To what extent was British policy in Ireland a success in the years 1868-1886?
"To what extent was British policy in Ireland a success in the years 1868-1886? The British policy to Ireland was always a changing one with different prime ministers having different ideas, such as Peel in the 1920s first saying he doesn't want to pass catholic emancipation but then passing it. Gladstone in these years was firmly against home rule but was always open to reform. Where he gave split his own party to appease Davit and the home rule party by passing the land acts. Gladstone had started this mission by saying he needed to pacify Ireland, because the social and economic situation in Ireland had become really bad. The first bill that was passed in parliament to pacify Ireland was the Irish Church Bill of 1869, the bill proposed the Tithe not being paid to the Church of Ireland anymore as of the 5.8m population in Ireland 5.3m were roman catholic so paying the Tithe wasn't right for them. The act had a number of effects as it created unity within the Liberal party also it won Gladstone the support of the Roman Catholic leaders, it was welcomed by most Irish Catholics as it had addressed a major injustice. It also raised expectations among the Irish that other major issues such as land would now be looked at by the Liberals. It could also be looked at as one of the starting points of the demand for home rule as it gave confidence to the moderate Irish. Overall,
To what extent was the Treaty of Versailles harsh and short-sighted?
Caroline Sims To what extent was the Treaty of Versailles harsh and short-sighted? The peace treaties of 1919, were an attempt to come to an agreement with the losing powers that they accept their blame and peace would be resolved while they pay the consequences. As Germany was a losing power of the war, she was made to sign the treaties and accept their consequences. This essay will examine the extent to which the Treaty of Versailles was harsh and short-sighted. I will begin with the reasons why the Treaty of Versailles can be justified. Firstly, there were three victorious powers who negotiated the peace treaties; David Lloyd George, for Britain, Woodrow Wilson, for America, and George Clemenceau, for France. The French suffered the most war damage, with the most brutal battles being fort there, including thousands of square miles of trenches dug up and 1.5 million casualties. Therefore, George Clemenceau opted for a considerably higher amount of reparations than the other two winning powers. However this was compromised and ended up at 6.6million, which was substantially lower than Clemenceau's original proposal. Furthermore, as stated by historian William Carr in 'A History of Germany', 'if Clemenceau had his way, the Rhineland would have become an independent State, the Saarland would have been annexed to France and Danzig would have become an integral part of
How serious a threat did the Puritans pose to Elizabeth I and her Church?
Top of Form How serious a threat did the Puritans pose to Elizabeth I and her Church? The rise of Puritan ideology in Elizabeth I's Church and Government was potentially an extremely dangerous threat to her power. However in practice, any attempts to promote Puritan ideas were crushed so quickly and effectively by Elizabeth that the movement never got the chance to develop into anything more serious. There was undoubtedly an increase in extreme Protestant views throughout her reign, an area of particular concern to Elizabeth being the Puritan tendencies of some of her most senior advisors. There were also some individuals from within the Church and within Elizabeth's government whose opposition to the Religious Settlement was influential to an extent, particularly during the 1570s, but all received a zero tolerance punishment and so never gained enough support to be a substantial threat to the Monarchy. Historians' views on the extent of the Puritan threat have been extremely varied, from J. E. Neale's argument for the rise of a Puritan parliamentary opposition, known as the 'Puritan Choir', to the less extreme views of those such as Michael Graves who agreed that 'the new generation of Presbyterian-Puritans did make concerted efforts to demolish the Religious Settlement', but that there was no evidence of a 'Puritan Choir'. John Guy agrees with Graves in that Neale based
The greatest obstacle to solving the Irish question in the years 1874 - 1886 was the issue of land: assess the validity of this view.
"THE GREATEST OBSTACLE TO SOLVING THE IRISH QUESTION IN THE YEARS 1874 - 1886 WAS THE ISSUE OF LAND": ASSESS THE VALIDITY OF THIS VIEW There can be little doubt that question of land, with specific regards to tenant farmers and absentee landlords, was a major obstacle for the British government as they attempted to 'solve the Irish Question'. However, in addition to the fact that there were other issues within Ireland which also formed obstacles to resolution, such as Home Rule, one must also consider the actions of the Disraeli and Gladstone administrations in this period and assess whether they too acted as obstacles to their own attempts to deal with Ireland. The interpretation that the issue of land was the greatest obstacle has much to commend it. Some of the most serious crises in 19th Century Britain had come about as a result of 'knife and fork' issues (including the Chartist movement and the Plug Riots); the disastrous harvests of 1877-79 in Ireland which meant that many famers unable to pay the rent for their land and were subsequently evicted by the landowners resulted in similar 'knife and fork' issues and caused great Irish unrest. This unrest manifested itself in violence, most notably in Connaught and in Phoenix Park in 1882, as the immediate threat to Irish people's wellbeing sparked 'direct action' in such a way that issues such as a religion could. The
Explain why Richard III was able to usurp the throne of England in June 1483
Explain why Richard III was able to usurp the throne of England in June 1483? Richard III grew up in the background of the war of the roses this was a turbulent time in which many members of the monarchy had been usurped and for whoever had the crown there was always the threat of usurpation. Monarchy at this time also caused p0roblems when they died and left young heirs of who could not rule so they had to have a regent which proves to be a problem. The attitude of people and especially the monarchy was to trust no one as anyone would try and usurp you for their shot at power, Even the great King Edward IV killed his own brother George Duke of Clarence because he threatened his sons claim to the throne by saying that they were illegitimate. When Edward died he left a young heir and with the history of the wars of the roses Edward V was not guaranteed a place on the throne. Richard III was a loyal brother to Edward IV he fought and won battles for him and in doing so he managed to achieve or be rewarded with a huge power base in the north and was trusted to rule over the north of the country and also to keep the Scottish under control. When Edward IV died, Richard felt that he should be regent for he was the king's brother but the young Edward was under the control of Earl Rivers his maternal uncle this meant that he was a Woodville. Richard did not like the Woodville's and
How successful were the economic and social reforms of the Peel ministry in the period 1841-1846?
HOW SUCCESSFUL WERE THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL REFORMS OF THE PEEL MINISTRY IN THE PERIOD 1841-1846? When the Conservatives under Peel attained power in 1841, they inherited a nation filled with unrest and discontent (i.e. due to 'knife and fork' issues, e.g. Chartism) and a huge budget deficit (estimated at £7.5 million). The Peel Ministry (although often Peel with his ministry in tow) therefore carried out major reforms concerning welfare and trade in order to solve the problems left by the preceding Whig administration. One interpretation of these reforms is that they were successful in developing Britain as a welfare state. In terms of economic policy, Peel's boldness was manifested in the 1842 budget, when he re-introduced the income tax for those earning more than £150 a year, arguing that the poor already had to spend a lot of their income on regressive taxes on many articles of consumption (e.g. sugar), and reduced import duties, in order to boost the economy and stabilise a discontented society. His aim was to make Britain a cheaper place to live, thereby silencing the discontent. The success of these measures can be seen in the fact that the aforementioned deficit which Peel inherited was into a £5 million surplus by 1845, and the fact that after Peel was forced to resign, there was a mid-Victorian boom, a golden age of prosperity, which can attributed to these
How Successful Were the Religious Reforms of Somerset and Northumberland?
HOW SUCCESSFUL WERE THE RELIGIOUS REFORMS OF SOMERSET AND NORTHUMBERLAND? In the short period stretching from 1547 to 1553, England saw a time of uncertainty created by the speed of political and religious change during the time of underage monarch Edward VI. The fact that Edward was an underage monarch was only one of the small problems faced during his reign which was worsened by the problems left by his father Henry VIII. Religious developments and reforms during Edward's reign have often been seen as cautious and moderate reform under the Duke of Somerset and more radical changes under the Duke of Northumberland. There is some truth in this notion, though it is something of an over-simplification. Needless to say, there could be little doubt that in 1547 there would be some moves toward reforms, the question being how successful they actually were. From 1547 to 1549 the country was officially under the control of Edward Seymour (Edward VI's uncle, later known as the Duke of Somerset). Seymour was declared Protector and governor of the King's person by the Privy Council set up by Henry VIII in preparation for his death. Seymour quickly overcame many enemies on the council and assumed control of both council and control. He titled himself 'Lord Protector' during his two years in power, and rarely put the council into good use. During his time in power Somerset proved he
How liberal were Gladstone's domestic reforms during his first ministry?
How liberal were Gladstone's domestic reforms during his first ministry? Gladstone became Prime Minister for the first time in 1868, by winning the majority in the government. Gladstonian Liberalism united all members of the party and gave ordinary people hope and optimism to change their future. During his first ministry he introduced major reforms and policies which drastically changed the country, some of these included the reorganisation of the educational and civil services, rearrangement of the judicial system and the licensing act; he was also involved in developing Ireland and her political reform. Some of his policies supported his ideals of the government; however others contradicted his initial promises. Gladstonian Liberalism was based on principles which were to create a stronger and efficient government. Gladstone wanted to give all individuals freedom to manage their affairs without interference of the state and enable them to trade without restrictions. He believed that the state should involve itself as seldom as possible, and should not interfere with the economy or decide what should be taught in schools. Gladstone wanted to create a competent and cheap government with low taxes and rates, and didn't want to invest money in the public sector and instead to rely on private donations. Liberalism supported the idea of promotion by talent rather than
Which of the grievances of the Third Estates in France in 1789 were the most important?
Which of the grievances of the Third Estates in France in 1789 were the most important? In 1789 Louis XVI called for a meeting of the Estates-General pressured by social discontent and financial problems. The Estates-General had not met since 1614. This representative institution was divided among three groups: the First Estate, the Second Estate and the Third Estate. This last Estate ostensibly represented every one who did not enjoy of privileges. It consisted of the commoners. The Third Estate included the bourgeoisie and the peasants. On one hand, there were the bourgeoisie. They were the rich ones. They were rentiers, lawyers, financiers, doctors, shopkeepers, ship-owners, commercial traders, low ranking office holders, craft workers and small-scale manufacturers. On the other hand, there were the peasants. They were the poor. They included from gross fermiers to landless labourers. Peasants made up the largest group within the Third Estate. They were 80% of the total population in France. So on the whole, it can be said the Third Estate represented the majority of the French population. In anticipation of the meeting of the Estates-General, the king requested cahiers which were lists of grievances drawn up by local groups of each of the three Estates. Therefore, by 1789, the bourgeoisie along with the peasants had numerous grievances they wished addressed. But which of
Expain why the general strike broke out in 1926
Explain why the General Strike broke out in 1926. May 1926 saw one of the largest acts of union in British workforce history, the general strike saw much of Britain come to a standstill as the country's main traditional, staple industries ceased production. The strike began when 1 million miners were locked out by their employers for refusing to take a pay cut. The response of the British working class was magnificent. Over 2.5 million workers responded to the call for action and refused to work. There are several events that lead up to and caused such anger amongst the workforce and ultimately the General Strike. The first, and one of the most important in my opinion, was the economic situation of the time. Britain was at the beginning of a huge economic depression, and after the war found that they now couldn't compete with other countries in the international export markets. Germany and Poland were using more modern machinery and were able to churn out coal more efficiently and cheaper than Britain as she did not modernise her machinery, only 20% of British coal was cut by machinery, the rest was handpicked. In addition to this both France and Italy were receiving free coal from Germany as part of the reparations so had very little need to buy it from somewhere else. The problems with exports were only made worse by the decision to go back on the gold standard after
