WI: No Corn Law Split?

[Kaurne]

During the period from 1820 onwards, there was strong opposition to the existence of the Corn Laws, particularly after 1841 when Richard Cobden was elected to Parliament. It was he who Peel described as the main driving force behind the Repeal of the Corn Laws, and John Bright was his main ally, they had founded the Anti-Corn law League in 1838.

My idea is not to block the repeal of the Corn Laws, but rather delay it. If one or both of them never becomes an MP, it might delay the Repeal of the Corn Laws. The last general election had been in 1841, so an election was needed in 1847 or 1848. If The debate on the Corn laws is delayed long enough that the split is only just beginning by the time of the election, and hopefully the Whigs win it, then the Corn laws may be repealed without the Conservative Party splitting over it. This might occur even if some Conservatives votes for Repeal.

My question is, what will the effects be?

Obviously, Peel is going to remain at the political forefront for a bit longer. Gladstone is going to remain a Conservative for a bit longer, although he strikes me as someone who may vote with the Whigs on this issue, and may eventually migrate over to the Whigs.

As for the long term effects, that's tricky. All the administrations are going to be different. Crimea will probably still occur and something like the Liberal Party may be founded - free trade was a major uniting force - but neither will be like they were in our history.

The later ministries will of course be very different, especially as, without Disraeli's speech castigating Peel or Disraeli becoming Chancellor and have his budget fail in 1852 thanks to Gladstone, there won't be the big rivalry between the two that existed in our timeline.

In fact, without the split, Disraeli might not ever become Prime Minister, and neither will Gladstone, although I am sure both will still be somewhat prominent politicians.

Any thoughts?