Betrayer’ of his party, however as mentioned previously Peel’s opinion was ‘Not can you turn out a government! But, Can you keep in any government, and stave off confusion’. Peel was a man who acted upon the interests of the nation and its people, not upon the direct interests of his party’s backbenchers. As seen, there were many incidences where Peel acted against the rest of his party and would defy the conventional means of staying in power, incidences where it seemed Peel was heading down a blind alley and it was inevitable that his decisions would cause the collapse of his party, yet he would still manage to emerge somewhat successful. This happened on a number of occasions and according to Norman Gash, ‘How people behave in a crisis is often determined not by immediate issues and arguments, since these may point to more than one line of action, but pre-existing …show more content…
Peel’s downfall in 1846 and the cause of the end of his ministry were due to the fact that ‘he seemed short of balance and perspective – both essential attributes in a successful politician’. The absence of these things in the latter stages of his ministry make no difference to the lasting opinion that I have of Peel as being incredibly successful throughout his entire career in politics. As to whether Peel was more successful before or after 1841, I believe that the answer is after. Even after facing a substantial amount of pressure from opposing parties, after having to fight for what seemed to be a ministry destined to fall from the start due to his controversial views, and even after his own party turned against him and an assassination attempt was made on him, he still managed to remain, in many historians eyes not just my own, one of the greatest leaders of this country and is an inspiration to many for his resilience and bravery at a time when the survival of Britain hang in the