• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

To what extent can the Tory party be responsible for its collapse in 1830?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

By Judi Gebhard To what extent can the Tory party be responsible for its collapse in 1830? Before 1830 the Tory party had been in government for nearly 50 years and had seemed to have everything under control up till 1815, between 1815 and 1830 the government faced many problems and made many changes but by 1830, the party collapsed. There is major debate to what caused the break down. I am going to look at the events leading up to the parties collapse to find out to what extent the Tory party was responsible for its collapse. When the Napoleonic wars came to an end in 1815, it would seemed good news, but it was quite the opposite as the after affects of the wars were left on Britain. Leaving major unemployment, huge money problems and therefore major discontent across British society, this was not helped by the advance in technology and the harsh attitude of the government. ...read more.

Middle

Lord Liverpool the Prime minister, a man that was said have' respect, honesty, professionalism and skilled in controlling', resigned due to health issues. It is obvious that losing a leader with such great talents was going to cause massive disruption. The next year the Tories had different periods experienced 5 different prime ministers all whom were of no good, therefore the party became very rocky and unstable. If finding a prime minister who was good for the job was not bad enough, across the waters major conflict was arousing in Ireland. (just give them potatoes.) Daniel O'Connell, with the support of the Catholic Association, won the county Clare election. However because he was a catholic he was not allowed to take his seat. Wellington the prime minister, had two choices. Either he could pass a Catholic Emancipation Act and let O'Connell take his seat or he could declare the election null and void. Doing this he ran the risk of violence in Ireland, and possible civil war. ...read more.

Conclusion

So I think the decision of Wellington was for the best. Although pleasing the Irish meant displeasing the ultra Tories. However if Wellington decided against Catholic emancipation he could have lost the support of the more liberal Tories. However I do think that the Ultra Tories were largely responsible for the break down. The ultra Tories before 1820 had the British public in mass repression, we can see this by looking at their outbreaks of discontent. They got themselves into this mess by not listening to the public, being to harsh and generally not having much interest in their needs and welfare. I think whatever the public would have got what they wanted as they have millions of people as a threat and would be able to cause a civil war or revolution. I think the Ultra Tories were to blind to see this and without the Liberal Tories this would have happened. However because they did react the Ultras didn't like it and left leaving them with a very weak party which later lead to their collapse. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE Politics section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related GCSE Politics essays

  1. To what extent was ‘Inept Leadership’ responsible for the failure of Chartism?

    His leadership of the movement led to its unity of the people, due to the confidence he inspired in the working classes. It is doubtful that Lovett, with his policy of 'improvement', or any of the other leaders, could have generated these feelings that were vital in creating the success of the "state of mind" that was Chartism's prime achievement.

  2. To What Extent Was Peel's Reorganisation of the Tory Party responsible for the election ...

    Peel, however recognised that by entering Parliament as a minority for the second time, would making him appear as weak and ineffectual as Melbourne had seemed. He would have been robbed of the chance to establish himself as a man of principle hence his bold refusal, much to the surprise and dismay of his party.

  1. Conservative Victory of 1941, Peel and the Weakness of the Whigs.

    Furthermore, Peel was able to judge how well his policies were received in the minds of the electorate by analysing the locations of his party's gains. However, it is the 'Bedchamber Crisis' of 1839 that, in retrospect, appears the most fortunate event for Peel.

  2. Free essay

    To what extent was Sir Robert Peel responsible for the conservative party break up ...

    There were two major groups that wanted reform at the time, the chartist and the anti-corn law league. Chartism began to rise again in the summer of 1841 once O'Connell was released from jail. Paul Adelman shared the view that Peel ignores all of the demand as he believed "Chartism was not a political but a public order problem".

  1. How effectively did Irish Catholic and nationalist leaders advance their cause in the years ...

    Strangely, Parnell did not commit his support to the act and W.E Forster, Irish Secretary, believed he 'was trying to wreck the act' (MacRalid). Whereas O'Connell was satisfied in 1829 it seems Parnell wanted greater reform. Parnell was able to wield more power within parliament than O'Connell due to the weak governments of the time.

  2. To what extent was the Great War responsible for the collapse of the Provisional ...

    However, the question and this investigation are only concerned with the last of these governments in which Alexander Kerensky was the leader or Prime Minister. The weakening of the Provisional Government because of its reforms and policies was a result of its incumbents and hence its collapse may partly be blamed on its leadership.

  1. How effective was the response of Lord Liverpool's government to the domestic problems they ...

    This benefited the landed gentry greatly, who made most of their money out of agriculture, and as long as the Corn Laws existed, their incomes were secured. Unfortunately it made the lives of the poor working classes very difficult, who could barely keep up with the rising corn prices, and although very few people starved, thousands went hungry.

  2. Peel and the Tory party: 1829 - 1841.

    Peel, however, refused, not wanting to enter government under obligation or as a minority. This shows long-term planning on Peel's part and his disinterest in the internal squabbles of government. His first action was to embark on blocking the approaching reform bill backed by Grey's new Whig government.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work