Did Sire Robert Peel Create 19th Century Social and Political Stability in Britain?

Sir Robert Peel (1788-1850) was one of the most dominant politicians of the nineteenth century in Britain. He is well-known for founding the Metropolitan Police Service in 1829 and repealing the unpopular Corn Laws in 1846. These measures were certainly instrumental in providing a degree of stability since they began the process of making streets safer and making bread cheaper for the people, respectively. Yet, Peel is also controversial. Whilst he has been widely accredited with bringing social and political stability to Victorian England for ordinary people, Peel had initially opposed some of the most progressive measures of his day. Furthermore, recent reappraisals of Peel have suggested that his efforts have been exaggerated. It is worth considering the extent to which Peel truly helped create mid-Victorian social and political stability.

Beth Ross explains.

Sir Robert Peel. Portrait by Thomas Lawrence.

Metropolitan Police, Corn Laws, and Social Stability

During his time as Home Secretary and Prime Minister, Peel brought in a series of reforms that intended to improve the condition of England. First and foremost was the 1829 Metropolitan Police Act. Prior to the Act’s passing, there was no organised police force in England. The only forces were the Manchester Police and Bow Street runners, who were considered corrupt or unable to prevent crime.[1] In London, the situation was worse; parishes reserved the right to manage their watches independently, and there were generally no police on patrol during the night.[2] An indication of the system’s incompetence before Peel lies in the fact that crime rates in London were increasing. At its peak, one in every 383 people was a criminal.[3] Riots, too, were becoming common. Imminent reform was evidently needed, prompting Peel to respond with a scheme that began in London. A new police force was set up, headed by two magistrates. To increase the morality and efficiency of this force, Peel ensured that the two senior magistrates were “of the highest capacity and character.”[4] It did not take long for their success to become apparent. During the mounting political unrest of the 1830s and 1840s, only London had any hope of maintaining a modicum of peace.[5]This was largely thanks to the establishment of the new police force, whereas other local authorities struggled. Furthermore, the police created by Peel also set a precedent for becoming the model other developing forces would follow over the next quarter of the century.[6] The new force was also instrumental in maintaining order. In 1848, with the Chartists marching on London, the upshot was astonishingly orderly and had a relatively low level of violence.[7] It was said that one of the main reasons for this outcome was the existence of Peel’s police.

Peel’s police force undeniably had a positive impact on maintaining social security and stability. What would essentially have been a chaotic situation was diffused by a police force constructed mainly by Peel. Urgent reform had obviously been needed in this area, and it can justifiably be argued that Peel certainly delivered it. The police force, alongside Peel’s criminal laws, have often been hailed for their contributions in creating social stability. So, too, was his repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846. Although this was a disastrous move for his party, it improved the hardships of ordinary workers. When the Corn Laws were in effect, employees had to pay extra for bread, a challenging burden in the current economic conditions.[8] The repeal of the Laws benefitted the bottom 90% of income earners, making the movement a very “pro-poor policy.”[9] Unsurprisingly, Peel was widely celebrated and fondly remembered by the people after his death, primarily for repealing the Corn Laws. High bread prices had been one of the most debilitating aspects of nineteenth-century England.[10] Peel had, in effect, taken one of the most significant burdens on low-income families and erased it completely, thus improving their standard of living to a degree.

Limitations of his Reforms

On the other hand, it is also possible that undue credit has been given to Peel for the changes his reforms instigated. With his criminal laws, Peel attempted to encourage juries to convict criminals by removing the death penalty for several offences, believing that juries were far less likely to make convictions for fear of condemning someone to death.[11] However, the reduction in death sentences only started after Peel left his office as Home Secretary in 1830, and noticeable law changes did not occur until the Whigs took power.[12] Executions, the very thing that Peel had sought to reduce, only decreased on a larger scale under Russell, the Whig who succeeded Peel as Prime Minister.[13] In another instance, Peel’s 1844 Banking Act created two separate departments within the Bank of England to maintain regulation. In reality, this had the opposite effect. Because the Bank now could issue loans on the market like many other banks, a surfeit of cheap money emerged. This, in turn, worsened over-speculation on the performance of railways, leading to a financial meltdown in 1847 (albeit a brief one).[14] Ultimately, the 1844 Banking Act was temporarily suspended, attesting to its failure. Peel has even been blamed for “the economic ruin of thousands.”[15]Admittedly, the Act would eventually lay the foundations for Britain’s financial policy up until the First World War,[16]but it cannot be denied that it was a failure in the short term. Therefore, it appears that the credit given to Peel for specific innovations has been over-emphasised.

A Progressive Politician?

As mentioned above, Peel was a controversial character. Earlier in his career, he had ardently opposed what was considered some of the “most great progressive movements of the age.”[17] These were votes for working men, Catholic Emancipation, and the 1832 Great Reform Bill. Regarding the Bill, Peel felt that it was extremist in nature and would threaten the current constitution.[18] Somewhat arrogantly, he thought it was wrong for the government to concede to public opinion. Although the Bill only had a limited impact, it did increase the electorate and lay the groundwork for further change.[19] Peel essentially opposed the beginnings of progressive change, which would potentially benefit society. Concerning Catholic Emancipation, he refused to support it at first because Catholics did not swear allegiance to the Crown.[20] While he eventually threw his support behind both causes, it is worth noting that he only supported Emancipation for fear of an Irish uprising in 1829.[21] Had this threat not existed, Peel probably would have remained firm in his original views, thus leaving Catholics vulnerable and without any political rights. Moreover, he also refused to support a bill proposing that working days be reduced to ten hours only. Yet when a twelve-hour bill was proposed in 1843, Peel threatened Parliament with his resignation if it did not go through.[22] He even accepted an amendment to the Mines Bill, which suggested that the age of exclusion from work be lowered from thirteen to ten.[23] Taking these instances into account portrays Peel in a new light. Rather than being the engineer of social stability, Peel instead emerges as a less progressive politician than is usually supposed. Technically, his refusal to support a bill that would reduce the hardships of a working day for ordinary people, alongside his initial opposition towards Catholic Emancipation, meant that Peel was working against creating mid-Victorian social stability.

Political Instability

Whilst it can be said that Peel at least contributed to social stability in part through his creation of the Metropolitan Police Force, it can be argued that he contributed to stability less on a political scale. During his term as Leader of the Opposition and Prime Minister, relations between Peel and his party were fraught. In fact, the Conservatives had broken up when he resigned in 1846 and were to see limited power for the next thirty years.[24] Most Historians, by all accounts, blame Peel for this outcome, citing his arrogant and aloof nature as the primary cause. Even Norman Gash, a biographer of Peel known for his praise of the man, admitted that Peel demonstrated these qualities.[25] His relationship with his backbenchers was even worse. They usually received his scorn. Then, on the matter of the Corn Laws, Peel refused to discuss anything with them.[26]

His behaviour towards his backbenchers effectively destroyed the party’s loyalty to him after years of tension. 231 voted against Peel on the Corn Laws, whilst only 112 sided with him.[27] Many of the Tories felt deceived by Peel after he had fought the 1841 election by promising to defend agricultural protection.[28] Peel was hardly wrong for repealing the Corn Laws – on a social scale, they had quite a positive impact. However, from a political perspective, it had the opposite effect since his decision cost the Conservative Party its unity and resulted in its split. The repeal was a success for the nation, but Peel can and should still be held accountable for its lasting damage to his party. Had Peel communicated with his party more and showed more respect for his backbenchers, the general tensions and subsequent split of the party in 1846 may have been avoided.

Overall, Peel was indeed the engineer of social stability to an extent. The unrest that England had previously been dealing with gradually transformed into stability.[29] For the next 25 years after 1846, social discontent was far less prevalent than it had initially been.[30] However, Peel’s contribution should not be overstated. Whilst he undoubtedly played a role in ensuring stability in Victorian social life, he also blocked some of the most popular reforms of his time. He rejected the Chartists’ call for democracy in the early 1830s and late 1840s. Of the significant reforms he did enact, not all had as much impact as has previously been accepted. Besides, regarding political stability, it is difficult to argue that he brought much security to that area, if any. Peel was partially to blame for the Conservative Party’s split in 1846. A compromise may have been reached between Peel and the party had he not acted so coldly towards his backbenchers. As his repeal of the Corn Laws showcases, Peel was a Conservative devoted to acting in the nation’s interests above his own party’s. Whilst this helped to bring about a degree of social stability, it is clear that his efforts have previously been exaggerated and were also at the expense of the political stability of the Conservative party.

Find that piece of interest? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

Bibliography

Adelman, P., Peel and the Conservative Party, 1830-1850 (London: Longman, 1989).

Beales, D., ‘Review: Peel, Russell, and Reform’, The Historical Journal, (1974), 17(4), pp.873-882. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2638561 [Accessed July 21, 2024].

Briggs, A., The Age of Improvement, 1783-1867, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Routledge, 2014). Available at: https://www.vlebooks.com/Product/Index/2022035?page=0&startBookmarkId=-1 [Accessed 21 July 2024].

Cragoe, M., ‘Sir Robert Peel and the “Moral Authority” of the House of Commons, 1832-41’, The English Historical Review, (2013), 128(530), pp.55-77. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23362289 [Accessed July 21, 2024].

Crosby, T. L., Sir Robert Peel’s Administration, 1841-1846 (Devon: David & Charles Ltd., 1976).

Evans, E. J., Sir Robert Peel: Statesmanship, power and party, 2nd ed. (London: Routledge, 2006).

Evans, E. J., The Forging of the Modern State: Early Industrial Britain, 1783-1870, 4th ed. (Oxford: Routledge, 2019).

Gash, N., Mr Secretary Peel: The Life of Sir Robert Peel to 1830 (London: Longmans Green Ltd., 1961).

Gash, N., Sir Robert Peel: The Life of Sir Robert Peel after 1830 (London: Faber and Faber Ltd., 2011).

Gaunt, R. A., Sir Robert Peel: The Life and Legacy (London: I.B. Tauris and Company Ltd., 2010). Available at: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/anglia/detail.action?docID=676745 [Accessed July 21, 2024].

Hawkins, A., ‘“Parliamentary Government” and Victorian Political Parties, c.1830-c.1880’, The English Historical Review, (1989), 104(412), pp.638-669. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/570379 [Accessed July 21, 2024].

Hilton, B., A Mad, Bad, Dangerous People?: England, 1783-1846 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006).

Hurd, D., Robert Peel: A Biography (London: Phoenix, 2008).

Irwin, D. A., and Chepeliev, M. G., ‘The Economic Consequences of Sir Robert Peel: A Quantitative Assessment of the Repeal of the Corn Laws’, The Economic Journal, (2021), 131, pp.3322-3337. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/ej/ueab029.

Morrow, J., ‘The Paradox of Peel as a Carlylean Hero’, The Historical Journal, (1997), 40(1), pp.97-110. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3020954 [Accessed July 21, 2024].

Ramsay, A. A. W., Sir Robert Peel, ed. by Basil Williams (London: Constable and Company Ltd., 1928).

Read, D., Peel and the Victorians (Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd., 1987).

[1] Ramsay, 87

[2] Ramsay, 87; Hurd, 103

[3] Ramsay, 87

[4] Ibid, 88

[5] Read, 103

[6] Gash 1961, 506

[7] Hurd, 106-7

[8] Evans 2006, 71

[9] Irwin and Chepeliev, 3324

[10] Evans 2006, 1

[11] Ibid., 16-17

[12] Beales, 880

[13] Evans 2006, 17

[14] Hilton, 549-550

[15] Ibid.

[16] Gaunt, 56

[17] Evans 2006, 2

[18] Adelman, 8; Hawkins, 652

[19] Cragoe, 56

[20] Evans 2006, 2; Hurd, 41

[21] Evans 2006, 2

[22] Adelman, 41

[23] Ibid., 39

[24] Evans 2006, 3

[25] Evans 2019, 332; Crosby, 148; Gash 2011, 708

[26] Morrow, 105

[27] Briggs, 294

[28] Evans 2019, 329

[29] Gash 2011, 714

[30] Evans 2019, 334

The industrial Revolution and Society Today

The Industrial Revolution was the passport to the future. Innovation propelled our economies, technology, and transportation further than ever. Britain, the first country to enter the Industrial revolution, set the tone for how capitalism would affect societies, economies, and the environment across the world. Unfortunately, as innovation and efficiency progressed, working conditions did not. Julius Olavarria explains.

A hurrier and two thrusters moving coal. From the 1853 book The White Slaves of England by J. Cobden.

During the Industrial revolution, there were many examples of maltreatment. One example is a hurrier, “A hurrier, also sometimes called a coal drawer or coal thruster, was a child or woman employed by a collier to transport the coal that they had mined.” 

Coal mine managers strapped women and children to carts, like animals, and made them crawl through mine shafts for 12-hour shifts. These mines were incredibly hot, reaching over 100 degrees Fahrenheit (38C) at times - workers never saw sunlight or breaks and had to hunch over for the entire workday. Jobs like these are textbook examples of the horrid conditions brought by the Industrial Revolution, especially for women and children working in factories or mines.

Jobs like these continued for a long time. For almost 80 years in the 18th and 19th centuries, women and children were subject to the worst of the worst. Generations would go by without much progress. Young lungs were filled with pollution leading to unhealthy lives and untimely deaths. Lives were like the unceasing, monotonous rhythms of the industrial machines. Hurriers saw no light at the end of their social tunnels - or in this case, mineshafts.

Factory Act of 1833

The Factory Act of 1833 set age requirements for child labor. The British House of Commons declared that “children under the age of 9” could not work any longer. Individuals aged 10 through 17 were subject to more restrictions, working fewer hours and in better conditions. This seemed like a win in the social books but was not popular in the slightest.

Sure, setting age requirements to work is great. In what world should a 4-year-old work in a coal mine? Children should be outside, exploring, learning, and having fun. They deserve a childhood just like everyone deserves a childhood. Setting age requirements for work is the first step towards getting them out of factories and into a normal life, right?

In fact, it is wrong.

In a normal working family, the children have to work because they have to. Believe it or not, children aren’t great left to their own devices. Usually, the wife of the family would look after the children during their new-born years, but for working families that wasn’t always possible: the wife needs to work, and if the wife works the child works too. Children, with this in mind, would work starting at ages 3 or 4.

It’s a sad reality. The family is so poor they can’t afford to hire a nanny or watch over their children. (And yes, nannies existed back then - interestingly enough they can be dated back as early as 800 B.C!)

Working children

I digress. Because the working families needed their children to work, the Factory Act of 1833 received a lot of pushback. Women were forced to stay at home or the families were forced to hire nannies. Some families were driven to the depths of poverty - a majority of the family’s wage earners were forced to stay at home.

Then, the Coal Mines Act of 1842 came along - the second act on the way to reform. This prohibited children under the age of 10, who could fit in the tiny mineshafts, from working there. Women were also prohibited as part of this act: major protests came as a result.

It is important to note that social critiques reported on the conditions of the Industrial Revolution. These authors, writers, and early muckrakers convinced the British parliament to set restrictions for women and children. They believed that they could improve conditions for the country by improving the conditions for workers.

Protests from women and children who were limited to work erupted - a paradoxical outcome. These women and children should be grateful: they don’t have to work in these horrible conditions, right?

Wrong.

Losing money

The women and children lost their earnings. The government stepped in and took their money. Now their families would be driven to even greater poverty - there’s no way to escape their social position besides picking up the most brutal of jobs. They were denied even that - they’re angry.

Reformers and parliament quickly realized the need for a solution for women and children. Women and children needed better lives but also needed to be productive. Women needed to make money while children needed a childhood. Possibly the most reasonable and ingenious solution to these problems was education - compulsory elementary education funded by the state.

Acts up until 1870 provided education for the children of poor families, while women took the role of teaching. Women who originally had lost their jobs in the mines could work in schools funded by the government. Children who originally had lost their jobs could be cared for by teachers at school, learning in the process. Families could get back on track because of the new system of education.

So this, finally, is the interesting reason why more women are schoolteachers. It all started in the Industrial Revolution- the innovation, factories, and working conditions then the critiques, acts, and protests all led up to the eventual creation of elementary education. Education acted as both an escape and outlet for women while giving children the childhood they deserved. To think this had historical roots doesn’t sound so crazy now, does it?

Enjoy that piece? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

Julius writes at: juliusolavarria.com.

19th Century Britain and the Rise of the ‘Freak Show’ Industry

In mid-to-late nineteenth century Victorian Britain, ‘freak shows’ were popular exhibitions where the general public could pay to go and observe individuals with physical abnormalities and deformities. By their very nature these shows were underpinned by exploitative institutions designed to make money from those rejected by society. However, when the bigger picture is scrutinized, it becomes apparent that the situation facing those involved within ‘freak shows’ wasn’t as straightforward as it might initially seem. Stuart Cameron explains.

Joseph Merrick, the ‘Elephant Man’.

Usage of the word ‘freak’

Before diving into the historical details of this subject it is important to justify the usage of the word ‘freak’ within this article.

The word likely conjures up different feelings to different people. By modern standards, most would agree that much of the language used by Victorians towards individuals exhibited within ‘freak shows’ - ‘freaks’ - would be considered distasteful, uncomfortable, and politically incorrect to say the very least.

Robert Bogdan, author of Freak Show: Presenting Human Oddities for Amusement and Profit, produced a list of words that have been used to describe ‘freaks’ throughout time. Terms like ‘lusus natrae’ (Latin for ‘freaks of nature’), ‘curiosities’, ‘oddities’, ‘monsters’, ‘grotesques’, and ‘nature’s mistakes’ are a few of the many examples that carry clear negative implications. In contrast to those, terms like ‘wonders’, ‘marvels’, rarities’, and ‘very special people’ carry considerably more sympathetic connotations, but were almost only exclusively used within marketing and advertising materials for shows.[1]

Based on this non-exhaustive list, what is clear is that ‘freaks’ were not solely seen as something negative, but at times were actually valued based on the rarity of their existence. Such a variety of jargon exists towards ‘freaks’ as a result of blended scientific terminology and show-world hype, muddied further by the progression of time.[2]Regardless of whether the connotation was negative or positive, ‘freaks’ either way were seen as something different and non-compliant with social ideas of normality.

On top of that, ‘freaks’ came in all shapes and sizes. Some were born as ‘freaks’, some became ‘freaks’ at a point in their lifetime as a result of an accident or a medical condition, and others altered their bodies and became ‘freaks’ by choice. This in turn makes the word ‘freak’ a term that covers a lot of territory. It’s a word that has been used to refer to bearded ladies like Julia Pastrana (dubbed as ‘the Bear Lady’); conjoined ‘Siamese’ twins like Chang and Eng; and to people with full body tattoo coverage like George Burchett (dubbed as the ‘King of Tattooists’). The only trait these three very different people have in common? That they were physically not ‘normal’.

As such, this makes the concept of a ‘freak’ one that transcends gender, racial, economic, social, age, medical, and scientific boundaries. Naturally, however, this throws up some obstacles for historians examining the ‘freak show’ industry. As uncomfortable as the continued usage of the word ‘freak’ may be, it is used solely on the grounds that there is no modern equivalent that accurately represents the diversity of the men and women involved within the shows.

'Freak Shows' within Victorian society

‘Freak Shows’ were exhibitions of biologically abnormal humans and animals that members of the public could pay a small fee and observe a physical manifestation of something quite drastically different from themselves. The shows were at their peak in the mid-to-late nineteenth century, and appealed to people across the economic and class spectrum of the United Kingdom. As well as that, private “for ladies only” viewing rooms were provided so that women had safe spaces within potentially dangerous urban places to attend shows.[3]The contemporary humor magazine Punchdubbed Britain’s “growing taste for deformity” as the ‘Deformito-Mania’, claiming that ‘freak shows’ were an “unhealthy admiration for the monstrous”.[4]Regardless of the social background of the audience, the reaction from those who attended shows was often a combination of shock, horror, andfascination.

The shows could be set up quickly, and at very low cost. In the same way that the circus travelled between towns and cities across the country, ‘freak show’ owners deployed a similar strategy. As such, the mobility of the shows proved a fundamental part of their popular appeal. Being able to set up quickly in community halls and in the back rooms of public houses kept outgoing costs at a minimum and helped to make the shows accessible to the working classes. Joseph Merrick, known more famously as ‘The Elephant Man’ was regularly exhibited in the back room of an east London pub known as a “penny gaff”. As well as these ‘pop-up' style shows, certain venues became infamous for their ‘freak show’ exhibitions. The Egyptian Hall, in Piccadilly, London hosted a number of different ‘freaks’ throughout the nineteenth century including the ‘Living Skeleton’ (being a man who consisted of little more than skin and bone) and the ‘Siamese’ twins Chang and Eng (who were conjoined by their stomach).[5]

The Showmen

To the showmen in charge, ‘freaks’ were undoubtedly their business commodities – and their way of turning a profit. In his memoirs, British showman Tom Norman (also referred to as ‘the Penny Showman’) admitted: “There was a time, in my career as a showman, when I would exhibit any mortal thing for money”, adding “there were always large crowds who were only too eager to pay and see anything that aroused their curiosity, no matter how repulsive, or how demoralising.”[6]From a twenty-first century perspective, seeing the ‘freak show’ industry as anything but exploitative can prove to be difficult. But, in a perplexing sort of way, ‘freak shows’ gave ‘freaks’ a platform to exhibit their bodies and make a small income – more than anything else in Victorian society offered to most of them.

It was common that ‘freak shows’ were advertised through promotions that established narratives and origin stories of the ‘freaks’ on display – which in most cases were totally fictitious. Storytelling was a common technique used by the showman in the knowledge that the audiences who came to view the exhibits were susceptible to believing the tales, no matter how whimsical or fantastic they were. This made the showman an understated, yet integral part of the entertainment success of his shows. It wasn’t just a case of ‘freaks’ taking the initiative to exhibit themselves and receiving the entirety of the profit without the showman. A massive part of their success lay in the way that the showmen marketed them, told their “stories”, and highlighted the rarity of their existence to the audience.

At their very core, ‘freak shows’ were exploitative. They were underpinned by an inhumane business model that capitalized on the misfortune of people rejected by society, and with no opportunity to make a living on the basis of them being physically different. Victorian society left ‘freaks’ in a situation with little option in life, and as a result their involvement within the ‘freak show’ industry was one that they themselves had little control of.

What do you think of the 19th century ‘freak show’ industry? Let us know below.

Author Bio

Stuart Cameron is a freelance copywriter and blogger on a mission to harness the past to better understand the now. More of his blog posts, his writing portfolio, and details about his copywriting services are available at http://writersblick.com/.

[1]Bogdan, Robert. Freak Show: Presenting Human Oddities for Amusement and Profit, 1988. 6.

[2]Bogdan, Robert. Freak Show: Presenting Human Oddities for Amusement and Profit, 1988. 6.

[3]Durbach, Nadja. Spectacle of Deformity: Freak Shows and Modern British Culture. (Berkley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2009). 7.

[4]“The Deformito-Mania” Punch Magazine. (4 Sept 1847). 90.

[5]Mayes, Ronald. ‘The Romance of London Theatres No.87. The Egyptian Hall’ Lewisham Hippodrome Programme, March 1930. (no further bibliographic details provided)

[6]Norman, Tom & Norman, George. The Penny Showman: Memoirs of Tom Norman “Silver King”. (London, 1985). 23-24.