"Peel's major achievements in domestic affairs were in social rather than economic policy".

    These actions of Peel’s were certainly in social reform.  They could be considered achievements for his party; they were happy as, as little was done as possible fitting in with their strong political views.  Likewise, when dealing with social disorder.  Although there may have been a few grumblings from within the party, overall, he dealt with them in a ‘Tory manner’ and so kept his party happy – he accomplished one of the only achievements as a party leader (as opposed to the leader of a country) by doing this and it was in social policy.  This is the only time the above statement would be accurate if agreeing that ‘his achievements were in social policy’.  However, his actions were less of an achievement for his country than they were for his party as the reforms were limited.  Why were Peel’s other actions in domestic policy not social achievements?  Answer: They were not social actions.

    Peel’s budgets of 1842 and 1845 were a major step towards free trade that was obviously an economic movement.  This helped bring about trade revival, which inevitably had social effects.  The actions he took economically upset his party the most.  Theses were not achievements as far as they were concerned, but nor were they social, so the above statement is not accurate in this particular sector.  However, any movement towards free trade can be seen as an achievement for the country as there would eventually be positive social effects; better living conditions, employment and so on.  It is difficult to not get confused with the statement.  This was an economic act, regardless of its effects.  If we were to be discussing effects of Peel’s achievements, we could certainly apply the statement here – but we are not.  This economic action had social achievements.  

    Another of Peel’s economic actions was that of the Bank Charter Act of 1844.  This was an important achievement in terms of the economy, which stabilised the banking system and the currency.  Another act of his, which was also important for the economy, was the Companies Act of 1844, which established better regulations of companies.  Both these acts appear to be achievements economically.  However, for his party, achievements they were not.  In fact, all the economic actions Peel carried out were steps towards free trade (not a traditional conservative idea at all).  This would bring about cheaper imports, boost exports; industry would benefit and there would be cheaper living.  It would benefit those ‘lower down’ in society, which would be the conservative argument.  Although Peel had his own ideas about his ‘new party’, their views were more or less still conservative and protectionists’.  His move towards free trade was not at all an achievement for his party.  In fact, it is questionable whether this action was an achievement at all, as it led to its own problems in the end.  However, overall it had positive effects socially.  One last obstacle standing in the way of free trade was the repeal of the Corn Laws, which was brought about in 1844 – was this an achievement?  Yes; in the sense that it helped bring about free trade.  On the other hand, the reform itself actually made little difference to the situation in Ireland.  The economic benefit (to Ireland) was very limited, the famine continued and the real grievances of Ireland were left fundamentally to continue.  According to Peel, his actions in Ireland were made by the pressing need to avert famine.  Whether it was truly for this reason, or whether it was an opportunity to bring about freer trade is irrelevant.  Peel’s reform did not achieve what he said it should (regardless of any hidden intentions he may have had).  Therefore, the reform itself cannot be considered an achievement, although its effects might have been (free trade).  

In conclusion, Peel always did what he thought was best for the country and not his party.  Therefore, most of the actions he took were bound to upset a traditional conservative minded party; and not at all be considered achievements as far as they were concerned.  Nevertheless, Peel’s achievements in domestic policy were in economic rather than social.  One arguments put forward by various historians is that Peel did little economically as well.  He simply ruled in a time where the economy would do well anyway.  However, this argument is less convincing than Peel achieving economically.  For example, in finance and free trade, Peel was aware that drastic measures were needed after the Whigs ineptitude, and so made tax reform his main priority.  As well as this, in 1842 he tackled the question of the Corn Laws whereby he aimed at fair rather than excessive protection.  Overall, his actions were ‘an undoubted success’ (Adelman) in terms of the country.  

  Although his actions were mainly economic, Peel carried them out so they would have more positive effects socially (living standards, employment and so on).  As mentioned previously, this is irrelevant when tackling the statement.  Regardless of Peel’s intentions for effects, his actions mainly economic, this being after all what he is known for most.