Sir Robert Peel: A Social Reformer?
Created | Updated May 12, 2004
To what extent can it be said that Peel was a Social Reformer?
Most historians will tend to agree that during his second administration, Robert Peel did not have a definite policy for social reform, which would improve the condition of the British working class. On the subject of economic policy, Peel advocated a ‘laissez-faire’ approach, allowing business to expand, and improve the economy. This increased prosperity would, he argued, filter down through the social structure, thus benefiting the lower classes. Consistent with this belief, Peel can be seen to have concentrated mainly on economic reform, as a method for social reform, and to have seen a ‘laissez-faire’ approach, with the minimum of government intervention, as the most effective method of solving social problems. Nevertheless, examination of state activity during Peel’s ministry shows that his government did engage in social reform, so the question arises whether Peel was a crusading reformer, or whether he entered into social reform because he had no other option.
Historians such as Norman Gash argued the former point, stating that whilst Peel may not have had a distinct social policy, he nevertheless realised that the continuing stability of British society depended upon the standard of life endured by the working class, and that small scale moderate reform, as espoused by his Tamworth Manifesto, was the best way to improve this whilst keeping society intact. Various points are cited to support this view, such as the fact that during his ministry, Peel’s government passed the Mines Act 1842 and the Factory Act 1844 (both improving the conditions for workers in the respective industries) and also created a commission (headed by Edwin Chadwick) to investigate the state of Public Health. It is further argued that he was concerned for the underprivileged in society, and that the acts of the government reflect this concern. Certainly when income tax was re-introduced in 1842 (following its imposition during the Napoleonic wars) Peel limited it to persons earning £150 or more per annum, thus not unduly taxing the poor.
Those, such as Beales, who oppose this view point to the fact that when Lord Ashley tried to introduce an amendment to the Factory Act restricting work in the textile mills to ten hours a day as opposed to twelve, Peel threatened to resign rather than allow this to pass, so it was in the end defeated. The workers therefore had to endure longer hours, yet historians of Gash’s school claim that Peel was in fact acting for the workers. He believed that two less hours work would reduce production in the textile mills (which formed 80% of British exports) and thus damage the economy, in turn harming the workers themselves, as not only would they not get the wages they would if they worked an extra two hours, but a poor economy would create a hard labour market (as Peel put it, it would be ‘an income tax on the poor man’). Those historians who follow Beales’ thought state, however, that Peel can not have been a genuine social reformer if he saw economic growth as being more important than the humanity of working conditions, an idea which Lord Ashley (the factory reform campaigner) summarised as ‘Imports and Exports, here is Peel’s philosophy! There it begins and there it ends’.
Historians of this view invert the argument for Peel’s reforms, postulating that rather than trying to make small scale reforms whilst keeping the social structure intact, Peel was actually making the reforms purely to avoid later calls for large scale reform, which would endanger the structure (i.e. he was making small scale reforms in order to keep the social structure intact, and not out of concern for the lower classes). Apart from the controversy over the Factory Act, other evidence can be cited to support this view.
Although social reform activity occurred during Peel’s ministry, its effectiveness is often questioned. Although the commission into Public Health was set up by Peel, when it produced its report, highlighting serious health issues, Peel did not take any steps to alter the situation (a Public Health Act was not in fact passed until 1848, two years after Peel’s ministry had ended). Similarly, although the Mines Act was passed in 1842, it was woefully inadequate (e.g. It only provided one mines inspector for the entire country and under a clause introduced in the Committee stage of the Commons reading, he was not even allowed to go down any mines in order to inspect them) and could be seen to have just been a government unwilling to reform showing a pretence of reaction towards the deplorable conditions in the mines highlighted in a recent report.
The above view fits in with the argument that Peel entered power at a time when public opinion, stimulated by various reports and commissions which the Whigs had established when they were in power, and by extra-parliamentary campaigners such as Richard Oastler and Lord Ashley, began to turn towards a desire to see government reform which would alleviate the atrocious conditions suffered by the working class. Thus any reforming impetus could be seen to have come not from Peel, but from others, who forced Peel to act. Further evidence of Peel’s position can be seen in the fact that, despite pressure from his backbenchers, he did not alter the 1834 Poor Law Amendment Act. The poor regarded as a great injustice, and it made life exceptionally hard for them, yet as Peel actively opposed amending it, his desire to help the lower classes seem questionable.
In conclusion then, Peel did not have a clear social policy, and although social reform occurred in his ministry, this was usually piecemeal, and was not the result of any initiative on his part. Indeed he often opposed direct social reform, preferring to concentrate on the economy. I would conclude, therefore, that Peel was interested in social improvement primarily as a benefit of economic growth, and it was on this that he concentrated. Whilst his laissez-faire approach to the economy can be seen as helping it to grow and prosper, the same can not be said for his social reform, as this is rarely achieved without direct government intervention, which he clearly disliked.
