duties, which forced them to support him in fear of another Whig government. However, Foster's view is colored by knowledge of the current political system and he places more emphasis on the importance of 'party' in maintaining power than would have been done in the nineteenth century. He therefore does not take into account the experimental nature of the new party political structure that Peel was subjected to. As Norman Gash suggests, Peel was an MP who had been apprentice to the likes of Liverpool, and Peel, like Liverpool was not a party man .
             The concept of 'Party' being a power that the prime minister was subject to, is a relatively new notion, created in the late nineteenth century and seems unfair to judge Peel by these modern political standards as Foster does. In contrast, Gash argues that Peel's treatment of his party was based on traditional party political structure which meant the function of the party was to sustain their leader, and not as Peel put it, that the tail should not lead the head .Gash however seems to be blinded to any fault in Peel's career, he ignores that Peel did not appreciate the party system and was therefore out of tune with the political climate. Rather, he blames the divisions of the party on the new position of independence that the ministers were placed in, as a result of the new political system, demonstrated by the divisions opened up by the increasing of the Maynooth Grant in 1845 . Conversely, Disraeli argues that Peel himself diminished the power of the government over issues such as Maynooth and that the issue in particular showed 'official despotism and Parliamentary imposture' . Yet Disraeli's perception of Peel should be treated with care, as he was a known opponent of Peel, after he was excluded from his ministry and the latter quote was from a parliamentary debate in which Disraeli was trying to evoke negative feelings towards Pe...