PEEL, John (1804-1872), of Middleton Hall, near Tamworth, Staffordshire

‘One of the merchant princes of Manchester’, Peel had been a supporter of his first cousin, the Conservative leader Sir Robert Peel, 2nd baronet.1Cheshire Observer, 6 Apr. 1872. However, by the time he was first elected to Parliament in 1863 he was generally regarded as a Liberal Conservative or a ‘moderate Liberal’, labels that did not, perhaps, do justice to his longstanding support for the secret ballot and female suffrage.2The Times, 3 Apr. 1872. His commercial expertise was put to good use as an MP, as ‘although not a brilliant orator, his knowledge of foreign countries and extensive business capacity made him a most valuable member of Parliament’.3Birmingham Daily Post, 3 Apr. 1872.

Peel’s father, Thomas Peel, of Peele Fold, Lancashire, was a calico printer.4F. Boase, Modern English biography (1901), iii. 1433. His younger brother Sir Robert Peel (1750-1830), 1st baronet, later converted his textile fortune into landed estates, including Drayton Manor in Tamworth, and groomed his sons for careers in politics, law, the army and the church. By contrast, the Peels of Peele Fold remained in trade and Peel ‘passed much of his youth abroad’ as a merchant.5Birmingham Daily Post, 3 Apr. 1872. A member of the family’s merchant house in Manchester, Peel became the senior partner on the withdrawal of his brother William, after which the firm was known as J. Peel and company.6London Gazette, 9 Sept. 1842, 19 Jan. 1844. Peel was also a partner in merchant houses based in Bombay and Alexandria.7Ibid.

Peel later said that ‘when young, he spent a great deal of time abroad, and did not attach himself to any political party’, but on his return had ‘attached himself to the party which owned the late Sir Robert Peel as its chief and guide.’8Birmingham Daily Post, 12 Oct. 1863. Accordingly, like many Manchester Conservatives, he strongly supported his cousin’s repeal of the corn laws in 1846. Peel was one of the main movers behind the abortive attempt to put up the Peelite Lord Lincoln for Manchester at the next dissolution. At one public meeting in December 1846, he described Lincoln as ‘one of the most liberal men in the House of Commons’, a free trade candidate who would be more to the taste of local moderates and Conservatives than John Bright.9Manchester Courier, 12 Dec. 1846. Although Lincoln came to Peel’s house, Swinton Park, and addressed a public meeting in January 1847, he later withdrew.10Manchester Courier, 13 Jan. 1847. During the same period Peel was also active in the campaign for a reduction in tea duties.11Manchester Courier, 9 Dec. 1846, 17 Feb. 1847.

In the early 1850s Peel leased Middleton Hall, near Tamworth, from the Willoughby family. Although he continued his mercantile career, he took an interest in local farming, and was active in the Tamworth Agricultural Society.12Farmer’s Magazine, xx (1861), 21-5. After a vacancy arose at Tamworth in September 1863, Peel accepted a requisition to stand, describing himself as a Liberal Conservative follower of the late Sir Robert Peel.13The Times, 18 Sept. 1863. However, the son and namesake of his illustrious cousin, Sir Robert Peel, 3rd baronet, MP for and patron of Tamworth, swung his influence behind his opponent, the step-son of Lord Palmerston. In response to Sir Robert’s taunts about exploiting the family name, Peel replied that his father was the eldest of the Peel brothers and had inherited the ancient family estates in Lancashire, so ‘if he had not a right to the name of Peel, who had?’ He also emphasised that he would offer an independent support to Palmerston.14Birmingham Daily Post, 29 Sept. 1863. In his nomination speech, Peel complained that he had been variously described as a ‘disciple of John Bright’, a Tory, a protectionist and a member of the Carlton Club.15Birmingham Daily Post, 12 Oct. 1863. He was elected after a rancorous contest, and relations with his colleague and kinsman remained cool.

In his maiden speech, 14 Apr. 1864, Peel voiced support for Barttelot’s motion that the reduction in malt duty should be prioritised over the diminution of the sugar duties. Peel claimed that a reduction in malt duty would relieve farmers and added that it was unjust not to extend free trade to domestic articles such as barley.16Hansard, 14 Apr. 1864, vol. 174, cc. 986-8. The Liberal Sir John Trelawny noted in his diary that ‘Peel, the new MP for Tamworth, provokes no severe comment & was, at least, quiet & unpretending’.17The parliamentary diaries of Sir John Trelawny, 1858-1865, ed. T. Jenkins, Camden, 4th series, xl, (1990), 271. The following year Peel unsuccessfully moved a wrecking motion to the government’s partnership amendment bill, 1 May 1865. Having canvassed commercial opinion, Peel argued that there was no demand for a change and ‘it would be better to leave well alone’.18Hansard, 1 May 1865, vol. 178, cc. 1281-4 (at 1282). He was especially critical of the proposal allowing investment from secret partners who would not be registered or publicised, which would ‘open the door widely to deliberate fraud’.19Ibid., cc. 1283-4.

At the 1865 general election, where both Peels were returned against a token opposition, Sir Robert pointedly noted four points of difference with his colleague, who had opposed the reduction of sugar duty and the partnership law amendment bill and supported the censure of the lord chancellor, Lord Westbury and a £6 franchise.20Birmingham Daily Post, 13 July 1865. In response, Peel criticised the malt tax ‘as opposed to the principles of free trade’, argued that Westbury had ‘been guilty of corruption’, and repeated his objections to reforming partnership law. On the franchise, ‘he did not attach much importance to a mere brick-and-mortar qualification’ but supported extending the suffrage to ‘the thrifty and intelligent members of the working classes’.21The Times, 13 July 1865.

After the election, Peel became a reliable supporter of the Liberal government, supporting their reform bill and voting against Grosvenor’s amendment for redistribution, 27 Apr. 1866. He also opposed Dunkellin’s successful amendment for a rateable franchise, 18 June 1866, which was backed by Sir Robert Peel and other dissident Liberals in league with the Conservatives, prompting the resignation of Russell’s government. The following year Peel supported the enfranchisement of compounders and was one of the minority of 73 who backed female suffrage, 20 May 1867. He also favoured the partial disenfranchisement of small boroughs and giving extra representation to the largest towns.

Peel backed Gladstone’s Irish church resolutions, 2 Apr. 1868, but was narrowly relegated into third place by Sir Robert and another Liberal at the general election that year. His petition against the return was unsuccessful, but Peel came in unopposed for a vacancy at Tamworth in March 1871, and died in harness from an apoplectic fit just over a year later.22Tamworth Herald, 6 Apr. 1872. His generosity made him extremely popular in Tamworth, a local newspaper describing him as ‘amiable and benevolent in disposition, and high and honourable in principle … the ideal of an English gentleman’.23Ibid. His personal wealth was sworn under £300,000 and two of his sons Charles and Jerrold continued the family firm, known as Peel, Cassels and company, while two others pursued legal and military careers respectively.24Ibid; Calendar of Grants of Probate and Letters of Administration (1872), 163.