Advertisement

The Peelite

  • J. T. Ward

Abstract

On his retirement from office in June 1846 Graham sought no honour or position, preferring to rest at Netherby. The years of work had taken their toll on his health. He had been ‘an admirable coadjutor of Peel’s, for the business of the House of Commons’, thought Charles Villiers: ‘See how these two men do their business and understand it!’ Colquhoun maintained that Peel and Graham had ‘mutual defects’, but that Graham had one ‘superiority’ in ‘his power of forecasting the future’. In August Hobhouse, Shaw-Lefevre and Labouchere made a ‘comparative estimate of the powers of endurance’ of leading politicians and placed Graham, Peel and Russell ‘very far above all competition’; Labouchére, indeed, believed that Graham’s office ‘gave him more labour than both put together’. Now Graham had no official position and little chance of a seat in the next Parliament. When in November the Prince Consort persuaded him and Lincoln to serve on a new council for the Duchy of Lancaster, there was ‘a great uproar’ among men suspecting a coalition with Russell. Graham explained his feelings while dining with Gladstone.

Keywords

Free Trade Conservative Party Liberal People Government Defeat Emotional Intolerance 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 3.
    Peel to the King of the Belgians, 27 Jan. 1847 (Parker, Peel, iii. 479); Graham to Sandars, 17 Sept. 1846; Torrens, op. cit., ii. 486–98. See J. B. Conacher, ‘Peel and the Peelites, 1846–50’ (English Hist. Rev., lxxiii. 288, July 1958).Google Scholar
  2. 5.
    Clarendon to Graham, 21, Lewis to Graham, 24 May, Langdale to Graham, 24 April, Graham to Lewis, 13 Oct. (Parker, Graham, ii. 54–60); Greville, Victoria, iii. 107–8, 124–5 (and cf. ibid., 94); Morley, Gladstone, i. 351. Graham had often played some part in discussions on colonial policy, for instance on the New Zealand Company in 1845, on Canadian agriculture in 1842, on the penal settlements in 1842 and 1845 and on India. See W. P. Morrell, British Colonial Policy in the Age of Peel and Russell (1966 impr.), 120–3, 177–8, 388, 392.Google Scholar
  3. 14.
    Londonderry to Graham and reply, 18 Feb., Lewis to Graham, 24 Jan. 1850; Monypenny, Buckle, op. cit., iii. 242; Morley, Gladstone, i. 587; Lady Londonderry (ed.), Letters from Benjamin Disraeli to Frances Anne, Marchioness of Londonderry (1938), 100; Greville, Victoria, iii. 319–20; Parker, Graham, ii. 97–103.Google Scholar
  4. 18.
    W. Ward, Life and Times of Cardinal Wiseman (1897), i. 625 et seq.Google Scholar
  5. Lady Frances Balfour, Life of George, 4th Earl of Aberdeen (1922), 160Google Scholar
  6. T. C. Edwards, ‘Papal Aggression: 1851’ (History Today, i. 12, Dec. 1951, 42–49); Southgate, Whigs, 190–2.Google Scholar
  7. 20.
    G. M. Trevelyan, The Life of John Bright (1913), 192–5; Cobden to Bright, 22 Nov. 1850, to Joseph Sturge, 19 Feb. 1851 [Lord Morley, The Life of Richard Cobden (1910 ed.), 549–51]; Morley, Gladstone, i. 385–7; Monypenny, Buckle, op. cit., iii. 281–2; Stanmore, op. cit., i. 131 et seq.; Orange and Protestant Banner, July 1855.Google Scholar
  8. 23.
    G. H. L. Le May, ‘The Ministerial Crisis of 1851’ (History Today, i. 6, June 1951, 52–58);Google Scholar

Copyright information

© J. T. Ward 1967

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. T. Ward

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations