Home | Business News | Browse by Publication | H | History Review

'U-turn if you want to ...': Mark Rathbone analyses the causes and consequences of sudden changes of policy in nineteenth-century British politics.

Article Excerpt
'U-turn if you want to. The lady's not for turning,' Margaret Thatcher told the Conservative Party Conference in 1980, chiding faint-hearts in her own party and justifying pressing on with monetarist economic policies despite a steep rise in unemployment. But in the nineteenth century, sudden u-turns on policy were a notable feature of British politics. This article looks at four great u-turns: the decision in January 1829 by the Duke of Wellington and Sir Robert Peel to introduce Catholic Emancipation; Peel's decision in 1846 to repeal the Corn Laws; Disraeli's conversion to the cause of parliamentary reform in 1867; and Gladstone's adoption of Home Rule for Ireland at the end of 1885. We will examine what circumstances led to these u-turns, what motivated the leaders who executed them, and what consequences they had for the parties concerned.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Catholic Emancipation

It is a remarkable tribute to the importance of the Irish Question in nineteenth century British politics that three of the four u-turns were provoked by crises in Ireland. In 1828, the Duke of Wellington as Prime Minister and Sir Robert Peel as leader in the House of Commons faced the first of these, which came to a head when a by-election in County Clare was won by Daniel O'Connell for the Catholic Association. This amounted to an open attack on the Irish representative system, as the law prevented Roman Catholics from sitting in parliament. Growing disorder in Ireland put pressure on Wellington and Peel to act. 'Nothing can be more clear than that Ireland cannot remain as it is,' advised Anglesey, the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland; 'The Catholic question must be adjusted, or the Association and the Priests must be overruled.'

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

During the final months of 1828, Wellington and Peel realised that Catholic Emancipation, the repeal of the laws banning Roman Catholics from sitting in the House of Commons, was the only way out of the crisis. The main difficulty was that maintaining the anti-Catholic laws was regarded as a fundamental principle of the Tory Party, of which they were the leaders. Peel contemplated resignation, but on 12th January 1829 he agreed to support Catholic Emancipation.

In his speech in the House of Commons on 5 March 1829, Peel admitted that he had long opposed Catholic Emancipation and claimed to have dropped his opposition not because he now supported Emancipation in principle, but because continued opposition to it endangered the country's political stability: 'I yield, therefore to a moral necessity which I cannot control, unwilling to push resistance to a point which might endanger the Establishments that I wish to defend.'

Repealing the Corn Laws

Our second u-turn also involved both Peel and Ireland. One of the cornerstones of Conservative policy ever since 1815 had been the Corn Laws, which banned the importation of foreign corn until the price reached a certain level, thereby protecting British agriculture and keeping the price of corn artificially high. But this also meant that the cost of bread was high and restrictions on international trade made it harder for British manufacturers to sell their products to other countries. Opposition to the Corn Laws grew, particularly after the Anti-Corn Law League was founded in March 1839.

There were early signs that Peel recognised the benefits of free trade. The 1842 and 1845 budgets reduced or removed tariffs...

View this article FREE - Now for a Limited Time, try Goliath Business News
Free for 3 Days!