The Tory administration of 1812 to 1827 has been debated by Historians for decades .Early analysis concluded that it could be divided into two stages , a ?repressive? phase from 1815 to 1822 and a more liberal phase from 1822 to 1827 . Later Historians such as Cookson or Gash however have convincingly disregarded with this view stating that Liverpool?s administration was ?neither reactionary or reformist in 1822? .The key to understanding the differences in Tory rule between 1815 and 1827 lie in the distinction between the ?political? and ?economic? responses of Toryism .The years 1815 to 1822 show a typical response of an aristocratic government in the face of radical reform , where as 1822 to 1827 demonstrate that reforms of a non-fundamental nature could be conceded when the government thought them expedient , and when there was no threat of public unrest or social instability . N. Gash argues that ?the mythical transformation of the ministry from ??reactionary tory?? before 1822 to ??liberal tory?? afterwards was the invention of subsequent Historians .Liverpool?s object was not to alter course but to reorganise his crew for a voyage that had already started ?. The 1822 cabinet reshuffle after the death of Castlereagh played no significant part in the introduction of free trade for example . Many of the more progressive , free trading ministers after 1822 had served long apprentiships in the so deemed ? repressive ? administration before this date .Robinson had been in the government since 1809 , Huskisson since 1815 and Peel since 1812 .These men had fixed views on free trade and laissez faire government well before 1822 . The policies and schemes adopted between 1822 and 1827 were already in existence and merely speeded up . Peel for instance , found that a pattern for reform in criminal law had already been set up by an 1819 committee led by Romilly , Mackintosh and Buxton . The reforms introduced during this period were ?concessionary? and did not attempt to alter the basic constitutional structure .The Tories were willing to reform where necessary , however , often the legislation?s passed only attempted to increase the efficiency of existing systems and not create more liberal ones. If a date must be found for a change in Liverpool?s domestic policies 1819 is a better candidate than 1822 .As Evans argues , until this date ministers felt agriculture and not industry provided the better prospect for economic growth. This is demonstrated by Britain returning to the Gold Standard and the initialisation of Free Trade through economists such as Ricardo. In summary , the Tory administration of 1812 to 1827 changed very little in its principles and beliefs . Free trade and law and order can be considered two of the main themes in Liverpool?s administration . The initialisation of Free trade in 1819 can be traced back to Pitt?s government during the late eighteenth century . The Tory?s principles on law and order also remained the same before and after 1822 , acting strongly in the face of public unrest and violence . This is demonstrated by the Peterloo massacre of 1819 and the repeal of the Combination laws in 1825 following Trade Union violence . Liverpool?s policies from 1815 to 1827 were controlled either by economic circumstance or by the aristocratic principles which bound him . The year 1822 marks not a sudden change in Liverpool?s domestic policy but a transition from war time debt and public unrest to economic prosperity and social stability .