Comparison Of Peel Did More To Damage Than To Build The Tory Party

1200 Words5 Pages

‘Peel did more to damage than to build the Tory Party in the years 1829 and 1846’. Assess the validity of this statement. Robert Peel’s time as Prime Minister can be looked at in two ways; either he was the benefactor of his country or a politician who betrayed party interest on numerous occasions. I believe that Peel did substantially more to build than damage the Tory party; it is because of his leadership, many social reforms came to pass but is also because of his leadership that the Tory party eventually split. Peel realised that the needs of his country were more important than the narrow interests of a minority within his own party. Fundamentally Peel put the nation before the party, which may seem like a betrayal to his party but what …show more content…

The Bank Charter Act (1844) aimed to restore confidence in a system that had suffered 4 major financial crises since 1819. The main problem was that banks could issue paper bank notes with no limits on the account. Some banks, having over-issued notes would then collapse due to insufficient gold reserves to back the paper currency. Peel concluded that the economy could only expand if the currency was stable. The aim of the Bank Charter Act was to regulate the new rules: no new banks were allowed to issue notes, existing banks were limited to their average issue of notes and the Bank of England was given greater control over banknote issues, which was linked to bullion reserves and securities. This was one reform which proved highly successful for Peel and the Tory party, building not damaging the party in the eyes of their citizens. Peel’s financial reforms were met with the approval of the majority of his party, and although Peel tackled major issues that faced government there remained underlying tensions within the party about the extent to which members were expected to ‘toe the party