| Copyright | ||
|
Home Politics and Parties from the Reform Bill of 1832 to that of 1867 Sir Robert Peel's Conservative Ministry and the Repeal of the Corn Laws, 1841-1846 1841-1846; Part 3 |
1841-1846; Part 3Peel had come into office at the head of a party which strongly favoured the maintenance of the Corn Laws. He had, however, already modified these laws in 1844, not without some dissatisfaction from members of his own party, and he seems gradually to have reached the conclusion that the interests of the nation demanded their total abolition. And then came the event which forced him to take immediate action. In 1845 a disease appeared in Ireland which ruined the potato crop of that year. More than half the population of Ireland depended for their food exclusively upon potatoes, and famine with all its horrors threatened the Irish people. Corn, the only possible substitute, was deficient in Great Britain owing to heavy July rains, and could not be imported from abroad except under heavy duties. Peel decided that these duties must be suspended and ultimately abolished. But he was unable to persuade the majority of his colleagues to agree with him, and accordingly resigned office. Lord John Russell, the leader of the Whigs, who had also declared for the abolition of the Corn Laws, was called upon to form a ministry. He failed, however, to do so, and Peel was then recalled.With the exception of Lord Stanley, Peel was able to include in his new ministry all the more important of his former colleagues, for many Tories felt that the abolition of the Corn Laws, with Peel as leader, was at any rate preferable to a ministry composed, in Wellington's phrase, of "Cobden and Co", which might attempt reforms of even more radical a character. Fierce opposition, however, came from one section of the Tory party which held firm to protection. Their leaders were Lord George Bentinck and Benjamin Disraeli. The latter, in a series of brilliant and virulent speeches, called Peel's Government an " organized hypocrisy", and said of Peel himself that he was a “sublime mediocrity” (Amongst other things, he compared Peel's conduct to that of the Turkish admiral who steered his fleet straight into the enemy's port, and who defended his conduct on the plea that he was an enemy to war, that he hated a prolonged contest, and that therefore he had terminated it by deserting the cause of his master), and that he " was no more a great statesman than the man who gets up behind the carriage is a great whip". Peel nevertheless succeeded in persuading Parliament to repeal the Corn Laws; but he was beaten in an attempt to pass a Coercion Act dealing with the disorder in Ireland, and resigned - never to return to office again. Twice, it was said, Peel had betrayed his party - once when he yielded over Catholic emancipation in 1829, and again when he repealed the Corn Laws. Whether his conduct, in either or both of these cases, was justifiable, will always be matter for controversy. It is not necessary, however, to doubt the sincerity of Peel's own change of view. He was one of those statesmen very near the border-line between the two parties, and he has been truly called the most Liberal of Conservatives and the most Conservative of Liberals. The truth seems to be that, though he was the leader, he was not really representative of the opinions of the party to which he belonged, his views being those of the middle class, from which he sprang, and not of the great landowners. And it was all to his credit that he had the courage and open-mindedness to reconsider his opinions, and, if they changed, to act accordingly. The only charge that can be fairly urged against him is that he was secretive and reserved whilst re-forming his opinions, and gave his party scant notice of his change of view. |
Chronology |
| site maken | copyright by www.uuo-ununoctium.info | st petersburg cruise |