Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-g5fl4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-25T13:01:15.173Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Peel and the Conservative Party: the Sugar Crisis of 1844 Reconsidered

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

D. R. Fisher
D. R. Fisher
Affiliation:
History of Parliament
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The brief ministerial crisis of June 1844, precipitated by the defeat in the House of Commons of the government's proposals for the temporary adjustment of the duties on imported sugar, and resolved when Sir Robert Peel secured from the House what amounted to a reversal of the decision, has been scrutinized by two historians in recent years. In his earlier work, Dr Stewart cites with approval contemporary observations to the effect that Peel's authority was severely shaken by the affair, and remarks that ‘by 1844 the Tory, nationalist wing of Peel's party was beginning to unite in resistance to the progressive tendency of Peel's government. In 1844 they gave Peel a warning of what they might do.’ His second assessment is more emphatic. He interprets Conservative disaffection on the sugar issue, and on the factory bill three months earlier, as the ‘first challenge to Peel's leadership’, and argues that it revealed that ‘Peel's hold over a large section of his party was at an end, destroyed by his own methods’.

Type
Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 18 , Issue 2 , June 1975 , pp. 279 - 302
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1975

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Stewart, Robert, ‘The Ten Hours and Sugar Crises of 1844: Government and the House of Commons in the Age of Reform’, Historical Journal, XII, 1 (1969), 35–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and The Politics of Protection (Cambridge, 1971), pp. 15–22Google Scholar; Gash, Norman, Sir Robert Peel (London, 1972), pp. 445–53.Google Scholar

2 Stewart, , ‘Crises of 1844’, pp. 48–9, 56.Google Scholar

3 Stewart, , Protection, pp. 16, 18.Google Scholar

4 Gash, , Sir Robert Peel, pp. 451, 453.Google Scholar

5 Stewart, , ‘Crises of 1844’, p. 38.Google Scholar

6 Stewart, , Protection, p. 16.Google Scholar

7 Stewart, , ‘Crises of 1844’, p. 37.Google Scholar

8 Divisions 1842, pp. 89–94. All figures based on divisions in this article include tellers but exclude pairs.

9 Divisions 1843, pp. 153–5, 161–5, 175–6 191–2.

10 Divisions 1842, pp. 257–9, 369.

11 Ibid. PP. 175–8.

12 Divisions 1843, pp. III–12.

13 Divisions 1844, pp. 157–9.

14 British Museum Add. MSS 40547, fo. 1, Bonham to Peel [16 June 1844].

15 During the Conservative squabble over the question of whether or not to oppose the re-election of the Speaker in the summer of 1841, for example, Bonham remarked that ‘the avowed malcontents, Blackstone, Tyrrell and co. are not worth conversation, for they will never be pleased’ (B.M. Add. MSS 40485, fo. 322, Bonham to Peel [July 1841]).

16 Aydelotte, William O., ‘Voting Patterns in the British House of Commons in the 1840's’, Comparative Studies in Society and History, v, 2 (1963), 134–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and ‘Parties and Issues in Early Victorian England’, Journal of British Studies, v, 2 (1966), 95–114Google Scholar; Close, D., ‘The Formation of a Two-Party Alignment in the House of Commons between 1832 and 1841’, English Historical Review, LXXXIV (1969), 257–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gash, Norman, Reaction and Reconstruction in English Politics, 1832–1852 (Oxford, 1965), p. 150.Google Scholar

17 Beales, D. E. D., ‘Parliamentary Parries and the “Independent” Member, 1810–1860’, in Robson, Robert (ed.), Ideas and Institutions of Victorian Britain (London, 1967), pp. 7–12.Google Scholar

18 See e.g. Miles, W. on ‘fat cattle’, 23 May 1842 (3 Hansard. LXIII, 619–20)Google Scholar; E. Wodehouse on Canada corn, 22 May 1843 (Ibid. LXIX, 691); Sir R. Inglis on the Ecclesiastical Courts Bill, 10 Apr. 1843 (ibid. LXVIII, 785).

19 See Clark, G. Kitson, ‘The Repeal of the Corn Laws and the Politics of the Forties’, Economic History Review, 2nd series, IV, 1 (1951), 1–13Google Scholar, and ‘The Electorate and the Repeal of the Corn Laws’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 5th series, 1 (1951), 109–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gash, Norman, Politics in the Age of Peel (London, 1953), pp. xiv–xv, 177–93, 315–19Google Scholar; Tancred, Mary Lawson, ‘The Anti-League and the Corn Law Crisis of 1846’, Historical Journal, III, 2 (1960), 162–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Spring, David, ‘Lord Chandos and the Farmers, 1818–1846’, Huntingdon Library Quar-terly, XXXIII, 3 (1970), 257–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

20 West Sussex Record Office, Goodwood MSS 1644, fo. 1441, Pusey to Richmond, 10 Apr. 1842. Documents from the Goodwood Archives are cited by courtesy of the Goodwood Estates Com- pany Limited, with acknowledgements to the West Sussex Record Office and the County Archivist.

21 3 Hansard, LXIII, 618, 629 (23 May 1842).Google Scholar

22 B.M. Add. MSS 40484, fos. 105–6, Arbuthnot to Peel, 9 Apr. 1842.

23 3 Hansard, LXIII, 646Google Scholar (23 May 1842). Cf. Gaily Knight (ibid. LXIII, 648).

24 See e.g. J. J. Allnatt at Wallingford, 20 Apr. (Morning Post, 21 Apr. 1843); J. Bell and Mr Rolfe at Aylesbury, 8 May (Ibid. 9 May 1843); T. Baker at Colchester, 6 May (Ibid. 11 May 1843).

25 See e.g. C. G. Dupré at Aylesbury and Lord Barrington at Reading, 20 May (Ibid. 22 May 1843).

26 See W. S. Blackstone and Q. Dick at Wallingford, 20 Apr. (Ibid. 21 Apr. 1843).

27 See e.g. Pusey at Wallingford, 20 Apr. (Ibid. 21 Apr. 1843); C. Tumor at Grantham, 22 Apr. (Ibid. 26 Apr. 1843); Sir J. T. Tyrrell at Chelmsford, 5 May (Ibid. 12 May 1843); R. Palmer at Reading and C. R. S. Murray at Aylesbury, 20 May (Ibid. 22 May 1843).

28 Graham MSS (microfilm in Cambridge University Library), Sir James Graham to Earl De Grey, 14, 17 May 1843.

29 B.M. Add. MSS 40529, fos. 4–7, Sandon to Peel, 15 May 1843. William Yates Peel told Sir Robert that ‘all the Cons, want (but you know all this) to vote with the Govt, but they are afraid of offending their constituents’ (B.M. Add. MSS 40529. fo. 39).

30 B.M. Add. MSS 40529, fos. 8–9, Peel to Sandon, 17 May 1843.

31 B.M. Add. MSS 40436, fos. 304–5, Peel to the Queen, 20 May 1843.

32 For a detailed treatment of these problems see Fisher, D. R., ‘The Opposition to Sir Robert Peel in the Conservative Party, 1841–1846‘ (unpublished Cambridge University Ph.D. thesis, 1969), pp. 74–102, 112–68, 182–225, 323, 378–80, 402–3.Google Scholar

33 Gash, , Sir Robert Peel, pp. 447, 451.Google Scholar

34 B.M. Add. MSS 44777, fo. 188, Gladstone's memorandum, 17 June 1844.

35 Greville, Charles, A Journal of the Reign of Queen Victoria, 1837–1852, ed. Reeve, Henry (3 vols., London, 1885), 11, 246 (21 June 1844); see The Times, 14 June 1844.Google Scholar

36 B.M. Add. MSS 40546, fo. 386, Sandon to Peel, 15 June 1844; Chancellor, E. Beresford (ed.), The Diary of Philipp Von Neumann, 1819 to 1850 (2 vols., London, 1928), 11, 218 (16 June 1844)Google Scholar; Raikes, Harriet (ed.), Private Correspondence of Thomas Raikes (London, 1861), p. 370, Greville to Raikes, 17 June 1844.Google Scholar

37 3 Hansard, LXXV, 907–26.Google Scholar

38 Ibid. LXXV, 962–3 (14 June 1844).

39 Ibid. LXXV, 1032.

40 Ibid. LXXV, 1047 (17 June 1844).

41 Ibid. LXXV, 1138.

42 Ibid. LXXV, 1166 (20 June 1844).

43 Ibid. LXXVI, 49–53.

44 Stewart, , ‘Crises of 1844’, p. 46.Google Scholar

45 Broughton, Lord, Recollections of a Long Life, ed. Dorchester, Lady (6 vols., London, 1909–1911), VI, 114–16, Hobhouse's diary, 16 June 1844; B.M. Add. MSS 40547, fo. 7, undated fragment.Google Scholar

46 B.M. Add. MSS 44777, fos. 191–2, Gladstone's memorandum, 17 June 1844.

47 The Times, 18 June 1844.

48 B.M. Add. MSS 40547, fo. 32, Mackenzie to Peel, 17 June 1844.

49 B.M. Add. MSS 40547, fo. 30, Christopher to Peel, 17 June 1844.

50 B.M. Add. MSS 40547, fo. 1, Bonham to Peel [16 June 1844]; 40438, fo. 302, Peel to the Queen, 17 June 1844; Gash, , Sir Robert Peel, pp. 448–9.Google Scholar

51 Stewart, , ‘Crises of 1844’, p. 47, and Protection, p. 18.Google Scholar

52 See Gash, , Sir Robert Peel, pp. 447, 449.Google Scholar Stewart's confusion arises in part from his having relied on a note written by Gladstone in 1897 (B.M. Add. MSS 44791, fos. 84–7), in which his recollection of the sequence of events is manifestly, and not surprisingly, muddled, rather than on the account which Gladstone recorded at the time (B.M. Add. MSS 44777, fos. 188–95). The same error is made in Blake, Robert, Disraeli (London, 1966), p. 180.Google Scholar

53 The 63 consisted of the 62 who voted against the government on 14 June (including the 4 who subsequently reversed their votes), with the addition of Disraeli, who voted with Miles on 17 June but paired off in support of him for the first division.

54 Blackstone, W. S., Christopher, R. A., Colville, C. R., Disraeli, B., Ferrand, W. B., Fuller, A. E., Henley, J. W., Newdegate, C. N., O'Brien, A. S., Ossulston, Lord, Plumptre, J. P., Rendlesham, Lord, Smith, A., Tollemache, J., SirTrollope, J. and Turnor, C..Google Scholar

55 Baillie, H. D., Bodkin, W. H., Carnegie, S. T., Entwistle, W., Irving, J., Lascelles, W. S., Maclean, D., SirReid, J. R. and Rous, H. J..Google Scholar

56 Baillie, H. J., Douglas, J. D. S., East, J. B., Hampden, R., Pennant, E. G. D., Shirley, E. P. and Wall, C. B..Google Scholar

57 Gash, , Sir Robert Peel, p. 451.Google Scholar

58 3 Hansard, LXXV, 1128–30.Google Scholar

59 Ibid. LXXV, 1156–9.

60 Ibid. LXXV, 1159–63.

61 Ibid. LXXV, 1164.

62 Ibid. LXXV, 1166.

63 B.M. Add. MSS 44777, fo. 195, Gladstone's memorandum, 20 June 1844.

64 The Conservative, George Smythe, was omitted in error from the original list of the minority in Divisions 1844, PP. 181–2 (see ibid. p. 187; The Times, 19 June 1844). While he was included in the revised list in 3 Hansard, LXXV, 1082–6, no other name was omitted, and the Hansard list therefore contains 236 names. For want of information as to the identity of the member who was wrongly recorded as voting with Miles, the latter figure has been used in calculations.Google Scholar

65 See Divisions 1844, pp. 177–84.

66 Stewart, , ‘Crises of 1844’, pp. 46–7; Protection, pp. 17–18.Google Scholar

67 Broughton, , Recollections, VI, 116Google Scholar, Hobhouse's diary, 16 June 1844; Raikes, , Private Correspondence, p. 370, Greville to Raikes, 17 June 1844.Google Scholar

68 The Times, 21 June 1844.

69 See his speech of 27 June (3 Hansard, LXXVI, 49–53).Google Scholar

70 B.M. Add. MSS 40547, fo. 4, Buckingham to Bonham, Sunday [16 June 1844].

71 B.M. Add. MSS 40438, fo. 302, Peel to the Queen, 17 June 1844.

72 3 Hansard, LXXV, 987–1012.Google Scholar

73 Ibid. LXXV, 1017–19, 1021–2, 1031–3, 1045–8.

74 B.M. Add. MSS 44777, fo. 195, Gladstone's memorandum, 20 June 1844.

75 3 Hansard, LXXV, 1027–30Google Scholar; Broughton, , Recollections, VI, 118, Hobhouse's diary, 17 June 1844.Google Scholar

76 B.M. Add. MSS 43190, fos. 111–12, Graham to Aberdeen, 17 June 1844.

77 Greville, , Journal, 11, 247 (21 June 1844).Google Scholar

78 Neumann Diary, 11, 218 (17 June 1844).Google Scholar See also A Portion of the Journal kept by Thomas Raises Esq. from 1831 to 1847 (4 vols., London, 1856–7), IV, 406Google Scholar, Greville to Raikes, 18 June 1844; Benson, A. C. and Esher, Viscount (eds.), The Letters of Queen Victoria (3 vols., London, 1907), 11, 19, the Queen to the King of the Belgians, 18 June 1844.Google Scholar

79 3 Hansard, LXXV, 1048–56.Google Scholar

80 Ibid. LXXV, 1057–67.

81 Ibid. LXXV, 1057.

82 Ibid. LXXV, 1041–3.

83 Broughton, , Recollections, VI, 118, Hobhouse's diary, 17 June 1844.Google Scholar

84 Stewart, , ‘Crises of 1844’, p. 46.Google Scholar

85 See Brock, W. R., Lord Liverpool and Liberal Toryism, 1820 to 1827 (Cambridge, 1941), pp. 77, 81–2, 101, 185Google Scholar; Mitchell, Austin, The Whigs in Opposition, 18157ndash;1830 (Oxford, 1967), pp. 73–80.Google Scholar

86 3 Hansard, LXIII, 650Google Scholar (23 May 1842). Cf. Cumming Bruce in the debate on the Canada Corn Bill, 22 May 1843: ‘The great fault of the late Government was its want of sufficient strength to carry through any measure for me advantage of the country; and his desire was, that the present Government should not be placed in the same predicament’ (ibid. LXIX, 722).

87 Ibid. ix, 1103 (25 Feb. 1842). Cf. Tyrrell, 25 Feb. 1842 (ibid. LX, 1133); L. W. Buck, 9 Mar. 1842 (ibid. LXI, 311); R. Palmer, 7 Apr. 1842 (ibid. LXII, 50–1).

88 Goodwood MSS 1657, fo. 1095, March to Richmond, 15 May 1843.

89 Goodwood MSS 1653, fo. 468, Darby to Richmond, 16 May 1843; Morning Post, 24 May 1843, Plumptre to Abbott, J. C., 19 May 1843.Google Scholar

90 It is fair to add that in the event March himself, after changing his mind several times, decided to vote with Labouchere, ‘as the earliest and most straightforward way of opposing the Bill’ (Goodwood MSS, 1657, fo. 1063 March to Richmond, 20 May 1843).

91 See e.g. C. G. Round and Tyrrell at Chelmsford (Morning Post, 6 Apr. 1842); Turnor at Grantham (ibid. 26 Apr. 1843).

92 See Lawson-Tancred, , ‘The Anti-League’, pp. 165–72; speeches at inaugural meetings re-ported in Morning Post and Morning Herald, Jan., Feb and Mar. 1844.Google Scholar

93 Divisions 1843, pp. 257–9 (12 Juty 1843); Divisions 1844, pp. 25–8, 171–3 (23 Feb. and 12 June 1844).

94 Greville, , Journal, 11, 36 (1 Sept. 1841).Google Scholar

95 Stewart, , Protection, p. 18.Google Scholar

96 J. P. Allix, E. Antrobus, M. E. Archdall, T. B. M. Baskerville, H. Broadley, L. W. Buck, Sir J. Chetwode, W. H. Dawnay, O. Duncombe, E. B. Farnham, E. Fellowes, H. Fitzroy, P. Greenall, E. Grogan, J. Hardy, H. Kemble, A. Lawson, A. Lefroy, T. Mainwaring, J. Master- man, G. Palmer, R. Palmer, F. Polhill, R. Rushbrooke, C. D. W. Sibthorp and Sir G. H. Smyth.

97 Gash, , Sir Robert Peel, pp. 452–3.Google Scholar

98 3 Hansard, LXIII, 399 (10 May 1842).Google Scholar

99 Morning Post, 22 May 1843.

100 3 Hansard, LXIX, 953Google Scholar (26 May 1843). Cf. R. Palmer, 23 Mar. 1842 (ibid. LXI, 1148); Sibthorp, 10 May 1842 (ibid. LXIII, 400); G. Bankes, 2 Feb. 1843 (ibid. LXVI, 157–9); W. Miles, 19 May 1843 (ibid. LXIX, 624).

101 See Richmond's speech at Steyning, 29 Jan. 1844 (Morning Herald, 30 Jan. 1844).

102 B.M. Add. MSS 40546, fo. 389, Sandon to Peel, 15 June 1844.

103 3 Hansard, LXIX, 277.Google Scholar

104 B.M. Add. MSS 44777, fos. 191–2, Gladstone's memorandum, 17 June 1844.

103 Raikes, , Private Correspondence, p. 370, Greville to Raikes, 17 June 1844.Google Scholar

106 See Gash, Sir Robert Peel, p. 452Google Scholar; Stewart, , ‘Crises of 1844’, pp. 49–57Google Scholar

107 B.M. Add. MSS 40436, fos. 322–3, Peel to the Queen, 23 May 1843.

108 B.M. Add. MSS 40433, fo. 240, Peel to Albert, 15 Feb. 1842.

109 3 Hansard, LXI, 464 (n Mar. 1842).Google Scholar

110 See A Letter from Sir Richard Vyvyan to his constituents upon the commercial and financial policy of Sir Robert Peel's administration (London, 1842). For information on Vyvyan's career after 1834 I am indebted to Dr B. T. Bradfield.Google Scholar

111 Morley, John, The Life of William Ewart Gladstone (3 vols., London, 1903), 1, 266.Google Scholar

112 Hodder, Edwin, The Life and Work of the Seventh Earl of Shaftesbury (3 vols., London, 1886), 1, 479, Ashley's diary, 8 July 1843.Google Scholar

113 3 Hansard, LXXI, 214–15Google Scholar (2 Aug. 1843). Cf. Smythe, 9 Aug. 1843 (ibid. LXXI, 442).

114 Ibid. LXXIV, 914 (10 May 1844).

115 Ibid. LXXIV, 1074 (13 May 1844). Cf. Monckton Milnes and Inglis, 22 Mar. 1844 (ibid. LXXHI, 1397, 1428–9).

116 B.M. Add. MSS 44777, fo. 195, Gladstone's memorandum, 20 June 1844.

117 Greville, , Journal, II, 247 (21 June 1844).Google Scholar

118 3 Hansard, LXXV, 1021.Google Scholar

119 Ibid. LXXV, 1031.

120 Ibid. LXXV, 1047–8.

121 Ibid. LXXV, 1077.

122 B.M. Add. MSS 40483, fos. 134–5, Ashley to Peel, 19 June 1844.

123 B.M. Add. MSS 40483, fo. 136, Peel to Ashley, 20 June 1844.

124 B.M. Add. MSS 40483, fo. 138, Ashley to Peel, 20 June 1844.

125 Raikes, , Journal, IV, 407, Greville to Raikes, 18 June 1844.Google Scholar

126 Greville, , Journal, 11, 248.Google Scholar

127 Ibid. 11, 249.

128 Ibid. 11, 252.

129 Broughton, , Recollections, VI, 119, Hobhouse's diary, 18 June 1844.Google Scholar

130 Stewart, , Protection, p. 18.Google Scholar

131 In a paper published after the completion of this article, Aydelotte provides statistical confirmation of this view of the disintegration of the Conservative party. His findings suggest that the schism in the party only began to emerge significantly in 1845, and that the actual rupture, which was relatively sudden, occurred in 1846 and not before. He argues, I believe correctly, that although there was a definite relationship between the split over repeal and disagreements on a variety of other issues, the break-up of the party is more likely to be satisfactorily explained in political than ideological terms. He evidently finds no meaningful relationship between the dispute over the sugar duties and the Corn Law split. See Aydelotte, William O., ‘The Disintegration of the Conservative Party in the 1840's: A Study of Political Attitudes’, in Aydelotte, William O., Bogue, Allan G. and Fogel, Robert William (eds.), The Dimensions of Quantitative Research in History (Princeton, 1972), pp. 319–46.Google Scholar