History of british race relations
The Celts are the first to lay claim to being the indigenous people of the British Isles, in a period of Britain referred to as the Iron Age. For 500 years before any Roman invasion they managed to firmly establish Celtic culture throughout Britain. The Celts themselves where hunter/gathers and very resourceful farmers. They adopted a clan mentality and were ferocious are proud warriors, which would eventually be there undoing as infighting among the various clans was rife. The lack of unity left them susceptible to attack, which the Romans seized upon. Julius Caesar Claimed "it was necessary to stop British support for the Celts still resisting there" (Black, Jeremy, 'A history of the British isles', 1997) The subsequent Roman Conquest and occupation of Britain (AD 43) saw the arrival the first blacks in England. The Romans brought with them the infrastructure; Britain gained urban systems linked by roads, Romanised farms and cities like London, York, Bath and Colchester became centres of roman culture and eventually Christianity was introduced to Britain. Britain ultimately began to come under attacks from "Barbarians" (the angles, jutes and Saxons) the ability of the Roman Empire to resist these invasions began to falter, thus ended the occupation of Britain by the Romans (410AD). It remains unclear why the "Barbarians" came to Britain. It may be down to their
Explain why free trade was an issue for the 1906 General Election. (12 marks)
Explain why free trade was an issue for the 1906 General Election. (12 marks) There were various reasons why free trade was considered an issue around the 1906 General Election, much of this in my opinion was around the opportunism that was on offer to the Liberal Party. The Conservative Party had been rather factious showing poor leadership under Balfour and had a "3 way split". Free trade achieved a mandate under the Liberal victory of 1906. There was a use of propaganda with the "Small loaf, big loaf" poster which showed that bread would be expensive under the Tariff Reform. The small loaf represented the fact that food would be affordable (under the Liberals) and the big loaf was there to show that with tariffs, the core necessities would be unaffordable. The issue was that people just wanted cheaper food prices as it was high-priced - this is what brought attention to the "free trade" issue. In the long term - free trade would bring down the price of food as there were less restrictions. Furthermore, the "small loaf, big loaf" campaign by the Liberal Party won favour with the working /middle class electorate - because they were able to actually afford the food. This, as well as the poor leadership that was presented by AJ Balfour for the Conservative Party meant that the Conservatives looked rather out-of-touch with regards to the issue of free trade - he was not able
Assess the view that Henry VIII's wish for a male heir was the main reason for the break with Rome.
Assess the view that Henry VIII's wish for a male heir was the main reason for the break with Rome. Henry VIII's marriage to Catherine of Aragon's was claimed void by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Was it the fact that Henry wanted a male heir to the thrown that he decided to break from Rome? Or did Henry decide to break from Rome due to his desire for Anne Boleyn. Henry married Catherine in 1509, aunt of Charles V of Aragon, Spain. She bore Henry six children five died (two of which were boys) and one survived, Mary. Since Catherine had failed to produce a male heir and therefore this may have led to a succession crisis or possibly a civil war when he died. There was Mary of course, who was nine years old in 1525, but it was seen as unseemly to have a female heir. (Salic Law) So looking at this we can see that at this period in time it may have been worrying for a king to have no son to carry on the throne. But would this have been a good reason for the break with Rome? At this early stage it is probably not the main reason. Henry used an idea from Leviticus, that if a man should marry his dead brother's wife (Arthur) then he shall remain childless, even though this was note entirely true as Henry did have Mary. Also as Henry wished for this divorce so much (as he had already become infatuated with Anne Boelyn) it might have been for this reason that he created this new
Assess how far the success of Gladstones first ministry was due to Gladstonian Liberalism.
Assess how far the success of Gladstone's first ministry was due to Gladstonian Liberalism. Gladstone's first ministry is widely proclaimed as his most successful ministry had many popular political titans within it, so this invariably led to success of this ministry but Gladstone was obviously at the heart of this success and arguably without Gladstone many of the successful reforms of the ministry would not have got through and almost certainly not without his unequivocal backing. So he obviously played a large part in the process and therefore his ideologies would have been pushed forward especially by the people, who were wildly supportive of almost any policy he brought out. Therefore Gladstonian Liberalism must have been one of the central factors in the success of Gladstone's first administration. Gladstone was successful in his government because all his reforms were cautious; this meant he did not quickly alienate any one particular group beyond repair, with the possible exception of the Adullamites, with his defeated electoral reform bill. This possibly highlights why the reform bill failed and why Gladstone's first ministry fell down in the end because it wasn't cautious enough in its final reform bill. This shows how fundamental one of Gladstonian Liberalism's integral characteristics was in the success of the Liberal government. Gladstone's actual presence
Do you agree with the view that in 1515-25 Henry VIII wholly surrendered power in government to Cardinal Wolsey?
Do you agree with the view that in 1515-25 Henry VIII wholly surrendered power in government to Cardinal Wolsey? From 1515 -1525 was the beginning of Wolsey's power to the height of influence. On one hand Henry did completely surrendered his power in government to Wolsey. For example when Wolsey was organising the expedition to France in 1513, although he had held none of the major offices of state he had been able to mobilise the whole machinery of government to carry out his commands. This had been possible not because Wolsey was some sort of power hungry nobody but because the king had given Wolsey the power in the organisation of the expedition to France. 'It must have seemed that a self indulgent king had wholly surrendered the care of state into the Cardinal's hands'1. Wolsey constantly manipulated Henry so Wolsey could pass laws and policy for instance he attempted to bring greater justice to the English legal system. He controlled both of the country's legal systems and thus could always act within the law as he interpreted it, transferring cases from one court system to another as best suited his purposes, in complete defiance of past practises and existing conventions. This shows that Henry had given power to Wolsey throughout the years, even when he was next to no importance. A reason for Wolsey's power was that although he was rarely in the same place as the
Why was Richard Arkwright so important to the Industrial Revolution
Why was Richard Arkwright so important to the Industrial Revolution? Introduction Richard Arkwright was the founder of the factory. He was the first person to invent a machine that used a different form of power other than man. People called him the Father of the Industrial Revolution. Richard was a barber in Lancashire when he saw an opening in the industry for a new invention. Weaving had been speeded up by 'flying shuttles' and the thread wasn't being produced fast enough to keep up with the looms, so he used his invention, the water frame, to fill the gap and get him lots of money. The Water Frame Richard Arkwright was a business man and he made an invention called the water frame. He used it to make the thread for the looms. At first it was powered by horses but this wasn't successful because the horses needed rest and feeding. So he needed a new form of power. Also this machine couldn't fit in the houses because it was so big. His machine was efficient and didn't need a skilled worker to operate it. Richard picked up ideas from different inventors of the time and quickly put a patent on his invention so nobody copied him. His patent was taken away because he was said to have borrowed all his ideas. But he didn't take all of their ideas. He had a few of his own on the machine. Eventually he found water power for his machine and started building factories.
Do you agree with the view that the 1832 reform act was a conservative measure with limited effects?
b) Do you agree with the view that the 1832 reform act was a conservative measure with limited effects? In this essay i plan to look at the statement that the 1832 Reform act was a conservative measure with limited effect. To do this i plan to not only use my knowledge of it but to analyse some primary sources from the time and secondary sources published afterwards. However before i start i think it would be important to define the term conservative. Wikipedia defines it as "Conservatism (Latin: conservare, "to preserve")[1] is a political and social philosophy that promotes the maintenance of traditional institutions and supports, at the most, minimal and gradual change in society. " Firstly i plan to look at the reasoning behind agreement with the statement. Firstly in agreement with the statement was the fact that it only secured voting rights for a very select bunch of people. This is very much inkeeping with the definition of conservative i have given. This inkeeps with the political system when it was set up as only a very select amount of people had a say. This made the political parties alot less accountable. With only an electorate of 800,000 out of a population of 24,000,000 the parties were only accountable to the aristocracy and a select few of the middle class. Also it becomes clear to me from Source 4 and 5 that it was again a conservative measure with
Why did Parliament win the English Civil War?
Why did Parliament win the English Civil War? There is no simple explanation that explains why Parliament won the English Civil War; there were many factors that culminated in the reformation of England into a republic. These factors consist of fundamental advantages that Parliament had before the commencement of battle (tax revenues for example) and specific events during the war (such as victorious battles). At the commencement of the Civil War in 1642, both the Parliamentarians and the Royalists had certain advantages over eachother, although it is popularly perceived that Parliament's advantages outweighed those of the Royalists. One of Parliament's advantages was that they controlled some of the more economically advanced areas of the country (most significantly the Southeast), this was an important factor as it allowed a more efficient production of weapons and other wartime essentials. Parliament also occupied areas with lots of armouries and troops, a prime example being Hull, which was a rich source of arms and also supplied an army of some 16,000 troops. Parliament also controlled London- the traditional centre of government, a big source of arms and very significantly a city with trained bands (trained armies). Parliament's other main geographical advantage was their control of most of the major ports including London and Hull, but also Plymouth, Bristol and
To what extent was James I responsible for his financial problems?
James Collinson L6 12 To what extent was James I responsible for his financial problems? James I was the first Stuart king of England. He came to England with no experience of running a country as big as England. He had not been brought up so he would be ready to rule a country like England. It could be said he would have very little idea about the finances of a country as large as England. When James came to the English throne he had a debt of just £2000 however in 1606 just 3 years after his accession he had amassed a debt of £700,000. Whichever way James is looked at, the conclusion can be drawn that he was extravagant with money and took a no expense spared policy on state occasions. For example he spent £20,000 on his coronation. This was the first problem for James. He came to power in 1603 following Elizabeth's death. As a result of this he had to organize her funeral, which would have cost any monarch a lot of money (but not as much as he spent on it). In the end this cost him £17,000. He then had to organize his coronation. James was in no mood to make this a cheap occasion. It was a once in lifetime celebration and it needed to be good. This cost him £20,000. He had inherited these 'problems' but made them more expensive by being extravagant and the fact he had over rated the English throne made him spend even more on them. Although Elizabeth
Q3) After studying the sources, explain any further sources of evidence about Cromford and Richard Arkwright? Would the Historians find them more or less useful than the evidence from the site? (5)
Q3) After studying the sources, explain any further sources of evidence about Cromford and Richard Arkwright? Would the Historians find them more or less useful than the evidence from the site? (5) There is a lot of evidence to help us study the site. Yes, there are many sources of evidence about Cromford and Richard Arkwright. There were newspapers, sketches, paintings and accounts that could help the Historians. Firstly, there were the newspapers. The newspapers were sometimes biased as they had to support Richard Arkwright. The people that owned the newspaper had to keep in with Arkwright as if they didn't they would lose their jobs. Richard Arkwright was so rich that if the newspapers said anything that would upset him in any way, he would run them out of business because he was well respected and had power around people. I've seen three sources from the newspaper Derby Mercury. He could own the newspapers and the shops if he wanted to because he was very rich. There are two adverts and the third is an Obituary. Richard Arkwright paid them to write wonderful things about him and the mill site and the more they did, the more they would get paid. The adverts in the newspaper is advertising work at Arkwright's mill and what type of people that are employed there already and who is wanted there. The third one is an Obituary and tells us that Arkwright had died. It also tells
