¹ The majority cannot be stated exactly. The Annual Register for 1841 gave the Conservatives 368 seats and the opposition 292, a majority of 76 (Annual Register, London, 1841, p. 147).Google Scholar The Whig government was defeated, however, on the amendment to the Address immediately after the election by 91 votes.

² The importance of the anti-Irish issue is discussed in Cahill, G.A., ‘Irish Catholicism and English Toryism’, Review of Politics (01 1957), pp. 62–76.Google Scholar B. Kemp has played down the significance of the Corn Law issue and stresses the dominant role played by Peel, as the man most capable of governing the country, in attracting votes to the Conservative party (‘The General Election of 1841’, History, June 1952, pp. 146–57). But Conservatives were wont to declare that the Corn Laws were the major issue in their constituencies (cf. Ripon, 24 August 1841, Hansard, 3rd Series, LIX, 46–7 and Ferrand, 14 February 1842, ibid. LX, 421) and a consistent strain in the debate on the throne speech after the election was that the Whigs were now a free-trade party, and that the country had rejected free trade. Lord George Bentinck interpreted the election results as a vindication of the Corn Laws. ‘First let me congratulate you’, he wrote to Lord Lincoln, ‘that the Country has refused to be cajoled by the latest fabrication from the Workshop of Whig Trickery and delusion. The cry of Cheap Bread is scouted from one end of England to the other’ (Bentinck to Lincoln, 6 July 1841 (draft). Portland MSS. PWH/204).

³ Quarterly Review (September 1841), p. 495.

⁴ Cf. his speech of 31 January 1840, Hansard, 3rd Series, LI, 1017–49.

⁵ The Ten Hours movement was, of course, led by the evangelical Tories, Oastler, Sadler, Stephens and Ashley. In 1841, 46 Conservatives voted against the renewal of the Whig Poor Law and the extension of the commissioners' powers.

⁶ 27 August 1841, Hansard, 3rd Series, LIX, 422, 430.

⁷ Gash, N., ‘Peel and the Party System, 1830–50’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 5th Series (1950), p. 54.Google Scholar

⁸ Graham to Peel, 15 January 1848. Peel MSS. Add. MSS. 40452, fo. 254.

⁹ Stanley to Bentinck, 2 November 1847. Derby MSS. 177/2. Charles Arbuthnot shared Stanley's opinion. He wrote to his son on 7 August 1847 that ‘had Sir Rt. been more conciliatory to his supporters and more confidential towards them, none of the evil would have occurred’ (Aspinall, A. (ed.), The Correspondence of Charles Arbuthnot, London, 1941, p. 244).Google Scholar

¹⁰ Milnes to C. MacCarthy, 29 February 1844 (Reid, T.W., The Life, Letters and Friendships of Richard Monckton Milnes, First Lord Houghton, London, 1890, I 321–2).Google Scholar

¹¹ Hardinge to Ellenborough, 5 January 1844 (Ellenborough MSS. PRO/3O, 12/21/7).

¹² Hardinge to Ellenborough, 5 January 1844: ‘The Anti-Corn Law League have exasperated and frightened the Agriculturalists and they will stick to the Government’ (ibid.).Graham to Ellenborough, 2 July 1842: ‘In the cabinet we hold well together…Property regards us as a necessity’ (ibid.).

¹³ Hansard, 3rd Series, LXXII, 277–81.

¹⁴ The figures for division lists, here and elsewhere, include the tellers.

¹⁵ 25 March 1844, Hansard, 3rd Series, LXXII, 1482–93.

¹⁶ Cf. the speeches of Gladstone, 10 May 1841, Goulburn, 11 May 1841 and Herbert, 12 May 1841, Hansard, 3rd Series, LVII, 160–80, 235–55 and 297–300. Peel's reason for modifying his position was that the government would have difficulty retaining the property and income tax without offering the bulk of the people some reduction in taxation elsewhere (Peel to Goulburn 8 April 1844. Goulburn MSS. 11/9).

¹⁷ Melbourne to Queen Victoria, 19 June 1844 (Benson, A.C. and Esher, Viscount (ed.), The Letters of Queen Victoria, 1837–61, London, 1907,II, 21).Google Scholar Melbourne's memory may have failed him. In 1833, an almost analogous incident took place. On 25 April, the Commons voted by a majority of 10 to reduce the malt tax by one-half. A few days later, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Viscount Althorp, introduced a resolution which said that the malt tax could not be reduced without resort to an income tax, which was inexpedient. The resolution was passed by a majority of 198 and the malt tax remained unchanged.

¹⁸ Morley, J., The Life of William Ewart Gladstone (London, 1903), I, 266.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Cf.Hill, R.L., Toryism and the People, 1832–46 (London, 1929),Google Scholar for a discussion of the connexion between Chartism and Toryism.

²⁰ Alfred, (S. Kydd), The History of the Factory Movement (London, 1857), II, 202.Google Scholar

²¹ Ibid. II, 203.

²² Ibid. 11, 209–15.

²³ John Bull, 23 March 1844.

²⁴ Cf. Peel's speech, 18 March 1844, Hansard, 3rd Series, LXXIII, 1241–55. In 1843, Peel reported, exports in flax, silk, wool and cotton valued £35,000,000 out of a total value of principal exports of £44,000,000. Cf. also Peel to Sandon, 19 March 1844 (Peel MSS. Add. MSS. 40541, fos. 292–3).

²⁵ Peel to Goulburn, 8 April 1844 (Peel MSS. Add. MSS. 40444, fos. 190–3).

²⁶ Peel and Graham speeches, 18 March 1844, Hansard, 3rd Series, LXXIII, 1201–15, 1841–55.

²⁷ Peel to Brougham, 21 March 1844 Peel MSS. Add. MSS. 40482, fos. 29–30.

²⁸ Cobden gave no such explanation as Peel's for his abstention from the division on Ashley's amendment. He considered the opposition to have supported Ashley from factious motives. ‘The fact is the Government are being whipped with a rod of their own picking. They used the Ten Hours cry, and all other cries, to get into power, and now they find themselves unable to lay the devil they raised for the destruction of the Whigs and Free Traders. They (the Government) were calculating upon this support and so they gave liberty to Wortley and others of their party to vote against the Cabinet in order to gain favour at the hustings. The Whigs very basely turned round upon their former opinions to spite the Tories.’ Cobden to F. Cobden, 23 March 1844 (Morley, J., The Life of Richard Cobden, London, 1908, I, 325).Google Scholar Cobden's analysis of Peel's dealings is plausible, but I have found no evidence which substantiates it. For the point of view of the Whig press cf. the Morning Chronicle, 21 March 1844, and the Observer, 24 March 1844.

²⁹ Ashley to Bonham, 18 January 1842 (Peel MSS. Add. MSS. 40617, fos. 112–13). The Morning Chronicle stated that the motive of the Tory Standard in supporting Ashley was not regard for the workers but the wish to ‘use them, by holding out hopes of improving their condition…to stop the rising tide of corn-law abolition’ (21 March 1844).

³⁰ Harrison, J.F.C., ‘Chartism in Leeds’, in Briggs, A. (ed.), Chartist Studies (London, 1959), PP. 85–8.Google Scholar

³¹ Hansard, 3rd Series, LXXIII, 1241.

³² Cf. E. Hornby to Stanley, 21 March 1844 (Derby MSS. 66/3).

³³ Monckton Milnes to Guizot, 5 April 1844 (Reid, Milnes, I, 325).

³⁴ Gladstone memorandum, 23 March 1844 (Gladstone MSS. Add. MSS. 44777, fos. 151–4).

³⁵ Granby to Peel, 22 March 1844 (Peel MSS. Add. MSS. 40541, fos. 335–6).

³⁶ The Morning Herald (21 March 1844) and the Standard (23 March 1844), the two largest Tory newspapers, also urged this argument upon Peel.

³⁷ Goulburn and Stanley stated this opinion. Gladstone mentions only Graham as suggesting that the government ought to resign if the Commons refused it permission to bring in a new bill.

³⁸ William Beckett, the member for Leeds, had told the Commons that of 78 Leeds firms consulted, 47 favoured ten hours, 31 were divided between ten and eleven hours, and none refused to accept eleven hours (22 March, Hansard, 3rd Series, LXXIII, 1485). J. S. Wortley reminded the House that two years before he had presented a petition of nearly 300 millowners in the West Riding, in which they said that they feared no ill consequences from a Ten Hours bill (15 March, ibid., LXXIII, 1119).

³⁹ Gladstone memorandum of the cabinet meeting, 25 March 1844. Gladstone MSS. Add. MSS. 44777. fo. 155–8.

⁴⁰ Ibid. Peel may be referring, not to Ashley's interference, but to the government's interference in the operation of the free market.

⁴¹ Greville, C.C.F. (ed. Reeve, H.), A Journal of the Reign of Queen Victoria from 1837 to 1852 (London, 1885), II, 246–7.Google Scholar

⁴² Ibid.

⁴³ Ibid. According to Monckton Milnes, the speech ‘ gave you the impression of a petulant woman crying “ I can't and I won't stand this any longer”. It was a bad speech, too, in manner and diction’ (Milnes to his father, 21 June 1844, Reid, Milnes, I, 331).

⁴⁴ Gladstone wrote of Stanley's speech:‘ The clouds of the earlier evening hours dispersed, and the Government were victorious. Two speeches, one negatively and the other positively, reversed the prevailing current and saved the Administration. I have never known a parallel case. The whole honour of the fray, in the ministerial sense, redounded to Lord Stanley. His career in the earlier hours of the Reformed Parliament had been one of particular brilliancy. But I doubt whether in the 26 years of his after life he ever struck such a blow as this.’ (Gladstone memorandum of 1897. Gladstone MSS. Add. MSS. 44791, fos. 86–8.) Monckton Milnes, an opponent of the government on this issue, also believed Stanley's speech to have been decisive. ‘ Its temperate tone came with the sort of advantage that an ill-tempered man has when he chooses to be good-humoured; the House were flattered that Stanley thought it worthwhile to be conciliating.’ (Milnes to his father, 21 June 1844. Reid, Milnes, I, 331).

⁴⁵ Broughton, Lord, Recollections of a Long Life (London, 1909–1911), VI, 118.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ The following account is taken from Broughton, Recollections, VI, 114–16.

⁴⁷ Disraeli's first attack against Peel was in opposition to the Irish Arms Bill in 1843.

⁴⁸ The conversation with Hobhouse is markedly similar to one which Disraeli had with Bright in 1852, when Disraeli, holding out the bait of places for the Radicals Bright, Gibson and Cobden in a future Tory cabinet, tried to persuade Bright to vote for his budget. (Cf. Walling, R.A.T. (ed.), The Diaries of John Bright, London, 1930, pp. 128–30.)Google Scholar

⁴⁹ The diarist Thomas Raikes wrote that‘ the Whigs [were] just as much, or more afraid of Peel's resigning than the Tories themselves’ (Raikes, T., A Portion of the Journal Kept by Thomas Raikes, Esq., from 1831 to 1847, London, 1857, IV, 405).Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Lord John Manners to Disraeli, 17 June 1844 (Hughenden MSS. B/XX/M/2). A fragment among the Peel Papers has written on it that ‘ Blackstone and Ferrand are exulting and declare that they voted against Peel for the express purpose of throwing him out’ (Peel MSS. Add. MSS. 40547, fo. 7).

⁵¹ Gladstone memorandum (Gladstone MSS. Add. MSS. 44791, fos. 86–8; Peel to Queen Victoria, 17 June 1844. Peel MSS. Add. MSS. 40435. fos. 302–3).

⁵² I am not prepared to attach significance to the absence of a handful of members who had voted with Peel on Friday, although there is the possibility that they stayed away in defence of the integrity of the House of Commons.

⁵³ John Bull, 22 June 1844.

⁵⁴ Morning Herald, 19 June 1844.

⁵⁵ 17 June 1844, Hansard, 3rd Series, LXXV, 1030.

⁵⁶ Milnes to his father, 21 June 1844 (Reid, Milnes, I, 331).

⁵⁷ Graham to Lyndhurst, 15 June 1844 (Lyndhurst MSS. fo. 131).

⁵⁸ Greville, II, 246–8. In September 1843 Fraser's Magazine wrote that ‘whether it be from pride, or shyness, or an excess of caution, the minister takes no pains whatever to win the personal love and affection of his supporters. As a party, they are never admitted into his confidences’ (p. 376). A passage from Broughton illustrates the point.‘ I went to the House of Commons and heard Sir Robert Peel make his promised speech. It was certainly a great effort, and I went across the House and told Sir George Clerk and others on the Treasury Bench what I though of it. Clerk said “ Come and tell him so.” I replied, “No, you tell him” on which Sir George said, “ D —, he would turn [or kick] me away if I dared to speak to him” …A man who will not accept a civil or complimentary truth from a subaltern is but a sulky fellow after all. There is nothing of true dignity or proper pride in such reserve' (Broughton, Recollections, VI, 164).

⁵⁹ Raikes commented:‘ Here is the devil to pay. Peel has not resigned, but he is so disgusted at the conduct of his followers, at their temporary coalition with the Whigs on this question, and at their insulting and injurious tone towards him personally … and he thinks he has so little real influence over them, that he wants to throw the whole thing up’ (Raikes, IV, 405–6).

⁶⁰ Cf. Greville, II, 246–8 and Raikes, VI, 405–6.

⁶¹ Miles had drafted his amendment in collaboration with the Whigs (Buckingham to Bonham, 16 June 1844. Peel MSS. Add. MSS. 40547, fo. 4).

⁶² 17 June 1844, Hansard, 3rd Series, LXXV, 1002.

⁶³ Ashley to Peel, 19 June 1844 (Peel MSS. Add. MSS. 40483, fos. 134–5).

⁶⁴ Quarterly Review (September 1856), pp. 521–70.

⁶⁵ Young was a prominent agriculturalist in whom the pride of independence burned fiercely. After the split in the Conservative party in 1846, he became the leading spokesman for the diehards in the Protectionist opposition to Russell's government of 1846–52. He sat as a Liberal for Tynemouth and North Shields from 1832 to 1837, and then retired from parliamentary life until his election as a Protectionist for Scarborough in 1851.

⁶⁶ Vyvyan, R., A Letter from Sir Richard Vyvyan, Bart., M.P., to his Constituents upon the Commercial and Financial Policy of Sir Robert Peel's Administration (London, 1842), pp. 31–3.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ This was Croker's reaction. ‘I am vexed about Vyvyan and sorry to lose a vote—but it is clear that from the moment that Peel did not offer him office, he was gone’ (Croker to Gladstone, 7 September 1842. Gladstone MSS. Add. MSS. 44359, fos. 181–2).

⁶⁸ Peel to Stanley, 30 July 1844 (Derby MSS. 127/4).

⁶⁹ Stanley to Peel, 27 July 1844 (copy) (ibid.).

⁷⁰ The reference is presumably to the Young England coterie, then at the peak of its brief existence.

⁷¹ Milnes to Gladstone, 25 October 1843 (Gladstone MSS. Add. MSS. 44215, fos. 11–14).

⁷² Milnes to Gladstone, 25 October 1843 (second letter) (ibid. fos. 15–18).

⁷³ 24 August 1841, Hansard, 3rd Series, LIX, 65.

⁷⁴ Macaulay challenged Peel's argument. The business of the government, he argued, was to administer the laws. If the Commons quarrelled with their method of doing so, the government must resign or dissolve parliament. But want of support for new legislation was a different matter, which did not imply a withdrawal of confidence in the government (27 May 1841, Hansard, 3rd Series, LVIII, 877–88).

⁷⁵ The Tamworth Manifesto is given in Stanhope, Earl and Cardwell, E., Memoirs by the Right Honourable Sir Robert Peel (London, 1858) II, 58–67.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Sandon to Peel, 15 June 1844 (Peel MSS. Add. MSS. 40546, fos. 386–92).

⁷⁷ Cf. the Standard, 24 June 1844. In 1833 Peel had quickly reached this conclusion about the consequences of the Reform Bill. He detected, within three weeks of the assembling of the 1833 parliament, a weakening of governmental authority, which he ascribed to the independent position of the Radicals.‘ My belief is, that the Reform Bill has worked for three weeks solely from this, that the Conservatives have been too honest to unite with the Radicals. They might have united ten times without a sacrifice of principle. They might unite on twenty clauses of the Irish Bill. And what is to happen then? The question is not, can you turn a Government out? but can you keep in any Government, and stave off confusion? What must be the value of that change in the Constitution which rests for its success upon the forbearance and abstinence of parties?’ (Peel to Croker, 5 March 1833. Jennings, L.J. (ed.), The Correspondence and Diaries of the Late Right Honourable John Wilson Croker, London, 1885, II, 203–5).Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Peel to Sandon, 17 June 1844 (Peel MSS. Add. MSS. 40546, fos. 393–4).

⁷⁹ Lady de Grey to Peel, 19 June 1844 (ibid. 40547, fos. 130–5).

⁸⁰ Peel to Lady de Grey, 21 June 1844 (ibid. 40547, fos. 136–9).

⁸¹ 17 June 1844, Hansard, 3rd Series, LXXV, 1048–56.

⁸² Namier, L.B.,‘Monarchy and the Party System’, in Crossroads of Power (London, 1962), p. 229.Google Scholar

⁸³ Alfred, Factory Movement, II, 168.

⁸⁴ Manners to Gladstone, 6 February 1845. Gladstone MSS. Add. MSS. 44362, fos. 69–71.

⁸⁵ 22 January 1846, Hansard, 3rd Series, LXXXIII, 120–3.

⁸⁶ Raikes, IV, 407.

⁸⁷ Cf. Ramsay, A.A.W., Sir Robert Peel (London, 1928), p. 329Google Scholar and Clark, G. Kitson, Peel and the Conservative Party (London, 1929), pp. 107–9.Google Scholar