To what extent was the Irish Famine merely an excuse for Peel to repeal the 1815 Corn Laws?

Quoting Gash on Peels policies“ Concern for the masses was never far away from his economic policy”  this suggests that Peel was aware of the worsening situation of the masses and he was willing to make changes. This source was taken from a 1986 edition, which has provided time for Gash to study Peels economic policies in relation to the social presence of the masses around the time of Peel. It would appear that Disraeli (a fellow Conservative) was less complementary of Peel, this source by Charles Greville gives us an idea of the contrasting view of the protectionists at the time from the perspective of a supporter of Peel. “Last week the debate in the House of Commons came to a close at last, wound up by a speech of ’s, very clever, in which  and mangled  with the most unsparing severity, and positively . It was a miserable and degrading spectacle. The whole mass of the Protectionists cheered him with vociferous delight, making the roof ring again, and when Peel spoke, they screamed and hooted at him in the most brutal manner. When himself, and talked of honour and conscience, they assailed him with shouts of derision and gestures of contempt… They hunt him like a fox, and they are eager to run him down and kill him in the open, and they are full of exultation at thinking they have nearly accomplished this object.” 3although Gash seems to commend Peel on his economic policy, it is evident that a split in the party present for a long time was deepening. As Disraeli amongst others such as Bentick and Miles attacked Peel his speeches about the repeal became sharper, and he would undoubtedly have gained a reforming zeal that made him feel ready for the repeal with such strong support from the masses.

As well as causing economic friction the Corn Laws conflicted with Peels ideals of society, as the Corn Laws were a class monopoly in favour of the upper classes. The change in fiscal policy may be perceived as an opportunity to strengthen the authority and influence of the lower classes, whilst protecting and to some extent also improving the position of the landed classes.

The idea that Peel always wanted freedom of trade, is one of the factors that encouraged me to question whether Peel used the Irish Famine to his advantage, and always wanted the repeal or whether as he proclaimed the Irish Famine was his reason for repeal. Throughout his ministry, Peel expressed increased interest in Irish affairs, with acts such as the Maynooth grant in his political history. The idea that he had always been working on Irish policies makes it plausible that he repealed the Corn Laws for the benefit of the Irish. However, if the Irish Famine was the only reason for the repeal why didn’t he settle for a temporary suspension of the tariff in Ireland rather than a full repeal of the fiscal policy? Particularly when the repeal on corn tariffs would have a minimal impact on the starving Irish?

The Irish Famine was a severe crisis between the years 1845-1852, approximately one million people died of starvation and a million others emigrated either to America, England or other places within Britain.  The great hunger allows us to gain an insight with an Irish perspective of the famine, this source is in reference to the mass migrations that were occurring  “There was an irresistible attraction in England- the starving were given food. Under the English Poor Law, outdoor relief was permitted in most districts, and the destitute Irish Cottier knew that, once he got himself across the channel, he would not be allowed to die of hunger.” 4This would have cost the English taxpayer more to feed the Irish as they received support from the local districts. Ireland had been a constant economic drain on England, as it lacked an active economy that could support itself and after the act of the union in 1801 England had taken a responsibility of Ireland, attempting to stimulate the Irish economy. The deaths and immigrations in and from Ireland had caused the entire population of Ireland to decrease by between 20% and 25%; a massive reduction, which Peel didn’t wish to see continually.

When the Times newspaper released an article stating that Peel was going to repeal the Corn Laws Lord Stanley resigned in protest, and Peel himself decided that he would step down from his role as Prime Minister, feeling that he could not follow through with the repeal as his own party refused to support him. The Queen sent for Lord John Russell (the Whig party leader) to take over from Peel, but he couldn’t form a government within the time allowances and Peel remained in his position (for the time being). Had Peel only temporarily suspended the tariff it is unlikely that he would have lost his political influence, or the position he did after the repeal in 1846, which he knew before he followed through would split his party deeper than even Maynooth had.

Peel reduced the threat of revolt against the Conservative party by repealing the tariff from the masses, though not from within the party itself. Benjamin Disraeli and Lord George Bentick (Radical Tory members of Peels backbench) were hugely opposed to the repeal as it would give the masses power they didn’t feel they were deserving of.

“ The first reports of the partial failure of the potato crop came to the attention of the British government in September 1845. It gave Sir Robert Peel, the Conservative prime minister, the opportunity for carrying through the repeal of the Corn Laws (which taxed foreign grain entering the United Kingdom), which he had believed for some time were no longer economically defensible. On the 15th October he wrote to the Lord- Lieutenants of Ireland “The accounts of the potato crop are very alarming… The remedy is total and absolute repeal for ever of all duties on all articles of substance’’ 5 In this source it states that the corn las were “ no longer economically defensible” as well as this it is evident that they were no onger economically necessary! Peel had an emergency importation of Indian corn from America, He had to import from America because European resources were limited, as many countries were also suffering from famines similar to Ireland. The fact that European corn was limited does suggest that the Corn Laws were outdated, as the additional costs on the imports were unnecessary.

The Irish Famine presented a moral and economic dilemma to Peel, there were millions dying and leaving Ireland because of the lack of food. With the tariff in place Peel felt as if he was worsening the situation. The Repeal of the tariff would have had minimal impact on Ireland, as the staple diet there was potato not bread and very little corn was available in Ireland as it was. However the repeal may have appealed to Peels moral conscience as he felt he had done his bit to reduce the suffering of the masses in Ireland. Aforementioned he spent £100,000 on a supply of Indian maize from America to prevent the starvation of as many people as he could, and for a short period very few people were exposed to starvation.

In the context of industrialisation and in support of the colonialist policies that had been applied in prior times one could argue that, economically, Ireland had always been a drain on English resources and money, as it had no sustainable industries of its own, as agriculture was so often affected by the potato blights. The idea that the repeal was for Ireland would have angered the English farmers, and anyone who has been opposed to the Act of the union. English farmers would be unhappy to have their profits cut because of troubles in Ireland, and the cut in profit may transfer through to a cut in wages of labourers causing conflict however, the price of bread would also be lowered and the impact of the wage cut would be very minimal. As well as the minimal negative impact of the corn laws on the English, Britain’s population was rising and British corn production wasn’t. Peel acknowledged that shortly corn would be a very limited resource in Britain if trade routs were not re-established as the British corn production would not be sufficient to feed the public.

Peel may also have been influenced by the Anti Corn Law League originating in Manchester in 1839 the league had strong middle class support, and good funding ideas which made it a significant threat. The League had many public meetings, and much influence in the unstamped press. The league funded the writer William Cooke Taylor (amongst others) to research their cause nationwide, as in 1838 the members of the league were from Manchester, they decided it would be vital for their campaign to know whether their feelings were mutual around the whole of the UK (they were), to encourage the country they took advantage of the growth of the postal system and railways to spread their propaganda beyond Manchester.  As well as public support, the League had managed to gain seats in the House of Commons, so were able to air their grievances in the Commons under their leaders, Richard Cobden and John Bright.

To combat the Anti Corn Law League the Central Agricultural Protection Society was formed in 1844, (CAPS) though in my opinion CAPS was formed too late to have any bearing upon hindering the significant progress the Anti Corn Law league had had in the five years of its existence. As well as being formed too late the name itself would have displeased Peel, as although it was obvious the Corn Laws were a piece of protectionist government legislation. Peel; who was in favour of free trade, would be violating his own ideals by supporting a radical organisation with “agricultural protection” in its name. Of CAPS, Peel wrote to the Duke “I see, the protection society has repealed its rule which prevents interference in elections and proposes to fight the anti-corn law league with their own weapons; that is. by multiplying the lower class for country voters. All this will tell ultimately in favour of democracy when the excitement of the moment shall have subsided.”6 Gash goes on to comment that “To Peel this adoption of demographic tactics was a foretaste of what would happen if the Corn Laws were ever allowed to become an electoral issue” 7Gash also comments that “ It was not the League but Peel who was now the enemy8” One could argue that as well as CAPS having thoroughly unpopular and outdated ideas they were now challenging the wrong man (Peel) and their constant attack on him and his proposed policies would do them no favour, in fact it would sway him further towards the repeal on stubborn principles.

There was an expressed National interest at the time, the entire Nation was behind Peel pressing for reform. This was the age of radical politics, and the Corn Laws acted as a magnet to radical groupings. The Corn Laws were traditionally Tory, but since Peel had released the Tamworth manifesto and introduced the “Conservative” party things had had to change, though the repeal was not a traditional Tory action, the Conservative party took a more liberal stance on politics, society and economics. The time period will have influenced Peel, as he had to continue on in the age of revolution. Realistically, Peel had no option other than the repeal: Had he not repealed, the masses may very well have started a major revolution, and with the repeal the Conservative party would split (due to differences between the Ultra-Tory and more liberal members of the party) this would leave Peel no true option if he were trying to protect himself, as neither approach would benefit him personally; though it would be easier for him to receive mass support as he would feel his fall from power was worthwhile, and that he had helped the situation. The Conservative party conserves the good from the past, and learns the lessons to make changes, but doesn’t reform things for unfounded reasons, for this reason it is evident that Peels actions were not (as many have suggested) contrary to the beliefs of his party, but they were liberal Conservatism in action.

“The Corn Laws crisis was thus not really a national crisis, but one within the body of the Conservative Party itself9” This suggests that the repeal of the Corn Laws was less influential than it may appear at this point, the nation accepted it readily, the issue of using the Irish famine as an excuse for repeal is only relevant within his party which was split over the issue: For this reason Peel was reliant on cross-party voting, and had received much support from Lord John Russell (the Whig party leader) and the Whig party as he expressed interest in liberal reform.

It was only within the Conservative party that there was resistance against the repeal. This implies that the “excuse” of the Irish famine was only a necessity within the Conservative party. One can argue that the repeal was Peel exercising his own motives, his intentions for the country and ideals of the political future.

My opinion is that Peel genuinely wanted to make a difference to the Conservative party (hence policies like the Tamworth manifesto). It was evident that the Conservative party were losing the support of the country over issues like the Corn Laws, therefore it is understandable that Peel felt the changes to be necessary to maintain the respectability of the government, particularly of the Conservative party.

For this reason I believe that Peel passed the repeal of the Corn Laws for a combination of factors, not one in particular. These factors being: for himself and his reputation amongst the public, the starving Irish inflicted by famine, the liberal members of his party, the anti-Corn Law league and the mass support received from the English working classes.

Due to the unwillingness of his party to cooperate, some have argued that he over-emphasised the influence of famine on his decision to repeal. The over-emphasis of the Irish famine can be seen as an attempt to minimise the opposing influence of the protectionist members of the party, hoping the moral issues presented would encourage them to support the bid to preserve the lives of as many Irishmen as possible!

After my study of Peel and the Corn Laws I believe that he was sacrificing himself to protect his Party from the Nation and to some degree the Nation from his party, as a result of the Corn Laws the public were appeased for the time being and the status quo materially maintained.