“But it may be that I shall leave a name sometimes remembered with expressions of goodwill in the abodes of those whose lot it is to labour, and to earn their daily bread by the sweat of their brow, when they shall recuit their exhausted strength with abundant and untaxed food, the sweeter because it is no longer leavened by a sense of injustice”.
– Sir Robert Peel, British statesman (1788-1850)
The quote by Peel above, coming as it does from one of the greatest of British statesmen and a free-trader who paid a high political price for his convictions, ought to be remembered as we contemplate the recent trip by President George W. Bush to Africa, and indeed the trips by numerous western leaders to the poorer parts of the world.
We live in times when we are constantly told that it is the duty of the prosperous industrial nations to help lift their poorer peers, such as in Africa, to a wealthier state. And yet nothing could be more useful in that aim than if governments, such as those which support the EU and U.S. farm subsidies, chose the path of genuine laissez faire.
Sir Robert Peel may not be a name familiar to many people today – more’s the pity. He may be mainly known as the man who established London’s Metropolitan Police (which is why our police are still sometimes called “bobbies”).
When one considers how he put the industrial future and prosperity of the masses before the vested interests of the land by embracing free trade, the dimwits who inhabit our government today look very small indeed.
His view on free trade was a big enough issue to split the Tory/Conservative party at the time, right?
I used to have a small reference book which listed the political colouring of different governments, and I was fascinated by the one 19th-century government labelled ‘Peelite’ interrupting the Whig/Liberal and Tory/Conservative duopoly.
An article in this week’s Spectator about how ‘Blairite’ won’t mean much after Blair is gone compared to ‘Thatcherite’ still having, like it or not, a coherent meaning, comes to mind.
Jonathan
Whilst Peel is to be applauded for his free trade views, his position on Catholics is odious, which hardly places him in the status of one of the greatest British statesmen.
I quote from the next posting regarding opponents of fox hunting –
“The class warriors are not ‘progressive’ at all… they are in fact the heirs to a view of the role of the politics which in days gone used law to oppress other despised minorities, such as homosexuals or Roman Catholics.”
Edmund Burke – great email address, BTW – you are wrong on your history. Peel, it is true while he was Irish Secretary and during most of his tenure at the Home Office, opposed Catholic Emancipation. However, a combination of factors meant that by 1829 he felt there was no alternative but to grant Catholics the vote. It was a decision which cost him politically at the time. Indeed his nickname changed from “orange peel” to lemon peel”.
Peel recognised that shutting Catholics out of the franchaise was not tenable or justifiable. His decision was a brave one and, like on Free Trade, his claim to statesmanship of the highest order is soundly based.
Check out, if it is still available, the biography of Peel by Norman Gash. Probably the definitive book. Should be available from any decent major library.
Fair enough, I was unaware of his later volte-face. I will check out the Norman Gash book.