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

Crime and Punishment in Nineteenth Century London

Last month Kevin K. O’Neill described some of the nefarious exploits by various criminals operating in the dim anonymity of early 19th century London. Body snatchers, thieves, beggars, conmen and other inhabitants of the rookeries, or slums, all operated relatively freely, opposed only by a few private organizations before the formation in 1829 of the Metropolitan Police by Sir Robert Peel, the original ‘Bobbie.’ This month we delve into more aspects of crime and the social ferment that characterized London at that time.

The Upper Class, Gambling, and Blackmail

The English upper class was no stranger to the indulgences and excesses practiced openly by the lower classes. Indeed many had a morbid fascination with the danger and debauchery of their lives. Steering clear of the Rookeries, the well to do often frequented the Flash Houses and successors to the 18th century ‘Hellfire’ clubs located in safer areas for reasons of gambling, gin, and women. Many young men met social demise via alcohol, venereal disease, predatory usury, or blackmail, as they were considered easy prey.  Even those that gambled their fortunes away in the higher-class clubs often turned to moneylenders of ill repute.

The Original Tom and Jerry

The allure of the well to do with the dark underbelly of London is well portrayed by Pierce Egan’s ‘Life in London or, the Day and Night Scenes of Jerry Hawthorne, Esq. and his elegant friend, Corinthian Tom, accompanied by Bob Logic, the Oxonian, in their rambles and sprees through the Metropolis.’ Released monthly at a shilling a copy in 1821, this slice of life serial proved wildly popular. Spin off serials and plays were penned while behavior such as ‘Tom and Jerry Frolics,’ became part of the linguistic landscape. The two main protagonists were from opposite ends of British society with Tom being the elegant ‘Swell’ searching for excitement, and Jerry the unworldly country bumpkin searching for the good life. Their pugnacious and bawdy exploits were eagerly read by all social classes and the pervasive slang used was popular enough to inspire the publishing of a glossary. Egan, a sports writer with a knack for satire, crisscrossed the social boundaries of London with Tom taking Jerry to fancy nightclubs for elegant affairs and Jerry taking Tom for riotous nights of gin, easy women, and street boxing

A shilling well laid out. Tom and Jerry at the exhibition of pictures at the Royal Academy.

Vivid illustrations by the Cruikshank brothers were a large part of the success of ‘Life in London’ with their appeal withstanding the test of time more than the text. One of the foremost political cartoonists of the day, George Cruikshank, also illustrated many of Charles Dickens’ works under the direction of Dickens. The influence he had on Dickens’ writing, especially Oliver Twist, is debated to this day.

Peep O’ Day Boys. A Street Row. The author losing his ‘reader.’ Tom and Jerry showing fight and logic floored

The Ratcliffe Highway Murders, Impetuous for Change

In December of 1811 murder most foul was committed in two separate attacks in the Wapping area of the Ratcliffe Highway. Seven people from two families were bludgeoned to death by a shipwright’s maul in what can only be described as a frenzied attack. While violence was common along the notorious Ratcliffe Highway, these murders were singular in that they were ‘break and enter’ murders against relatively upstanding citizens. An unfortunate soul, John Williams, and several others, were suspected and thrown in jail on little evidence.

Williams ultimately ‘cheated the hangman’ in what was deemed a suicide by the authorities, causing them to put the dead man on trial. Williams’ suicide being the main indicator of guilt in the prosecutor’s mind, he was convicted. The Ratcliffe murders were spread to the public through the ‘Penny Press,’ with the gruesome details both appalling and enthralling the public. John Williams’ burial procession was followed by a huge crowd with estimates of up to 180,000 people attending his macabre burial. Unqualified to be buried on consecrated ground because he committed suicide, Williams was buried head down in a small grave to insure discomfort in the after life, at a crossroads to confuse his soul should it wander, and with a stake through his heart. It seems likely though, that he was not the murderer; he was convicted to appease an upset populace. Whether his suicide was staged to cover up the real murderer is still not clear.

Punishment

In this period, punishment was freely dealt out with, what may appear to the modern person, an almost fiendish glee. Debtors prisons, death for petty thievery, and horrible internments were all part of the penal system in early 19th century London. Deportation, usually to Australia in the years after the American Revolution, was also used to alleviate the growth of crime in England. By the early 19th century there was a backlog of prisoners to be ‘transported’, as the official sentence of deportation was termed. These boys and men were sent to ‘The Hulks.’ Established in the middle of the 18th century, the Hulks were ships used as prisons as they were no longer seaworthy. Many sunk in the mud of the River Thames, while they were cold, damp, and rotting, with prisoners packed like sardines in their own filth. New prisoners started at the bottom and slowly graduated up through the three levels to where, if they were lucky or nasty enough to have survived, they reached the top level and were transported. Prisons, such as the ‘Stone Jug’, as Newgate Prison was known, were only slightly better than the Hulks with staged fights, trials of those that broke unwritten codes, and priestly absolutions of those to be hanged.

Another ghastly aspect to the penal system were treadmills. Essentially, they were human hamster wheels, originally developed to apply human power to industrial machinery. Found inefficient in industry these ‘shin breakers’ were relegated to the prisons to break incorrigible prisoners. The number of crimes punishable by hanging stood at around 200 early in the century and included such minor transgressions as pick pocketing and stealing food. Hangings were public and often festive; however the severe punishment of trivial offenses, such as food theft at a time of great poverty, often caused riots as public unrest at injustice broke out.

Metropolitan Police and Reforms

In 1822 Sir Robert Peel became Home Secretary. In 1829, with the Ratcliffe Highway and Burke-Hare murders still fresh in the public’s minds, Sir Robert was able to generate enough political will to establish a unified police force, despite the long standing misgivings of the populace. The people feared a unified armed force that could be used to suppress protest or maintain an unpopular government. Peel addressed these concerns with the “Peelian Principals”, a code for an ethical police force that included elements such as personal identification for officers, no bounties or rewards for arrests, public order and low crime rates as indicators of success, and total accountability to the people. Termed ‘policing by consent’ it is followed to this day by many free countries’ police forces. In 1823 Sir Robert lowered the number of crimes punishable by death to around 100.

It is difficult today to look back on London at this time without a certain amount of distaste at the casual injustices and misery. Even so, it should be remembered that London was one of the first cities to become industrialized, with massive unplanned urban growth being a major factor in the civic confusion that defined the era. Out of this societal chaos good men, such as Sir Robert Peel, created laws and a political ethos that defines much of the free world today.

Want to read more on this subject? Well, you can read about Charles Dickens and poverty here.

Did you enjoy the article? If so, let the world know by clicking on one of the buttons below! Like it, tweet about it, or share it!

Bibliography

The Maul and the Pear Tree, Critchley and James, 1971

Thieves’ Kitchen, Donald Low, 1982

Image Source

Engravings by George and Robert Cruikshank from the 1869 reprint of Life in London, Pierce Egan, John Camden Hotten, Piccadilly, 1869. Image source here.