Sir Robert Peel is a figure of history that not only embodies the traditional nature of nineteenth century politics, but also a historical reputation constructed by one historian, namely Norman Gash. Gash's hagiography of Peel has become the traditional and accepted view that historians such as Boyd Hilton and David Eastwood have chosen to challenge and oppose. It is these polarized views that make Peel's political career one of such interest. When considering Peel's success as prime minister, the changed nature of politics post the 1832 Reform Act, makes success difficult to define, it seems to depend on the focus of individual historians, be it social, political or economic. But a strong point for determining success is surely Peel's own definition. Peel defined the duties of a prime minister, as 'he will do his best for the great principles that his party supported and for the public welfare' .It is with this in mind that one may begin to unravel Peel's career and challenge his reputation and place in history as 'the model of all prime ministers' .
             One of the great debates of Peel's career is his attitude towards his party and his conception of the responsibilities of a party leader. Peel had been responsible for successfully reuniting the party for the 1841 elections, however by the end of his ministry, in 1846, this unity had been eroded to such an extent that the party was divided over fundamental issues, and voting against their own leader. Ruscombe Foster argues that Peel was responsible for the party's lack of unity due to his own arrogance as well as lack of appreciation for the changed party political system. He disregarded support from his backbenchers in particular and expected their support for his diagnosis of the country's problems. Evidence for this view is that Peel effectively alienated backbenchers with such acts as threatening to resign over 1844 sugar...