Sir Robert Peel was not the archetypal Tory landowner, but rather the first middle-class man to make any impact in politics, and so heralded in a new meritocracy, with the wholly elected House of Commons more influential than the Lords or the King, and organised into tight political parties with defined policies and objectives.

This did not happen overnight, of course, nor was Peel perfect or consistent during his career. So it is that certain questions about Peel have emerged, not least of which is whether Peel held more dearly to his personal, party interests, or to those of the Country at large: for while it is difficult to argue that he never followed policies that were harmful to many traditional Tory supporters, and led to resentment among his back benches - he broke the party twice, in 1829 and in 1846 - yet it was he who created the system of strict party allegiances, and so is hailed as the founder of party politics in Britain.

Peel\'s lineage was one of self-made men, his grand-father a yeoman farmer, his father a mill-owner. Having been brought up with middle-class values and bought a parliamentary seat (Cashall in Ireland, in 1809) by his ambi

However, the most successful men always have the harshest critics, and Ashley\'s criticism was perhaps unfair. Peel was a very good economist, and his main preoccupation was that the poor should live in better conditions over the long term. He saw that for this to happen, Britain must first become a cheap country to live in, that could compete in international trade. That way, and not by adopting protectionist policies, would conditions in Britain continue to rise. Twenty years later, there were few politicians who still upheld protectionist policies. In his budgets he strove to streamline taxes, to restore confidence in the Pound, to encourage investment. All these, he believed, would result in a stronger economy, that would in turn transmit profits into higher wages for the poor. As for their working conditions, he passed the Factory Act, the Mines Act, and set up a Health Commission. He was cautious, however, and favoured laissez faire, not least because his own party was so set against any further concessions.

He saw the duty of the Tories/Conservatives to be a brake on reformist zeal, and believed in \"constructive opposition\". \"I will not undertake to adopt ...every popular impression of the day\" nor \"live in a perpetual vortex of agitation\", he explained in the 1834 Tamworth Manifesto, but supported change \"combining with the firm maintenance of established rights, the correction of proved abuse and the redress of real grievances\". \"The just and impartial consideration of what is due to all interests - agricultural, manufacturing, and commercial\" was his objective. In all of this, Peel the Statesman comes through, one who did not care if he broke his party, so long as the interests of the Nation were served, as happened in 1846 with the repeal of the Corn Laws.

Some common words found in the essay are:
Corn Laws, Tamworth Manifesto, Cashall Ireland, FR Bonham, Peel Whigs, Lord Ashley, Lords King, Act Peel, Englishmen Peel, Act Union, corn laws, tamworth manifesto, conservative party, repeal corn laws, middle class, reform bill, 1834 tamworth, repeal corn, tory party, legitimate influence salutary, catholic emancipation, 1834 tamworth manifesto, broke party, the legitimate influence, middle class votes,
Approximate Word count = 2516
Approximate Pages = 10 (250 words per page double spaced)