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 “gunboat-
diplomacy” 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