How successful was Sir Robert Peel's Irish policy (1841-45)?

However, this ‘social engineering’ was not an ends in itself; rather, it was a means to achieve the eradication of the supposed threat posed by Ireland’s Republican factions. Daniel O’Connell’s Repeal Association was the focus of this movement. Popular for its constructive resentment of British rule, the Association could be joined for as little as 1d per year, and hence attracted huge membership. Plans to set up an independent Irish Parliament in Dublin provoked fears that it would be used to repeal the Act of Union, persuading Peel to act promptly and resolutely. By the summer of 1843, the Repeal movement was growing strongly, posing an unprecedented threat to British control. The situation exposed Peel’s authoritarian side. He announced that any attempt to abolish the Union would be met with unrelenting force, a move encouraged by reactionaries such as Lord Wellington, who urged Peel to “attack remorselessly.” However, rather than confront the country as a whole, Peel targeted what he perceived to be the route of the problem: O’Connell himself. Banning the Repeal Association’s next mass meeting, Peel had O’Connell arrested, tried and imprisoned for sedition. The action, at the county of Clontarf in October 1843, diminished O’Connell’s reputation and sent out a clear message to Ireland’s Republicans: rebellion would not be tolerated. The so-called ‘monster’ meetings, which had in the past attracted upwards of a million people each, faded radically, and O’Connell, who had surrendered to British arrest, would never have the same influence again. Thus, it is true to say that Peel’s policies in Ireland were successful in limiting the threat posed by the Repeal Association. However, Peel’s stated intention was to provide social reform for the Irish. On reflection, this aim appears to have been a thin masquerade for the British imposing on the Irish’s right to free speech.  

However, it is in examining the long-term effects of Peel’s measures that most exposes his inefficiency. Improving Ireland’s future was, after all, Peel’s main objective when interfering with the country’s politics, and thus only significant improvements in the system would justify his intrusion. Unfortunately for all concerned, no such development materialised. To be fair to Peel, though, his policies were lacking neither in funding nor innovation. The policies were centred on the Maynooth Bill of 1844-5, which ensured that £30,000 extra was supplied to Maynooth College, a Catholic seminary where priests were trained. The seminary had previously been hugely under funded, a prime example of previous administrations’ neglect. In improving its facilities, Peel intended to attract a higher class of person into the priesthood, and thus deter the “more subversive classes” from enrolling. Furthermore, Peel believed that Maynooth’s previously miserable conditions had transformed many fine young men into “sour malignants,” resentful of British oppression and desperate to rebel. Therefore, with modernised facilities and deeper resources, Maynooth would be able to attract a higher class of trainee, more conservative in their outlook and less indignant in their philosophy. Once there, the excellent conditions would make the trainees feel grateful towards their British rulers, and so would be more sensitive later in life. Leading from the pulpit, the clergy had the ability to influence popular opinion either way: Peel hoped to transform them from leading Nationalists to Union sympathisers. However, in the 1841 election, Peel had won huge amounts of votes by proclaiming his allegiance to the “churches of England and Ireland only.” Thus, to Catholicism’s senior priests, the Maynooth Bill appeared to be a hollow gesture. For them, the loyalty of Peel- and therefore of Britain- would always lie with the Anglican churches. The funding supplied to the Catholic seminaries paled in insignificance to the money provided annually to the Anglicans; being all too obvious to the Irish public, this would forever embitter them against Peel and, for all their inventiveness, against his policies. Furthermore, from the Irish Famine alone, one can see that this final, and most important, objective failed. It was a fatal blow, both for the Irish people, and for Peel’s political career.

Having confirmed Catholicism’s diminished status by proclaiming his support of the ‘Home’ churches, Sir Robert Peel always faced an uphill struggle to win back the approval of the Irish public. His policies were well-funded and well thought out, but lacked the effectiveness needed to seriously impact on Ireland’s people. Whilst being driven by the correct intention, the Maynooth and Colleges Bills exposed Peel’s inability to engage with the Irish public. Other political manoeuvres, such as the introduction of Lord Heytesbury, appeared to be hollow gestures; certainly, their impact was minimal. From this perspective, it appears that Britain’s true objective in Ireland was not to provide long-term prosperity to the ailing population, but to guarantee England’s short-term safety, and to deter other potential rebels. In this sense, Peel was successful. But, as the Irish Famine affirmed soon afterwards, Ireland’s public had been poorly served by Britain’s Government. It is no wonder that they wanted their own.