Was the death of Lord Liverpool the most important reason for the collapse of the Tory ministries, 1828-30?

Authors Avatar

20/1/2005        Luke Bullen        

Was the death of Lord Liverpool the most important reason for the collapse of the Tory ministries, 1828-30?

The strength of Lord Liverpool, cruelly described by Benjamin Disraeli as the “arch mediocrity,” was brought to attention after his death in 1828. It was clear that his moderate stance towards controversial issues had helped to unite a much-divided party. In unifying the “High” and “Low” Tories, the “Catholics” and the “Protestants,” Liverpool had succeeded where his successors would fail. However, the post-Liverpool Tories were also weakened by the issue of Catholic Emancipation, whose profile was raised through the infamous County Clare elections. One must further question how Liverpool’s survival might have helped the Tories to overcome this ever-present obstacle. The man considered by Gash as “the most underrated Prime Minister in history” would surely have helped.

The criticisms of Lord Liverpool’s tenure stem largely from the distinct lack of progress within Britain during his reign. With governments in Europe moving towards less conservative and more democratic systems, Britain appeared static. However, the unrest caused during this period pales in insignificance when compared to the political situation after Liverpool’s death. His moderate outlook had ensured that he found favour with both High and Low Tories, two groups with distinctly different ideologies. The High Tories, a traditionally ultra-Conservative faction, saw reform as disruptive and unbeneficial. They looked to Liverpool because of his moderate stance over the economic and administrative structure of the country, and because of his refusal to even consider allowing Catholic Emancipation. The more liberal Low Tories, consisting largely of younger and more tolerant politicians, saw that Liverpool was capable of implementing valuable and effective reformations. Liverpool’s measures may not have been revolutionary, but, like Pitt the Younger, he was proficient in being able to draw upon others’ ideas in order to enhance his own. For example, his use of the Seditious Meetings Act to curb radical activity was remarkably similar to Pitt’s; however, it was also just as useful. Thus, we can see that the activities viewed by Disraeli as unimaginative and outdated were, in many respects, inspired. In using tried and tested concepts, Liverpool pleased the majority of the electorate. To those who saw him as a reactionary, the concepts were clearly reliable: they had worked before. Those who regarded Liverpool as weak were reassured by the direct action of the measures within the ‘Six Acts.’ With such actions, Liverpool demonstrated his ability to compromise. Furthermore, the strength of his skill for formulating new plans out of ‘old’ ideas is apparent. Without these two invaluable abilities, the Tories might have split before Liverpool’s untimely departure.

Join now!

However, Lord Liverpool’s stroke occurred after his resignation as Prime Minister. Despite being a much-respected figure, his influence might still have been too weak to salvage the Tory ministries. Certainly, the circumstances inherited by his successors would demand much of any politician. However, Liverpool had won three elections and securely governed the country for eleven years. It was under him that the Napoleonic War was won, instilling in him a legendary status. Romantics had complained about his moderate stance; the poet Shelley said he was a character that “neither sees, nor feels, nor knows.”  He was also heavily criticised in ...

This is a preview of the whole essay