OCR Specification focus:
‘Tory governments 1815–1830; Liverpool, Canning and Wellington as Prime Ministers.’
The Tory governments between 1815 and 1830 faced profound challenges, including economic distress, radical agitation, foreign policy demands, and internal party divisions, while producing distinctive leadership styles.
The Tory Party after 1815
Following the end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815, Britain faced significant economic hardship, social unrest, and demands for political reform. The Tory Party, dominant in government, responded through a mixture of repression and measured reform. Three Prime Ministers—Lord Liverpool, George Canning, and the Duke of Wellington—shaped the period, each reflecting different priorities and leadership styles.
Lord Liverpool’s Premiership (1812–1827)
Consolidating Tory Control
Lord Liverpool became Prime Minister in 1812 and held office until 1827, the longest continuous premiership of the period.
He was noted for his moderate and conciliatory style, which enabled him to manage factions within the Tory Party.
Formal portrait of Robert Banks Jenkinson, 2nd Earl of Liverpool (Prime Minister 1812–1827) by Sir Thomas Lawrence. His pragmatic leadership helped steady the Tory Party after wartime upheaval. Source
His leadership was not charismatic, but it was stable and pragmatic, which provided continuity after wartime turmoil.
Policies and Domestic Challenges
Liverpool’s government was defined by the need to balance order with reform:
Repressive measures against radical threats, including the Six Acts (1819), followed the Peterloo Massacre.
Economic distress, unemployment, and high food prices intensified discontent, while the Corn Law of 1815 created further divisions.
Despite repression, Liverpool introduced limited reforms, such as:
Repeal of the Combination Laws (1824–25) allowing trade unions to exist (although partially reversed).
The Criminal Law reforms led by Peel, simplifying legal codes.
Liverpool’s strength lay in managing a broad cabinet with reformist ministers like Huskisson and Peel balanced against ultra-Tories such as Eldon.
George Canning’s Premiership (1827)
Rise of Canning
George Canning, Foreign Secretary under Liverpool, became Prime Minister in 1827 after Liverpool’s retirement due to ill health.
His appointment split the Tory Party, as ultra-Tories refused to serve under him, objecting to his more liberal reputation.
Foreign Policy and Domestic Direction
Canning’s leadership marked a continuation of his independent foreign policy, particularly recognising the independence of Latin American states and resisting the reactionary Holy Alliance.
Map showing the Holy Alliance of Austria, Prussia, and Russia formed in 1815. Britain under Canning resisted this conservative bloc to pursue an independent foreign policy. Source
Domestically, his government was too short-lived to produce major reform, as he died in office after only a few months in August 1827.
Holy Alliance: A conservative coalition of Russia, Austria, and Prussia formed after 1815 to suppress revolutionary and liberal movements in Europe.
Canning’s tenure reflected the increasing fragmentation within the Tory Party between reformists and traditionalists.
The Duke of Wellington’s Premiership (1828–1830)
A Military Hero in Politics
The Duke of Wellington, victor at Waterloo, succeeded Canning after a brief interlude under Lord Goderich.
Despite his military prestige, he lacked political flexibility and was seen as a reactionary figure.
Policy Achievements
Wellington’s government is notable for key reforms despite his conservative reputation:
Catholic Emancipation (1829):
The granting of political rights to Catholics, including the right to sit in Parliament, was a landmark moment.
Wellington, with Peel, conceded emancipation in response to rising tensions in Ireland and the mobilisation of Daniel O’Connell’s Catholic Association.
This reform, however, alienated many ultra-Tories, causing deep fractures in the party.
Decline of Wellington’s Government
Wellington’s refusal to contemplate parliamentary reform earned him the nickname “the Iron Duke.”
His hostility to reform, combined with economic problems and growing popular discontent, undermined his position.
By 1830, following a vote of no confidence, Wellington resigned, signalling the collapse of Tory unity.
Contrasting Leadership Styles
Liverpool
Pragmatic, managerial, and skilled in balancing factions.
More successful in sustaining party unity and long-term government.
Canning
Charismatic, liberal-leaning, and innovative in foreign policy.
His short premiership prevented lasting change but exposed deep party divisions.
Wellington
Rigid, authoritarian, and reliant on military prestige.
Oversaw one of the most significant reforms (Catholic Emancipation) but unwillingly, and lost credibility on wider reform issues.
The Tory Governments in Context
Achievements
Maintained stability after the Napoleonic Wars.
Introduced selective legal and economic reforms, especially under Peel and Huskisson.
Presided over landmark changes like Catholic Emancipation.
Limitations
Repression of radicals alienated parts of society.
Failure to address growing demands for parliamentary reform contributed to instability.
Increasing divisions within the Tory Party made governance difficult by the late 1820s.
Legacy
By 1830, the Tories were deeply divided between reformists and ultra-Tories.
The leadership transitions from Liverpool to Canning to Wellington highlight the struggle between continuity and change.
These governments set the stage for the debates over parliamentary reform that culminated in the Reform Act of 1832.
FAQ
Many ultra-Tories regarded Canning as too liberal, particularly due to his earlier support for Catholic Emancipation and his reputation for independent foreign policy.
They feared his leadership would weaken traditional Tory principles, so senior figures such as the Duke of Wellington and Robert Peel declined to serve in his cabinet, leaving his government fragile from the start.
Liverpool used a pragmatic style of leadership, carefully balancing his cabinet with both progressive ministers and staunch conservatives.
Reformers such as Peel and Huskisson were given space to pursue moderate legal and economic reforms.
Ultras, like Lord Eldon, were retained in office to reassure the traditionalist faction.
By acting as a mediator rather than pushing strong personal views, Liverpool sustained cohesion for over a decade.
Daniel O’Connell mobilised the Catholic Association in Ireland, turning local grievances into mass political pressure.
When O’Connell won a parliamentary seat in County Clare in 1828, the government faced a crisis: he could not legally take his seat without emancipation.
Wellington and Peel feared widespread unrest if O’Connell was barred, leading them to concede Catholic Emancipation despite strong Tory opposition.
The nickname reflected his rigid, authoritarian style in government. Wellington was admired for his military victories but criticised for his inflexibility in political life.
He opposed parliamentary reform, dismissed growing demands for change, and resisted compromise. This unyielding stance reinforced his reputation as “iron,” both strong and obstinate, but it also cost him political support by 1830.
While Liverpool focused heavily on domestic stability, Canning’s influence as Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister shifted Britain toward an assertive, independent role abroad.
Canning recognised the independence of Latin American states, opening new markets for Britain.
He opposed the Holy Alliance, preferring to support liberal movements where they benefited British interests.
This contrasted with Liverpool’s cautious conservatism, marking Canning as more outward-looking and progressive in international affairs.
Practice Questions
Question 1 (2 marks)
Which Prime Minister was responsible for the passage of the Roman Catholic Relief Act in 1829?
Mark Scheme:
1 mark for identifying the Prime Minister as the Duke of Wellington.
1 mark for also mentioning Peel’s role in supporting its passage.
Question 2 (6 marks)
Explain how divisions within the Tory Party affected the leadership of Liverpool, Canning and Wellington between 1815 and 1830.
Mark Scheme:
1–2 marks: General statements about Tory divisions without specific examples (e.g., mention of “splits” or “factions”).
3–4 marks: Some explanation of divisions linked to individual leaders, e.g.:
Liverpool balancing reformers (Huskisson, Peel) and ultras (Eldon).
Canning facing opposition from ultra-Tories unwilling to serve under him.
Wellington alienating ultras after Catholic Emancipation.
5–6 marks: Developed explanation across all three leaders, showing clear links between leadership and Tory divisions, supported by specific examples from policies/events (e.g., Corn Law debates, Catholic Emancipation, foreign policy differences).
.svg){kind=link}