To What Extent Were Conservative Weaknesses In The Period 1846

To what extent were Conservative weaknesses in the period 1846-1866 the result of poor leadership?

Following the repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846, the conservative party suffered a fatal split which led to nearly thirty years of impotence in British politics. In the twenty years following the repeal of the Corn Laws the conservatives held power in government for just twenty four months in total; a measly amount compared to the Whigs, who would later transform into the liberals. I personally believe that this catastrophic period in Conservative history was caused by a large variety of reasons but that their weakness overall was not caused in the main by poor leadership. I would argue that it was in fact a combination of social and economic factors and the strength of the Whig party that was more important in the Conservative weaknesses during the selected period. Much of the weakness that the Conservatives suffered from was from their own lack of political talent and organisation; this of course included the weak, unwilling leadership of Lord Derby: After Peel left the party it was uncertain as to who would lead the Conservatives; Bentinck and Disraeli became the lead figures in the house of Commons but neither seemed fit to lead the party; Disraeli was unpopular due to his background and flamboyant style and Bentinck was a stereotypical Conservative, interested in racing and breeding horses and gambling. Derby became leader of the party in the House of Lords; however he was a very pessimistic Prime Minister and felt that he was “fighting a losing battle.” To say that his leadership was uninspiring at best is an understatement and this seriously damaged the Conservatives’ chances of rebuilding their party. Despite his lack of optimism, Derby became Prime Minister in a minority government three times in this period; this may suggest that there was a serious lack of depth in talent in the party, as it was thought that were no other suitable candidates. Out of the leading figures in the party, it was definitely Disraeli that held the strangest mix of talent and unpopularity; despite his obvious political and oratorical ability the majority of the party distrusted him due to his Jewish background and many thought that he had used them as a ‘stepping stone’ in his political career. He was unpopular with the Peelites also (Gladstone particularly), as he had made scathing criticisms of Peel in 1846. This made many think that he was an obstacle to the party’s wellbeing as his presence would hinder the reformation of the Peelites and the Protectionists. Finally many members of the party, being land-owners themselves, distrusted his commitment to the policy of Protectionism (A suspicion that turned out to be well-founded as he scrapped Protectionism in 1852). After Protectionism was scrapped, it seemed that the Conservatives had no distinctive policies themselves, and also made people question whether they had believed in Protectionism in the first place or whether they were now scrapping it to get ahead in the political spectrum, making them look untrustworthy. After the repeal of the Corn Laws they had lost many men of experience in the Peelites (those who had actually had some experience in a cabinet), and many of the Protectionists were thought of as amateur politicians who were more concerned

with the social side of politics than serving the nation. They were referred to as the “Conservative party with the brains knocked out.” This combined with the fact that they were poorly organised due to their lack of convincing leadership meant that they couldn’t offer a credible alternative government. I would argue that the most important reason for the weakness of the Conservative party was the state of Britain at the time; the Anglican church was the most popular religious group at the time but in the key industrial centres in Britain such as Leeds, Liverpool and Manchester, the majority of worshippers were attending a sect of Christianity other than the Church of England. This was very bad for Conservatives as they were very pro-Anglican, which immediately cut off the number of votes they could receive from the majority of the electorate who weren’t Church of England. This was a contrast to the Whigs, who were tolerant to all Christian faiths and thus benefited from the extra support they gained from them. The Conservatives were also less suited to the fact that rapid industrialisation was causing urbanisation as small towns had developed into huge industrial centres. Britain was the “Workshop of the world”. This was perfect for the Whigs, as they were more cosmopolitan and interested in business. They got the vote of the industrial working population and after the Great Reform Act was passed 1832, there were many more MPs in the cities, meaning that they could effectively convert their popularity in the urban areas. Their progressive reform policies also appealed to the middle classes, so they managed to gain their vote as well. This was not good for the Conservatives however as they were the politicians with “Landed interest” and were therefore less popular in the cities as they were seen to be more interested in keeping the profits they made from farming high instead of looking to the well-being of the whole population. A perfect example of this was their policy of protectionism, which kept the tariffs high on corn prices but meant that free trade could not occur and bread would remain too expensive for the poor to purchase. There were economic factors as well that kept the Conservatives weak; after the repeal of the Corn Laws, poorer families could afford to buy bread and the benefits of free trade were fully seen. Agricultural efficiency increased and from 1850-1870 corn prices were fairly stable. People saw that protectionism was not the way; after the Conservatives scrapped protectionism they were accused of being disloyal to their policies and were purely looking to regain power. The period as the “Golden age of mid-Victorian prosperity” and people saw no reason to change their support from the successful Whig/Liberal government to the Conservative party. I would argue that it was because of the current Socio-Economic conditions in Britain that the Whigs were so successful and the Conservatives were so weak; even if the Conservatives had been under strong leadership, their policies and ideas did not suit the current climate. However, it was these conditions that created the most prominent of the Whigs’ strengths; they appealed to the middle classes, the working class in the cities and Christians who weren’t Church of England. They were also free traders, which suited the current Economic climate and seemed way ahead of the Protectionism the Conservatives suggested. They were also benefitted with the presence of the Peelites, who were all talented and

experienced politicians, and combined with their presence and the leadership of Palmerston the Whigs were a very well-organised party with good administrative efficiency. They had many experienced members, including the Peelites, and were thought as generally as “professional MPs”. Palmerston himself was very popular with the population due to his patriotic values and his “gunboatdiplomacy” which made full use of Britain’s military and economic strengths. In conclusion I would argue that all of these reasons were important in creating Conservative weakness but that it was the current Socio-Economic conditions in Britain that were most crucial. Without these conditions I believe that the Conservatives would have had fewer weaknesses and the Whigs would have been less successful. Tom Gibbons