not revolutionary. Peel also used the argument that if the Corn Laws were repealed then the Irish would be able to afford cheap grain through the famine, this was not the case however because the peasantry could still not afford the cheap grain and many died from starvation. There was also a threat of revolution from the Anti-Corn Law League if the Laws weren't repealed and Peel didn't realise that one of the long term aims of the Anti-Corn Law League was to get rid of the aristocracy! Peel also was now a believer in free trade and personally wanted the Corn Laws repealed. Peel may have betrayed his Party but he believed that repeal was beneficial for the country and ultimately, his party. This was the case whether Peel really believed it or not because the Repeal of the Corn Laws led to 30 years of economic prosperity afterwards.

Peel's social reform was very limited so in this he did not betray his party because in his Tamworth Manifesto Peel stated he was willing to reform but would not 'go mad reforming everything'. His social reforms were the National Relief Fund-1841, 1842 Mines Act, 1844 Factory Act, and the 1844 Railways Act. These reforms did not do very much except reduce the rate of child labour in mines and factories. These reforms were linked with Peel's economic reform with the link to free trade and wanting to gain support from the newly enfranchised but also didn't want to alienate the upper classes and factory owners by excessively reforming. 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. His budgets showed Peel's conversion to free trade and also showed Peel's poor personality when he got angry with his backbenchers and threatened to resign if they didn't support his Sugar Duties Bill, which did betray his party and greatly angered them.

Peel's Irish policy angered many of his party and it also went against what Peel had previously believed when he was against Catholic Emancipation. His greatest feat of betrayal to his party came in 1845 with the Maynooth Grant, where Peel offered to develop Maynooth College to train Catholic Priests by giving £30000 for its rebuilding and increasing its annual grant from the government. The aim of this was to win the support from the Catholic Priests because they were important in educating the peasantry and were also important political spokesmen. Even though 149 Conservative Backbenchers revolted and voted against this, Peel continued with it and it was passed with the help of the Whigs. This event attracted the attention of the press and Punch magazine described Peel as 'a twisting eel, ascending through the slime' and also stated that Peel had changed with time, meaning his opinion to the Irish Catholics had changed now they could become MPs. Gladstone, Peel's President of the Board of Trade resigned over the Maynooth Grant, which shows the amount of opposition it faced within the Conservative Party because Gladstone was a well known Peelite.

In conclusion I believe that Peel was 'the great betrayer of his party' because he never agreed with his party's decisions and he went against them and relied on the opposition for support. I believe that Peel had the country's best interests at heart but could not persuade his party to have the same philosophy. I think Peel also betrayed his party because he only went with the decisions he wanted and if he didn't get what he wanted he would behave immaturely and threaten to resign and the Conservatives didn't want the Whigs in power so they had to support him. For this reason I think that Peel was a great Prime Minister but a poor party leader and a betrayer of his party.