Why was the first Great Reform Act passed in 1832 and not before?
Why was the first Great Reform Act passed in 1832 and not before? The gradual disintegration of the anti-reform Pittite majority Tory party can be seen as one of the main factors leading to the passing of the Great Reform Act in 1832. In order to understand why reform hadn't been passed before, the key factor is the domination of anti-reform politicians attributed to this, and the fact that the old system of representation was quite unsuited to the changing times. Reform had always been a likely and recurrent focus for debate, yet the French Revolution1 increased tension within Parliament, and a conservative backlash resulted. Therefore Reform was less likely. The possibility of reform increased with the resignation of Liverpool in 1827, the ensuing Tory break-up and formation of a Whig government by Grey in 1830. During Pitt's ministry2, he had managed to form an anti-reform majority both inside and outside Westminster. It was because of this that those who had served under him3 remained hostile to reform well into the 1820's, aiding the reason as to why Parliamentary Reform wasn't passed before 1832. Some historians have even maintained that there was nothing to suggest that Parliament needed reform. One Historian said, 'There is no objective sense in which these things can be said to have made the electoral system inappropriate.'4 The main threat still remained as to
How radically and for what reasons did religious beliefs and practices change during the reign of Edward VI?
How radically and for what reasons did religious beliefs and practices change during the reign of Edward VI? Edward VI was born 15th of October in 1537. Henry VIII and Son of Jane Seymour, who died two weeks after she gave birth. He got his position on the throne at the age of nine and lasted six years until 1553, when he died. For much of Edwards's reign he was ill and delusional, therefore not much is actually known about the boy. Apart from he was a definite protestant, brought up with protestant teaching. The lawful movement of Protestantism and acts of reform to the Catholic church in England were started during the reign of Henry VIII around the period of 1527, when he divorced his first wife Catherine of Aragon and took up another Anne Bolyn who he was besotted with. The pope would not allow this divorce as it involved confessing that one of his predecessors made a mistake and the involvement of Charles V, Catherine's nephew. Another reason for reformation was the influence of Cardinal Wolsey and his schemes to acquire funds for the on going wars with France. Then later Thomas Cromwell with genuine protestant ideas, e.g. the spread of the English pray book. Another of the driving forces for a move to Protestantism was Henry's character; his personal feelings were involved in his decisions. For example when his marriage to Catherine Howard (a committed catholic) was
Intertextuality in John Fowles' The French Lieutenant's Woman.
Intertextuality in John Fowles' The French Lieutenant's Woman Intertextuality in various forms is a device which is frequently used in John Fowles' The French Lieutenant's Woman. Most commonly however it appears throughout the novel in the form of an epigraph in the beginning of each chapter. In these small passages, Fowles quotes famous literary works and authors, thus setting the theme and tone of each chapter. The focal point of this speech will revolve around the way Fowles uses science and scientists such as Charles Darwin and the evolutionary theory as an intertextual device. Furthermore, the discussion will be linked to the themes of freedom, existentialism and social evolution which are utterly important aspects of the novel. John Fowles's The French Lieutenant's Woman has been read, with reason, as a testament to existentialism: Sarah functions as the moral drive that propels Charles into an existential freedom. The nature of freedom is an important theme running through all of Fowles's works, and his main female character Sarah Woodruff is one of the major advocates of freedom and social escapism. In fact it is Fowles' intention to investigate whether or not there is such a thing as free will, and to what extent we can chose freely in life. The fact that Charles breaks convention and goes from being a traditional Victorian gentleman to a man which is to a certain
How successful was Charles I as king of Spain?
How successful was Charles I as king of Spain? It is difficult to judge the success of Charles on the overall governing of Spain, as many decisive factors including the amount of land gained and loss as well as the financial situation and the degree of opposition and how it was dealt with, are all important to consider in answering this statement and all do vary to certain extents throughout his reign. Religious unity in Spain as well as the marriage alliances formed in this period should be taken into account when forming a thorough conclusion and also the variation in activity over the years of his rule The absence of social political and religious conflict is striking in the context of European history of the time and at certain times in Charles' reign this does seem to have been the case. Historians often focus more on dramatic upheaval and disturbance in the past and less on stability and peace. However, a balanced assessment of Charles's reign as King of Spain must explore the origins of Spain's political stability and Charles's contribution to it. In Charles early years as king he faced many serious revolts and the period from 1516-1522 is commonly regarded by historians as a critical period in the reign of the Emperor Charles V as King Charles I of Spain. However he did manage to preserve his authority and much of his land suggesting that
Henry V - After Henry's threat, the French were afraid so they bribed three men to become traitors.
Henry V After Henry's threat, the French were afraid so they bribed three men to become traitors. The Earl of Cambridge, Lord Scroop and sir Thomas Gray of Northumberland had accepted French money and plan to kill Henry before he can depart to France. I as the king's servant don't understand how these men would sell their king's life for such a small amount of money. I heard Westmorland, Gloucester and Exeter discuss how Henry knew that Scroop, Gray and Cambridge had become traitors. They were saying that the traitors are able to pretend to be so loyal to Henry in spite of fact they have accepted French money to kill him. Henry had arrived accompanied by Scroop, Cambridge and Gray. He first asked them if they think he will be victorious against the French forces and they all replied telling him there is no doubt that he would win. It was a very tense moment for me, I was sitting there watching wondering what was going to happen and whether they would be forgiven while Henry then decides to play a game with them. He ordered Exeter to free a man who was accused of treason from the prison but Scroop objects, saying how it would set a bad example for the rest of the people. Henry replied, 'O let us yet be merciful'. Cambridge and Gray also object and told him to put the man to death. Henry handed them letters of commission and tells Exeter and Westmorland that the army will
Is it fair to describe Bevin as a great foreign secretary?
How fair is it to say that Ernest Bevin was a great foreign secretary? In 1945 the Labour Party was unexpectedly elected to power with Britain facing grave financial and social problems in the aftermath of the war. Indeed, it was stated by Keynes that with the ending of "Lend Lease" Britain faced a "Financial Dunkirk". With Britain teetering on the edge of bankruptcy, Ernest Bevin was appointed Foreign Secretary, to the surprise of the public and to Bevin himself. Hugh Dalton had been widely expected to take up the role, with Bevin heading for the Treasury. Yet it was Bevin's reputation for speaking his mind, and his experience in hard bargaining, that Britain would need after the war. Clement Atlee the Prime Minister knew Bevin's strengths and foresaw the problems that would ultimately lie ahead in places like India and Eastern Europe. If anyone could stand up to the Soviets it would be Bevin, The ex leader of the TUC and former minister of Labour. After 1945, Bevin was responsible for the broad outline of all major foreign policy initiatives. His ideas were clear. He wished to salvage what he could from the remnants of the Empire yet preserve Britain's super power status. This in itself may seem contradictory, given that Bevin oversaw the biggest period of decolonisation in British history. However, Bevin realised the urgent need for Britain, for both economic and
How successfully did James deal with religious problems throughout his reign?
How successfully did James deal with religious problems throughout his reign? In the early years of his reign, James faced many potential religious problems, due to Catholic and Puritan advances. This situation was not helped by the fact that James had always held the idea of ultimate unity for Catholics and Protestants in a universal church. The possible united religion was made impossible due to religious actions, during and before James' rule. One of these was an attempt to eliminate the political elite of the nation at the houses of parliament. Another was a petition of over a thousand church ministers outlining Puritan grievances. The Puritan theology was a version of a recent revolution in Switzerland called Calvinism, with James being personally far more inclined to Calvinist doctrine than the previous ruler, Elizabeth I, further disputes developed. With James came the belief of the Divine right of Kings, his indefinite religious beliefs were probably caused by experiences in Scotland, which during his reign was divided domestically by a conflict between the Protestants and the Roman Catholics. In 1582 James was kidnapped by a group of protestant nobles, headed by William Ruthven, Earl of Gowrie, he was held virtual prisoner until he escaped the next year. In 1586, following the treaty of Berwick, James formed an alliance with his cousin, Queen Elizabeth I of
How united was Britain in 1688?
Ian Bishop How united was Britain in 1688? To question the unity of Britain at any point in history is to initiate a complex and often controversial debate. When such and inquiry is coupled with a date of controversy, the difficulties of making a clear analysis are exacerbated. The 'Glorious Revolution' of 1688 is such a date. Superficially, it would seem to be obvious that Britain could not possible have been united in purpose and belief, for the very occurrence of a revolution means that at least two factions were at odds over at least one important issue. Thus, in order to facilitate useful analysis of such a broad question we must first define the particular aspects of British unity that interest us. For the purposes of this essay it is the political unity of the nation which must be the focus of our analysis. The broad nature of the question permits an endless inquiry into all aspects of unity and disunity in Britain. Many other areas would be valid subjects of study, for example the state of religious unity in Britain, but within the limited scope of this essay, we can best focus our energies upon an examination of the body politic. The central role played by the political nation in shaping events in 1688 makes it the principle area of interest in this essay. This is not to say that all other issues of unity in Britain are secondary, let alone irrelevant.
How far does the evidence from the site and written sources explain why a castle was built and maintained at Kenilworth?
How far does the evidence from the site and written sources explain why a castle was built and maintained at Kenilworth? After the Norman Conquest, Kenilworth remained property of the king until 1129, when Henry I granted it to his Chamberlain - Geoffrey de Clinton. See source 1. This was done for several reasons; at the time Henry I was very concerned about the rising strength of the De Montforts and the Beauchamps within the midlands. The De Montforts had built nearby and he feared that they would want to build one in Kenilworth. Kenilworth was also a strateig position because the opposing Warwick Castle was nearby. Henry I the first had one problem, he couldn't afford to build a castle there. So instead he gave the land to his good friend and Chamberlain, Geoffrey de Clinton. He knew that Geoffrey de Clinton would have build a castle there in order to control and defend his land. Henry I also knew that Geoffrey de Clinton was very loyal to him and in this way the castle could principally be just like it were his own. He solved his problem. Another advantage of building the castle in Kenilworth was that the welsh droving roads went straight through the land. Having the castle nearby would allow the control of the droving road and pinch some cattle whilst your at it. An outcrop of superb building stone nearby was quite probably one of the determining factors. See source 2.
Explain the importance of Henry VII(TM)s treaties with
Explain the importance of Henry VII's treaties with foreign powers, in relation to other factors, in expanding overseas trade (15 marks) Foreign trade was an important factor throughout the reign of Henry VII as it had a high income. During his time as king Henry increased the annual revenue from foreign trade from £33,000 to £40,000. This gave Henry a much needed sense of security, as a usurper of the crown himself, as a rich king is much more secure and safe than a weak king. His foreign treaties not only dealt with vital matters like pretenders and marriages, but also a great deal of imports and exports. Henry was eager to extend English trade abroad, especially as the activities of the pretenders had exposed weakness upon his dependability on other foreign powers, especially Antwerp. Therefore in 1486, Henry began a new agreement in which the restrictions placed upon Franco-English trade were removed. Although, because of Henry's involvement with Brittany, the French charged higher duties on all English goods imported into France. However, all of these changes were adapted in 1492, under the Treaty of Etaples. The French agreed not to help any Yorkist pretenders and to pay Henry a pension of £5,000 a year. England was now recognised by France as a European power and trade between them was encouraged. Also the wine trade that was disrupted by the Wars of the Roses
