Peels five years in power gave him the opportunity to re-model the country’s finances and lay the foundations for the great Victorian age, founded upon free trade. Peel was a firm believer in “laissez Faire” and as a result would not introduce great social reforms. However Peel was not blind to the suffering and poor lifestyle of those residing in the country. He therefore set about indirectly improving living conditions believing that by: “improving purchasing power, only can conditions be improved”. It is undoubted that Peels strength was financial reform. Peel quickly set about eliminating the deficit left by the previous government through a series of modernising reforms, which pointed in the direction of free trade. Peel re-introduced income tax and stimulated growth through relaxed trade tariffs. This is a positive example of Peels impact on the country both financially and indirectly socially. Some historians argue that the economy was naturally improving by this time anyway and Peel should not have taken all the credit for the dramatic improvement. Peel was evidently not a social reformer, therefore the true value of the Mines act 1842 and Factory Act 1844 was very limited. This demonstrates the fact that Peel was very good at what he was either interested or believed in, for everything else was almost irrelevant. This shows Peel to be inflexible and close-minded. These virtues proved to have negative effects on Peel as a party leader. When Peel wanted to do something he did it, irrespective of what the Party thought. One prime example of this is the Corn Laws.
The Irish famine of 1845 finally made Peels mind up over his course of action regarding the Corn Laws. He had decided that repeal of the Corn Laws would not only be a natural continuation of his so far popular financial reform, it would help bridge the gap between the social classes. It would lead to cheaper bread for the working classes and would reflect the aristocracy in a paternalistic light. Unfortunately for Peel, (who had politically “U-Turned” on his pre-election pledge to maintain the Corn Laws) his backbenchers strongly disagreed. Upon voicing their opinion, Peel threatened to resign. This shows weakness as leader. Peels inflexibility or inability to compromise and even communicate with those who disagreed with him split the Conservative party to its defeat at the next election. Peel justified his actions with one sentence that reflects the original question quote. “It was in the interest of the nation”.
Peel had the ability on occasion to supersede the fundamental beliefs of the party and co-operate with the Whigs. Forming alliances over poor law and education certainly made life easier for him as Prime minister and gained the ability to appease them in future. He remained threatened by the radicals who had dangerous support from outside parliament. The increase in aid being given to Roman Catholics proved to further antagonise right wing Tories. These are not the actions of a party leader in tune or indeed popular with their party even though the nation stood to benefit from these actions.
Reasons that Peel was not a good party leader were often based on Peels personality. Many that worked with him felt that he had no people skills and he was hated. It was also noticed that he got other people to do the work for him, an example being the encouragement of the electorate to sign the electoral register. In fact Peel had earned himself the title of “Great betrayer of his party”. As Eric Evans points out: “He proves himself untrue to their Tory principles on Ireland, on religion, on commerce, and finally and fatally, on the landed interest itself”. Peels duty was to look out for his party, to build it not split it.
To Peel, the interests of the country were more important than the narrow interests of a minority within his own party. His intellect and strength of character made sure that the party adapted successfully to the changing industrial society. All his reforms were based on the features of Conservatism and to make the landed interest more popular. He was more concerned with “good government” and providing solutions to years of poverty in the lower classes. He considered the risk of upsetting the protectionist lobby within his party by creating cheaper living conditions. Donald Read argues that: “Peel was the best peacetime Prime minister in British history. He was equally the hero of the newly enfranchised, propertied middle classes and of the disenfranchised propertyless masses”.
By the time the Corn Laws had been repealed due mainly to Whig support, The Conservative party was in tatters. The internal conflicts had been exposed and the authority of Peel as Prime minister had been painfully undermined. Peel resigned giving way to another Whig administration.
It seems that Peel was a man who was more interested in his personal aims for the country rather than personal aims for party and country. It seems that he used the desperate Tory party as a means of transport for his own Conservatism. Everybody else got in the way. Before the 1841 electoral victory Peel had aimed to get in power and this is what he did through the party. After this the party were more of a hindrance than an integral part of his political career. Therefore one concludes that government weakened the leadership of he Conservative party, and by his very nature Peel could not have been a good party leader and Prime minister at the same time.
