Talk:Robert Peel

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Catholic Emancipation[edit]

I've got the impression from other sources that Peel changed his stance on emancipation in the 1830s and acted in favour of it. This is noted on certain pages, Ultra-Tories is one of them, but not on Robert Peel. Does anyone know why? 81.105.137.65 (talk) 18:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to Douglas Hurd's biography, Peel concluded that Ireland would simply be ungovernable unless emancipation was passed. LastDodo (talk) 15:30, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Old talk page post[edit]

In George Square in Glasgow, there is a statue of the man, with his birth and death dates being 2nd July 1788 and 5th July 1850 respectively, yet these are not the dates on wiki? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.63.243 (talk) 22:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This Google search reveals many hits for a 5 February birth and a 2 July death, and none for any other permutations. I suggest the makers of that statue got their facts wrong. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Father confusion[edit]

I'm confused by the following sentence: "More importantly, his sponsor for the election—as well as his father—was Arthur Wellesley, ..." When I read it I thought Arthur Wellesley was Peel's father. That's not the case, is it? Could someone who knows whether his father sponsored him or not or whatever was meant please reformulate this bit?

His father (also called Robert Peel) did sponsor his campaign, as well as the Duke of Wellington. But Wellington was not peel's father (otherwise he'd have been known as Robert Wellesley!)

I don't think we should move someone like Peel to this page. "Robert Peel" is fairly sufficient to identify him. john 21:09, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Any objections to getting him moved back? Timrollpickering 17:36, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
None from me. Keep this as a redirect, though. Mackensen 17:43, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Extra picture[edit]

There's another shot of Peel on Wikipedia, but so far only Politics of the United Kingdom is using it. Here it is if anyone wants to find it easily:

Robert Peel

Timrollpickering 20:18, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't think Peel should be identified as a member of the "Conservative Party," Peel was known for being something of an independent. Also, his followers weren't known after his death as Peelites for nothing.

Peel was the acknowledged leader of the party between 1834 and 1846. He is considered by many to be the founder. He may have left the party but should be identified here as a Conservative as much as Ramsay MacDonald should be identified as Labour. Timrollpickering 20:48, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. Peel virtually refounded the party, and certainly was responsible for making the term 'conservative' popular. He was the first true Conservative, in that sense, and thus should be accorded recognition of the fact. Polocrunch 11:21, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also suggest breaking Peel's life up, to make it easier to read, and including more detail on the actions of the governments in which he took part, particularly those actions for which he was mostly responsible. Polocrunch 11:21, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up Request[edit]

I added the clean up request after noticing that the article is one great block. It should be divvyed up into section to make it less daunting. -- Benn M. 03:21, 2005 May 28 (UTC)

I gave cleaning it up a shot. -- ILFoxtrot 19:23 hrs. July, 19, 2005.
Thanks. Clean-up request removed. --Benn M. 07:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Irish connection[edit]

The fact that he helped set up a police force in Ireland and that he was nicknamed "Orange Peel" IS actually true. Someone from my class edited this into Wikipedia as we are studying about that period in Irish history at the moment. I know that it seems a little weird and perhaps they should have cited sources but this is true as far as I am aware and so I think it was a mistake to edit it out. XYaAsehShalomX 18:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The IP contributing that also added a great deal of vandalism to Wikipedia, which is why I thought that this was vandalism (well, that, and the fact that it's pretty weird). I've restored the contribution. Thanks for your help, and apologies for my itchy trigger finger. :) --Ashenai (talk) 18:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Peelers[edit]

In the main article it mentions policemen being nicknamed Peelers or Bobbies which it claims are still in use today. I've honestly never heard a policeman called a Peeler, but have regularly used the term Bobby - has the prior term gone out of usage? And if so perhaps the article should be updated? TheMoog 22:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, I still hear it used regularly, maybe it varies regionally.
(e.g. busies seems to be used only on Merseyside)
Wnjr (talk) 14:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The term 'peelers' can be seen used in a an irish play by j.m Synge called 'the playboy of the western world'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.177.189 (talk) 16:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Technically there were 2 police forces that pre date Robert Peels police. There was a temporary police force in Edenborough a few decades before and the Westminster and Yorkminster hade their own police for centuries! It says this on their website! Yokminster police! In the ottoman Empire as far as I gather the janissaries were sort of an army/ police force of their time!

Peel Tower / Statue[edit]

I think somebody should include & cross reference this with Peel Tower which was built on Holcombe Hill as a dedication, see Bury and Ramsbottom pages on the wiki. Also the statue of Sir Robert Peel outside the Robert Peel pub in the town centre.

The Great Famine[edit]

'As an aside in reference to the Repeal of the Corn Laws, Peel did make some moves to subsidise the purchase of food for the Irish, but this attempt was small and had little tangible effect. To criticise Peel for acting too late in repealing the Corn Laws, or for not giving enough subsidies to the Irish, shows a misunderstanding of the historical context.' No Englander did enough for the Irish before, during or after the Great Famine were more than ONE MILLION People died.

I found a reference for the sentence stating that Peel thought about repealing the Corn Laws before the Great Famine. I am not sure how to put in a citation, maybe someone else could insert it: Evans, Eric J. (1996) The Forging of the Modern State: Early Industrial Britain, 2nd ed., London and New York: Longman, 264 (C.U.)

I read that Peel wanted to solve the problems in Ireland but met with heavy resistance from his own party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.203.96 (talk) 16:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disraeli[edit]

What is the picture of Disraeli doing in the "Corn laws and after" section? Granted, he was a successor of sorts, but the text does not actually mention him as it stands... 13:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Wrong PM[edit]

Why is there a picture of Lord John Russell in this article, citing him as PM for the dates Peel was Prime Minister? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.45.127 (talk) 19:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - the picture of Disraeli appears to have been removed, butt he article is still illustrated with pictures of Wellington, Lord John Russell and Lord Grey. I think these pictures could be removed without any loss to the article, and perhaps some gain in terms of keeping the focus on Peel. It could be illustrated with any number of other pictures illustrative of Peel's career (eg a pic of an original Met Police bobby) Bronxrichie (talk)bronxrichie —Preceding undated comment added 16:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Should it be Ministry or ministry?[edit]

Bazuz (talk) 00:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vidocq[edit]

Eugène François Vidocq created the Sûreté in 1812. This predates the founding of the Metropolitan Police Force in 1829. Surely this should be mentioned in the article lest it be accused of anglocentrism. 82.171.40.25 (talk) 22:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Factory Act of 1844 was reform in any century[edit]

Under "Factory Act", you say it: "...was in fact aimed at the reformers themselves, with their constituency among the new industrial rich. The Factory Act 1844 acted more against these industrialists than it did against the traditional stronghold of the Conservatives, the landed gentry,..." I imagine that laborers, including women and children, experienced this absolutely as reform. I don't think they cared about disempowering a bunch of gentlemen farmers on the way out. Industrialists, however, as I recall, worked them hard, what - 12? 14? - hours a day? 7 days a week? With poor safety precautions? And you call them reformers? -lifeform (talk) 05:23, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Robert Peel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:26, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Namesakes - suggested deletions[edit]

I notice under namesakes 'Elsewhere' you list:

I propose them for deletion because they are named for the locality they serve rather than after Peel himself.Cloptonson (talk) 09:25, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Intro in need of a trim[edit]

Far too much detail. As per other articles, 3-4 paragraphs should be our target. - Snori (talk) 14:58, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

agreed-- I trimmed it to 4 paragraphs. Of course as one of the most famous men in British history he is available for Wiki's use of exceptions regarding space limits. Rjensen (talk) 15:20, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have got the wrong MP[edit]

Why is there a picture of Lord Russell This needs to be fixed ASAP

Involvement in slave trade and abolition[edit]

Should this page have more detail and clarity on Peel’s stance on slave trade and abolition? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.55.139 (talk) 06:36, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peel was only 19 at the time the slave trade was abolished in 1807, so his views on that are not of much interest, even if they can be established. Slavery itself is a different matter, since he actually led the opposition in Parliament at the time of the Slavery Abolition Act 1833. As far as I know he did not have strong feelings on slavery and his speeches in Parliament seem to be more concerned with 'doing emancipation right' than doing it or not doing it. For example he writes of the need
"to amalgamate two distinct and separate races and supply a better stimulus to negro labour, than the old base and degrading stimulus of the whip. The object would be, not to create a dominion of free blacks content with the mere necessaries of life, but to train the present slaves into a taste for the comforts and even for the luxuries of existence, to accustom them in that manner to the habits of honest industry, and to place them in that state of moral discipline which would enable the House, in unloosing their fetters, to feel that it was not acting inconsistently with the safety of the whites, or the happiness of the negroes themselves."
But he is also concerned the plantation owners are not hard done by. My impression is his views are not straightforward and thus I think it will require an expert to portray his position accurately and fairly. LastDodo (talk) 15:56, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did he have any children[edit]

IT DOES NOT SAY 2A02:C7E:326F:5D00:B582:5644:90F3:6A81 (talk) 16:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It gives considerable detail on his 7 children. TRY READING THE ARTICLE! Johnbod (talk) 16:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am so sorry[edit]

I have said things I regret and I am sorry for that and thanks for all the people who fixed my wrongs I appreciate them a lot and it would mean a lot if you would forgive me thank you for your precious time Sincerely anonymous 2A02:C7E:326F:5D00:A59E:FE64:F735:5DB1 (talk) 17:55, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

photograph[edit]

The article states that he was the first sitting prime minister to be photographed. Does it still exist? and if so, why isn't it in the article?Notwisconsin (talk) 11:38, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good question and one I'd like to know the answer to. Douglas Hurd actually says "Peel was the last Prime Minister not to be photographed."[1] I can't access the sources in the article, so what is the truth? TrottieTrue (talk) 01:02, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Opium War section needs an edit[edit]

This is how it currently opens. Terrible grammar. Someone who knows the subject should edit it. I've capitalised the worst bits.

"In 1838, before Peel became prime minister, there HAVE been growing tensions between the British East India Company and the Chinese Empire during the past years over the importation and trade of opium, which had been occurring for nearly a century. And when the trade of this particular product, DUE TO IT BEING SMUGGLED UNLAWFULLY BY MERCHANTS, IT become a serious political and economic problem, was IT was largely controversial. " AidanMcCaffery (talk) 21:23, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Possible copyright problem[edit]

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. — SamX [talk · contribs] 17:55, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Robert_Peel&oldid=1206931295"