Q1. How far did Robert Peel’s methods of governance differ from those of his predecessors; viz a viz; Liverpool, Canning, and Wellington?
Governance of Robert Peel Compared to His Predecessors
Introduction
Robert Peel served as Prime Minister of Great Britain during two key periods: from 1834 to 1835 and again from 1841 to 1846. His governance methods marked a significant departure from those of his predecessors: Lord Liverpool, George Canning, and the Duke of Wellington. This comparison examines how Peel’s approach differed in terms of political ideology, policy-making, and administration.
1. Political Ideology
A. Conservative Principles
Peel’s Approach: Peel was a staunch conservative, advocating for gradual reform within the framework of traditional institutions.
Predecessors’ Approach: Liverpool focused on stability and maintaining the status quo. Canning was more liberal, promoting free trade and reform, while Wellington held onto conservative values but was cautious in his approach to change.
B. Reform vs. Preservation
Peel’s Reformist Stance: Peel believed in adapting conservatism to address social issues, leading to significant reforms like the repeal of the Corn Laws.
Predecessors’ Reluctance: Liverpool and Wellington were generally resistant to reform, prioritizing political stability over social change.
2. Policy-Making
A. Economic Policies
Peel’s Economic Reforms: Peel aimed to modernize the economy, promoting free trade. His repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846 is a prime example.
Predecessors’ Protectionism: Liverpool and Wellington supported protective tariffs to shield British agriculture and industry, which limited economic growth.
B. Law and Order
Peel’s Emphasis on Policing: Peel established the Metropolitan Police in 1829, emphasizing law enforcement as a means of social control.
Predecessors’ Military Focus: Earlier leaders relied more on the military and local constabulary to maintain order, with less emphasis on organized policing.
3. Administration Style
A. Collaborative Governance
Peel’s Approach: Peel sought consensus and collaboration among different political factions, working closely with both the Whigs and the Tories.
Predecessors’ Divisive Politics: Liverpool and Wellington often relied on party loyalty and faced divisions within their ranks, leading to less cooperation.
B. Handling of Crisis
Peel’s Pragmatism: Peel was pragmatic, often shifting policies based on the needs of the time, especially during crises like the Irish famine.
Predecessors’ Stubbornness: Earlier leaders often stuck to their political ideologies even when circumstances changed, leading to ineffective responses to crises.
Conclusion
Robert Peel’s governance differed significantly from that of his predecessors in terms of political ideology, policy-making, and administration style. While Liverpool, Canning, and Wellington maintained a more traditional and often rigid approach, Peel’s reforms and emphasis on modernization laid the groundwork for future political developments in Britain. His legacy reflects a shift towards a more responsive and pragmatic form of governance.
