The Tory government was no more liberal from 1822-1827 than 1812-1822. Assess the validity of this statement.

Introduction - Give background to why liberalism was a relevant concept, placing its ascent in the broader context of socio-economic change. Present a clear and coherent sense of your argument, whilst also seeming balanced. Depite the 'liberal' stigma surrounding the 22-27 government, it was no more liberal than the previous one. Refute the use of the terms 'more' or 'less' at all, positing instead that it was a natural progression, not a 'sea change' as has been suggested by some historians. 

First paragraph - Focus on the key people outlined in the introduction and the acts they passed that make the 22-27 government seem liberal (being aware that this is liberalism for THAT time). State laissez-faire economic policies such as Robinson lowering of domestic tea duties. Show constant awareness of the relevance of this for the time (not protectionist upper-class measure as was seen pre-1822 in game laws for example). State a social reform example as well e.g Peel and the Gaols act, and once more demonstrate your knowledge of the subtleties of the period as a whole by commenting on how this is the beginning of government intervention in and awareness of societal needs, deviating from the Tory mould. Do the same with severla examples, analysing each but being concise as well and keeping focus on the term 'liberal. Conclude that both economically and socially the government may merit the liberal 'sea change' title, suggestive of a shift from one period to another.

Second paragraph - Both subvert the seeming 'liberal' nature of 22-27 reforms, but also highlight evidence of liberalism pre-22. Follow same model for analysis and awareness of context as beforehand. Also analyse the true motives behind these reforms. Therefore the 22-27 government may not have been as liberal as it appeared, nor the pre-22 as harsh and reactionary, reducing the binary between the two.

Third pararaph - Deliver a judgement on where you stand (post-22 still probably 'more' liberal even if small distinction, yet introduce a nuance to the answer now. Bring in Evans' argument of continuity between the two governments and their natural progression, refuting the distinction suggested by the question. Analyse your aforementioned acts and 'sea change' of cabinet and come to the conclusion that even the most 'liberal' of acts post 22 had their roots in the previous government, which contained most if not all of the supposed 'enlightened reformers' of the second period. Conclude by siding with Gash that any difference between the two is merely an 'invention', therefore subverting the validity of the statement.

Conclusion -  one cannot deny the myriad of socio-economic reforms post-22, yet this is subverted by question of motives and suggestion of both pre-22 liberalism and post-22 reactionism. Then introduce the nuance and refute the very basis of the argument within your first two paragraphs, for ultimately there was continuity between the two and any artificial distinction has been imposed by us. Therefore the statement is devalidated.