The Peelites and the Party System, 1846–52 by J.B. Conacher, and: The Peelites, 1846–1857 by Wilbur Devereux Jones, Arvel. B. Erickson (review)

REVIEWS 101 setuponbyangrysoldiers: theissues wasusually money.Anotherpointwithwhich onemusttakeissue isUnderdown's characterization of thePresbyterian attackonthe armyin thespringof •647asa response tothearmy's hostility. In realityit wasthe otherwayaround.The Presbyterians allowed thearmy's monthlyassessment tolapse inSeptember •646 andin February•647 theyvotedtodisband partof thearmyand pack the restoff to Ireland. The army revolt camelargelyin answerto these provocations. These are minor criticisms, however, and do not detract from Underdown's centralarguments.Pride's Purgeisan excellentbook,and will be necessary reading for anyserious studentof theEnglishRevolution. IAN GENTLES Glendon College, YorkUniversity ThePeelites andthePartySystem, •846-52. J.B.CONACHER. Newton Abbot,Devon, DavidandCharles[Toronto,Griffin House],•972. Pp. 246.$•o.oo. ThePeelites, •84 6-• 857. WtLBUR I•v, VV, Rv, UXjo•vs and ^RVV, L.B.v, RmKSO•. Columbus, OhioStateUniversity Press,•972. Pp.xii, 259.$•o.oo. Of all the subjects thehistorian canstudy,early-Victorian partyhistorymustcome prettyhighonthescale of difficulty.The periodistooearlytosuppose theexistence of cohesive and disciplinedparty institutions. Yet it istoo late to explain political conduct entirelyin termsof familyandpatronage connection. The early-Victorian politician oftenconfessed allegiance to party;but he alsoinsisted on hisright of independent judgmentandexercised thisrightin defiance of hispartyobligations. Partywas clearly afactorinpolitical life;yetitsforceandimportance isnevereasy to assess. For the studentof Peelitehistorythe problems are magnified.In a period whenpartytiesweretenuous andfragile,those of thePeelire partywereevenmore tenuousand more fragile.For all practicalpurposes the Peelires lackeda party apparatus. In asense theyeven lacked aleader. Forafterhisretirement fromofficein •846,SirRobertPeel,theirnominalleader,steadfastly refusedeithertoclaimor to exercise thepowers ofleadership. NorcanitbesaidthatthePeelites evenpossessed a special policywhichdistinguished themfromothersections in Parliament. On many issues theyvotedwiththeLiberals, onsometheyw)tedwithDerbyireconservatives, andonotherstheyweredeeplydividedamongthemselves. Eventodetermine who thePeelires were,tosaynothingof writingtheircollective history,isabigjob. In ThePeelites andthe PartySystem, Professor Conacher covers thefirstsixyears of theparty's history. Here,asinhisotherPeelite studies, Professor Conacher's scholarshipissolid ,accurate, andjudicious.Byanalyzingtwenty-eight parliamentaryvotes Professor ConacherhasshownthatthePeelites wereamuchsmallergroupthanone mightthink. Of the •x3 free-tradeor liberalconservatives who werereturnedin •847, he estimates thatonlyforty-eightmaybe classified asPeetites; thirty-twohe classifies asDerbyites; theremainingthirty-threewhodisplayed nosteady patternof votingareleftwithoutclassification. Valuableastheseidentifications are,it mightbe regrettedthatProfessor Conacherdid notattempttoestablish howmanyfree-trade conservatives showeda patternof liberalvoting.Doubtless, the numberof Peelites 102 THE CANADIAN HISTORICAL REVIEW who slippedto the left rather than to the right is probablysmall.There were, moreover, veryfewdivisions wherealeakage towards theLiberals couldbeplausibly demonstrated. Nevertheless, very few of the divisions whichhavebeentakenfor analysis canbeentirely explained interms ofaPeelire oraDerbyire vote.In Professor Conacher's lists, thatquondam Peelire, LordAshley, isshown swinging back andforth, votingsometimes withthePeelires andsometimes withtheDerbyires. Butif Ashley was driftinganywhere, itwas notbackwards totheToriesbutforwards totheWhigs. It wouldnot be unreasonable to representhisvoteagainstHume'sincome-tax resolutions of •848,notasPeelire butasaWhigvote.Likewise, Ashley's votefor the Ecclesiastical TitlesBillmightbefairlyrepresented asaWhigratherthanaDerbyire vote.Thisisnottosuggest thatmanyofthePeelires followed Ashley's example; nor todenythattheprobabilities liewithProfessor Conacher's classifications. Butthereis nevertheless the naggingquestion: if patternsof votingare takento demonstrate partyallegiance, howcanwetellin theendthathisforty-eight Peelires arenotreally fortyseight Liberals? In comparison with Professor Conacher's painstaking and intelligentstudy,The Peelires by Professors Erickson andJonesisslipshod andcareless. Throughoutthe latterworkthe documentation isgenerallyscrappy andmisleading. Important and debatable statements of fact are often made without reference to sources. Where references aresupplied, theyveryoftengiveonlypartialandquestionable supportto the statements theyareintendedto verify.The interpretationof materialtendsat timesto be feeble.To showNewcastle's meritsascolonialsecretary, theycite his refusalto grant responsible government to Newfoundland.'The wisdomof his caution,' theyargue,'was latertobedemonstrated whentheislandreceived responsiblegovernment andwentbankrupt.'The authorseitherdonotknowor donotsee fittomentionthattheNewfoundland bankruptcy occured almost eighty years afterit received responsible government. Their account of the •847election isbothnaYve and ill-informed. The authorsdo not seemto realize that electionresultsin many constituencies andparticularly soin places likeHarwich,Lewes, andTotneswere determined bybribery. Forthisreason, onemaynotassume without proofthatthe return of a Peelirecandidate demonstratesthat the electorsof a constituencynecessarilyapprove of Peelire policy. In Harwich, Lewes, andTotnestheonlykindof free-tradethat matteredwasthe free-trade in votes.The bookcontainsmanyerrors on pointsof detail.In oneshortparagraph describing theformation of Derby's government in •852,wearetoldthatAshley 'would notaccept office ...'Infact, Derby did not offer Ashleya place.We are toldthat Lyndhurst wasboundto the new government byanearldom. In fact,Lyndhurst remained ashewas, abaron.Finally, the Duke of Northumberlandisput in the wrongoffice.This isnotto suggest that Professors Erickson andJones arealways wrong,oreventhattheyarewrongmost of thetime.Butitisachallenge forthereadertodetermine exactly whentheyareright. F.A. DREYER University qfWester•t O•ttario E,s'says' ona MatureEconomy: Britainqfter•84o. Edited by DONALD N. MCCLOSKEY. LondonandToronto,Methuen,•97•. PP.xvi,439.$• •.95. ...