Notes

When the Conservative Prime Minister Sir Robert Peel decided to abandon the Corn Laws and adopt a policy of free trade, he caused a split in his own party which was to lead to a long period of both instability and stability for the next twenty years.

One key factor that led to instability was the use of the collective name ‘Liberal’. Numerous politicians appealed to the progressive members of society, but there was often arguments within the party due to opinions of different policies. This ‘Whig’ government proved to be a very unstable one, largely due to the range of opinions in the single party. To further emphasise my point, there were six occasions in the 1850s where governments resigned after suffering defeats in the House of Commons. This clearly shows that that the more left wing politicians were unwilling to cooperate with each other.

The instability amongst the Whigs was further enhanced by the Peelites themselves, who refused to take office with the Whigs during the 1846-52 government. These actions led to further dispute within the Whig party. Furthermore, when a Whig-Peelite coalition was formed in December 1852, it collapsed a short while after following its incompetent management of the Crimean War expedition. This led to the refusal of some leading Peelites to serve in the next government and it was not until seven years later that they finally reconciled with the Whigs. This brutal rivalry between the two sides demonstrates again how unstable politics was at this time.

However, there were some constants throughout this time which may be argued to be significant enough to say it was a stable period for politics in Britain. For example, the Conservatives remained in the minority for this 20 year period. This led to some political realignments across the board, for example, protectionism was cast aside and free trade was to be accepted by most. This shows us that the Conservatives were in fact flexible and willing to see that the majority of the public supported free trade at this time. This acceptance of free trade also shows that there was no major disagreement in the House of Commons over the direction of economic policy in Britain during this period which I think is significant.

Some may say that the constant rivalry between Disraeli and Gladstone during this time was a sign of stability. Despite the politician’s swapping and changing of parties that seemed to be the norm in this period, these two leaders remained the building block that Liberalism and Conservatism would grow from. Others would see this as a reason for instability, as British politics almost relied on these two figureheads. This point especially relates to the Conservatives as Disraeli seemed to be the only capable politician in the party itself. The reason being that the members of the Conservatives were often noblemen who had no interest in politics whatsoever. You can see how true this point is when you consider how much the Conservatives hated Disraeli, yet they chose him as their leader.

If you look at the prosperity of Britain during the 1940s, you can see that it was a rather positive time and is often associated with progress and success. This leads me to believe that it was a stable period in Britain rather than the uncertain era it is often portrayed. Britain’s status as the leading industrial nation was a highlight for the time, symbolised by the Great Exhibition of 1851, held in a giant iron and glass structure in Hyde Park. It is difficult to link a time of economic success in Britain to a time of dire uncertainty and so this fact can be linked with a stable time in British politics.

The bulk of the Conservative MPs who had voted for repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846 were in a state of limbo for some years afterwards. However, once it became clear that Derby and Disraeli had no intention of restoring agricultural protection, most of the Peelites moved back into the Conservative ranks, with only a few Peelites such as Gladstone moving towards the Whigs. Despite this seemingly unified move, the party’s dividing lines were blurred so that they would take more broad support. Due to the drifting of MPs from one party to another, the early 1850s can be viewed as a period of instability as many in the House of Commons could not even decide what party they were best suited to.

To conclude, I mainly agree that the Corn Laws in 1846 precipitated a period of political instability in Britain. The Conservative Party was split, leaving its members unsure of where they belonged and causing them to drift from party to party. Also, the coalitions formed between the ‘Liberal’ parties proved to be inadequate and uncertain. Constant squabbles and difference of opinion left a party broken from the inside. However, the prosperity in Britain, mainly due to the economic policy of the time, is a key factor in showing that this was in fact a more stable time for Britain than it appears. However, after factoring in all points, I still believe that this was a rather volatile period in British politics.