'It was not the liberals who won but the conservatives who lost' discuss

A general election was held in 1906 which led to a complete 'landslide' victory for the liberals, winning 400 seats over the conservatives 157. Many of the conservative members lost their seats leaving the majority of members, liberal in the House of Commons - showing that the widely held view throughout the country was that they wanted Conservative out and Liberals to be their new government, but what made them make this decision? The conservative party had been in power for about 10 years in 1906 and its voters had become desperate for change, whether brought by their own party or another, they knew it was needed. A. J. Balfour was the new conservative leader after his uncle; Lord Salisbury died and handed the title over to him. He was described by Lloyd George as being 'No more than a scent on a pocket handkerchief' this meant he was there but never really did anything to help situations. Balfour was a clever man however he just wasn't a political one, unable to understand what the consequences of his actions could do to the public. The conservatives did have some good ideas but many of them did not fall through because the people either did not understand them or believed there was a better way. The Liberals were able to use the mistakes made by the conservatives as part of their campaign in the general elections 1906, therefore people may not have been voting for the

  • Word count: 2083
  • Level: AS and A Level
  • Subject: History
Access this essay

Elizabeth I chose not to marry because she wanted to escape from the 16th Century ideals of womanhood

"Elizabeth I chose not to marry because she wanted to escape from the 16th Century ideals of womanhood". To what extent do you agree with this statement? I agree with the statement that wanted to escape from the 16th Century ideals of womanhood, however, I also think that the pressing issues of the foreign situation and keeping the peace in her own country were other important factors affecting her decision too. Therefore, I agree with the statement only to a certain extent. The statement could be true to an extent, as the epoch was a patriarchal society, where the general attitude was that women were expected to be submissive, inferior to men and not holding much power outside the kitchen. Therefore, revisionist historians such as Haigh believe that Elizabeth was trying to escape from this stereotype in order to assert her authority and reject challengers. Being a wife and mother would have jeopardised her power and deemed her unfit to rule, as well as thwarting the Tudor dynasty through marriage. Allowing England to be run by a foreign power would spell disastrous consequences. She only knew too well what had happened between her sister and Philip of Spain - in theory Mary had still been in power, yet in practise the Spanish influence was phenomenal, pushing England into a war with France it did not have the resources to fight and consequently aggravating many people

  • Word count: 1310
  • Level: AS and A Level
  • Subject: History
Access this essay

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,

  • Ranking:
  • Word count: 2403
  • Level: AS and A Level
  • Subject: History
Access this essay

To what extent did foreign policy sour relations between the monarch and Parliament between 1603-1629?

To what extent did foreign policy sour relations between the monarch and Parliament between 1603-1629? The period 1603-1629 is perhaps better divided into two distinct sections - 1603-1625 (reign of James I) and 1625-1629 (reign of Charles I) - since these two monarchs had fairly different approaches to foreign policy, which in turn determined how Parliament responded to them. James I brought a peaceable approach to foreign policy, hoping to establish a reputation for himself as a mediator within Europe. One of his first actions as monarch was to negotiate peace with Spain in the Treaty of London in 1604. This was unpopular with Parliament for several reasons, the main one being that as Protestants many members of parliament were opposed to peace with Catholic Spain for religious reasons. However, with regards parliament, peace did have the benefit of saving a great deal of money which would have had to be raised by Parliament, and relations between parliament and James remained fairly constant over the next few years. James' next major action with regards foreign policy was to support a Protestant successor to the Duke of Cleves-Julich in 1609, even to the extent of committing several thousand troops to the cause. This action undoubtedly gained Parliament's support, as did the marriage in 1613 of James' daughter Elizabeth to the Protestant Frederick V of the Palatinate.

  • Word count: 1290
  • Level: AS and A Level
  • Subject: History
Access this essay

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

  • Ranking:
  • Word count: 1170
  • Level: AS and A Level
  • Subject: History
Access this essay

To the physical force chartist the phrase The Northern Star was significant because it was the way that they could hear news from the view of the disadvantaged in society and communicate with their leader Fergus OConnor.

The "Northern Star" was a chartist newspaper owned by physical force leader Fergus O'Connor. The meaning of the phrase "The Northern Star" will be different for all who look at it. We can break this down into two main thoughts and two different groups of people. The first group is the government. To the government to the government this would symbolise the people of Britain becoming less threatened by them and also the want for reform and a possible revolution so naturally the government was scared by it. The second group of people that this phrase would mean something to were the chartists themselves. This group can be broken down into two further sub-groups. The physical force chartists and the moral force chartists. I will first deal with the physical force chartists, as it is they that shape the view of the moral force opposition that they battle internally. To the physical force chartist the phrase "The Northern Star" was significant because it was the way that they could hear news from the view of the disadvantaged in society and communicate with their leader Fergus O'Connor. The other thing that it meant for them was organisation if events were advertised far enough in advance then they would be able to prepare for it and there would be a larger group of them. The last thing that it meant to the physical force chartists it could mean to the moral force chartists also

  • Word count: 1411
  • Level: AS and A Level
  • Subject: History
Access this essay

The causes of the English civil war.

The causes of the English civil war In this essay I am going to explain why the civil war broke out in 1642. The English civil war broke out on 22nd August 1642. It caused many deaths and divided some families. There were many reasons for this, including religious arguments, financial arguments, the actions of Charles himself, all the causes were linked together, (Parliamentarian and Royalist) some of the events of 1642 and the demands made by parliaments for more power and also I am going to explain the long - term causes and the short - term causes also know as the triggers. There are many different reasons for the causes of the English civil war but first I will start with the religious disputes over archbishops Laud's reforms of the church. Reforms were introduced that made churches more decorated (like catholic churches) Charles I collected customs duties without parliaments permission, he married a French catholic who was unpopular with his people. The Bishops' Wars were fought between the Scots and English forces led by Charles I. These conflicts paved the way for the uprising of Parliament that began the English civil wars. Charles I was attempting to enforce Anglican reforms onto the Scottish church. However the Scots were opposed to this, and even wanted to destroy the control that bishops had over the church. To this end, Charles' reforms were rejected by the

  • Word count: 1226
  • Level: AS and A Level
  • Subject: History
Access this essay

What were the successes and failures of Ferdinand and Isabella during their reigns?

What were the successes and failures of Ferdinand and Isabella during their reigns? Historians have long admired the achievements of the Catholic Monarchs, Isabella, Queen of Castile (1474-1504) and Ferdinand, King of Aragon (1479-1516) and recent biographers of Isabella notably Peggy Liss (1992) have been equally fulsome in the praises. Contemporary writers had a near unanimous verdict on Isabella: she brought peace, stability and greatness to a war-torn country. Firstly, Castilian chroniclers claimed that Isabella's predecessor Henry IV was incompetent, impotent and unfit to rule. Such allegations however are largely untrue. It suited dissatisfied nobles and Isabella's chroniclers to damn him and exaggerate the poor condition of Castile at her accession in order to inflate her successes. In fact, for much of his reign he administered his country effectively, reviving the hermandades (cavalry militia), employing more corregidores (royal governors) and doing his best to uphold justice. Trouble, however, flared up between 1465 and 1468 when he foolishly tried to play off rival noble factions. Much of the Crown's estate was given away to secure support for his daughter's succession, even though he had promised the throne to Isabella, his stepsister. Skirmishes between rival supporters continued but civil war had been averted. Henry was thus neither wholly incompetent nor

  • Word count: 1081
  • Level: AS and A Level
  • Subject: History
Access this essay

How did Wolsey rise in status from 1500-1516 During 1500 and 1516 Wolsey rose from simple butchers son to Cardinal of the church

How did Wolsey rise in status from 500-1516 During 1500 and 1516 Wolsey rose from simple butchers son to Cardinal of the church. He was the boss of England's administration, meaning he had to keep control foreign policies and England's domestic matters. He was a man of great stamina and a man of great intelligence and organisational skills. He was an intellectual child and went to Oxford University. After coming out of university, Wolsey works for Nanfan in Calais he is asked to work for Henry VII but refuses. When Nanfan dies Wolsey goes to London to work for Henry VII, Wolsey is liked due to being hard working and amazing at organising. When Henry VII dies Henry VIII succeeds the throne, the new king wants to go to war with France. Although his fathers advisers; Fox, Warham and Surrey disagree he goes ahead with the plan. Henry VII needs money, Wolsey comes up with the idea of bringing back subsidies, this raises the huge amount of £100,000. By doing this Wolsey gets close to the king and Henry realises how hardworking Wolsey is, and therefore gives Wolsey control of logistics. Henry wins the war and sees just how useful Wolsey is, during the war Henry's adviser Surrey had stepped aside (he didn't go to France) letting Wolsey take glory from the war. While England is in France Scotland attack, they loose their king and Surrey wins the battle, he is made Duke of Norfolk.

  • Word count: 992
  • Level: AS and A Level
  • Subject: History
Access this essay

A biography on James Baldwin.

James Baldwin was born in New York on the 2nd of August 1924 and died on the 1st December 1987 in St. Paul de Vence, which is in France. Later on in his life he became a well-known great author. As a child he always wanted to become a writer. In his youth he spent many hours a day reading. Many times as a young child he would escape from his parent's strict, religious home to watch plays movies. His family lived in great poverty, so watching the plays and movies gave him a better chance to imagine a better chance in life. He wanted to experience as much of his life as he could. At the age of fourteen he became a junior minister at a Pentecostal Church. His mother often brought home-unwanted magazines and newspapers for him to read. James' big break started when he met his hero Richard Wright. James and Richard became good friends and Richard helped James to receive a fellowship. This gave James money to write and take university classes. In Paris James began to write full time. He quickly wrote his first novel, which he named 'Go tell it on the mountain'. This story was focused on James' own experiences. The story speaks of a male adolescent who struggles with his stepfather. While in France he wrote articles for the most popular magazines. Most of the articles he wrote were based on the conditions of the African American just before the civil rights. In his early

  • Word count: 685
  • Level: AS and A Level
  • Subject: History
Access this essay