Paper 2: Power: and democracy in Britain c1000-2014.

1. Describe the Anglo-Saxon system of government. [4]

• Witan –The relatives of the King, the important nobles (Earls) and churchmen (Bishops) made up the Kings council which was known as the WITAN. These men led the armies and ruled the shires on behalf of the king. In return, they received wealth, status and land. • At local level the lesser nobles (THEGNS) carried out the roles of bailiffs and estate management. Each shire was divided into HUNDREDS. These districts had their own law courts and army. • The Church handled many administrative roles for the King because many churchmen could read and write. The Church taught the ordinary people about why they should support the king and influence his reputation. They also wrote down the history of the period.

2. Explain why the Church was important in Anglo-Saxon . [8]

• The church was flourishing in Aethelred’s time (c.1000). Kings and noblemen gave the church gifts of land and money. The great MINSTERS were in Rochester, , , Canterbury and Winchester. These Churches were built with donations by the King. • Nobles provided money for churches to be built on their land as a great show of status and power. This reminded the local population of who was in charge. It hosted community events as well as religious services, and new laws or taxes would be announced there. Building a church was the first step in building a community in the area. • As churchmen were literate some of the great works of learning, art and culture. These men wrote down the history of the time and could influence the reputation of the King. In return, the king and the nobles would donate wealth and land to the Church, as well as protecting it from attack.

3. Explain how Anglo-Saxon kings were chosen. [8]

• Glorious Ancestors – Aethelred the Unready had Glorious ancestors like Alfred the Great, Aethelstand and Eadgar. These had won great victories against the Vikings. Alfred had established the Danelaw and achieved peace with the Vikings. Aethelstan united the various Saxon and Viking kingdons and became the first king of a ‘united’ England, and Eadgar reformed the law courts and was a strong protector of the Church. Anglo-Saxon kings were expected to live up to the reputations of their ancestors. • Support of Witan and nobles – was supported by the Witan when he became King in 1066 following the death of Edward as he was the most powerful and wealthiest English noble, and had effectively ruled England since 1053. As he was English, powerful, and in control of the Witan, he had a united England behind him. He was also made the legitimate successor of Edward as he had been granted his kingship upon Edward’s death • Military power – Anglo-Saxon kings first duty was to protect the country. They failed when they were unable to do this and were replaced by their opponent. Thus Aethelred was defeated by King Swein of Denmark and died opposing King Cnut in 1016. Cnut was able to execute some of Aethelred’s leading followers, but then allowed most of the Anglo-Saxon nobles to keep their land and position in return for their support.

4. Aethelred should be called ‘Aethelred the Unlucky’ rather than ‘Aethelred the Unready’. How far do you agree? [14]

• Argument: Aethelred faced the same Viking threats as previous Anglo-Saxon Kings like Alfred, and largely he tried to deal with them in the same way. But these failed and he was replaced by the Viking Cnut. That is not to say that he made some mistakes and had a poor choice in advisors, but ultimately he was unlucky. • Evidence for Unlucky: Aethelred faced Viking attacks when he was very young from AD991, when the English lost the battle of Maldon. Aethelred and his advisors took the traditional Anglo-Saxon tactic of deciding to pay off the Vikings with a Danegeld payment of £10,000, and a treaty with the Normans to ensure they did not continue to help the Vikings. However, the Vikings returned three years later, but this time had to be paid off for 22,000 pounds. Viking raids continued to happen after this. This was unlucky, as the policy of paying a Danegeld had worked previously for Alfred and Eadgar, but it did not for Aethelred. • Evidence for Unread: Aethelred make some bad decisions and he did sometimes trust the wrong people. Aethelred needed the support of important nobles in Mercia and Northumbria, so he offered them important positions in the government. But then in 1002, he ordered that all the Danes in England should be killed. Many nobles, especially in the North, had Danish subjects, and so they refused to carry out these executions. Some of his nobles however did, and this provoked further revenge attacks by the Vikings. Therefore, this shows that Aethelred was badly advised as he chose to follow poor advice which resulted in him losing support from some nobles and also provoking further Viking attacks.

5. Describe two examples of the effects of the . [4]

• The Harrying of the North – Following the Norman invasion, William introduced the idea of CHIVALRY. The English who surrendered to him were not punished. However, chivalry was forgotten in 1069 when the Scots and Viking raided the North. William sent an army north and drove the rebels away. He then persisted to burn homes, barns and slaughtered animals. This was known as the HARRYING OF THE NORTH. • Castles - The Normans were strong advocates of castles. Castles could protect an area and repel an army. The Normans built a castle in Pevensey almost as soon as they landed. The first Norman castles were simple wooden MOTTE and BAILEY castles. In the first 30 years of Norman rule around 500 castles were built which dominated the English landscape to remind the people who was in charge. • CHURCH – William removed the Anglo-Saxon bishops and abbots and replaced them with Normans. By 1070 only 20% of the bishops were English. Churches were destroyed and re-built in the Norman . The purpose of church was the thank God for the Norman victory and to remove English traditional values.

6. Explain why the Norman invasion was successful in 1066. [8]

• Military - The Norman military was more formidable than the English – cavalry and archers were easily better than HOUSECARLS and FYRDS. The Norman knights had been constantly battling against the great lords of France since William was a boy, besieging castles as well as openly fighting. William had had to defend Normandy since his childhood against the King of France. Therefore they were highly experienced. England however had been relatively stable and had not had a serious incident or civil war since 1016. The English were not strangers to warfare, but the Normans were more experienced. Whilst the English numbered about the same as the Normans, the Normans were also better equipped. • Tactics – William had foot soldiers, horsemen and archers so they could change tactics more easily than the English, who were mainly foot-soldiers. English tactics had not changed much for a century. So William was able to turn a retreat into a tactic of fake-retreating in order to break the English shield wall. • Leadership - Harold and his closet advisers were a tight-knit group. But the Norman advisers were William’s half-brothers, and so were even more loyal and stayed close to William. Harold however was feuding with his own brother Tostig. In addition, Harold, by turning his forces around after the Battle of Stamford Bridge and marching straight back south to do battle with the Normans, risked overstretching his resources. In contrast, William refused to strike inland immediately after he landed in England. Instead, he stayed near the coast, securing his supply lines to Normandy and resting his troops while waiting for Harold to come to him.

7. How significant was the Norman Conquest for England? [14]

• CASTLES –The Normans were strong advocates of castles. Castles could protect an area and repel an army. The Normans built a castle in Pevensey almost as soon as they landed. The first Norman castles were simple wooden MOTTE and BAILEY castles. In the first 30 years of Norman rule around 500 castles were built which dominated the English landscape to remind the people who was in charge. A massive tax was placed on the Church to pay for their construction, and local people were forced to build and reinforce these temporary castles to make them stronger. This process ensured Norman control over all areas of the country.

• LAND OWNERSHIP – William rewarded his loyal band of trusted supporters. William took land away from the English THEGNS and gave it to Norman BARONS. This land was then sub-divided to their followers locally. This was known as FEUDALISM. This system guaranteed loyalty to William so that he could go abroad fighting without concern of a threat to his crown at home. Each shire was now controlled by a Norman baron and his knights with a network of castles. In the first few months after the Norman invasion, English nobles were allowed to keep their land. But because of English rebellions and William’s need to reward his followers, the English noble class of about 4000 thegns was slowly replaced by around 200 Norman barons, loyal to William, by around 1086.

• CHURCH - William removed the Anglo-Saxon bishops and abbots and replaced them with Normans. By 1070 only 20% of the bishops were English (There were 15 Bishops, 3 were English). A church building programme was set up. Every English Cathedral and most of the main abbey churches were destroyed and rebuilt in the Norman style. The purpose of these churches was partly for the Normans to thank God for the Norman victory, but they also tried to remove English traditional values.

8. Describe two examples of the work of the Church in medieval England. [4]

• The church and the media:- The church helped spread news at a time when media communication was limited. It was where new taxes and laws were announced. Sermons would celebrate the King. Church chroniclers wrote about the events at the time.

• The church owned land and employed many people:- The 1087 shows that 25% of land in England was church owned. Bishops and abbots controlled the large abbeys. Large numbers of the population worked as labourers on the land. MASONS worked on church construction. The church cared for the poor and sick.

9. Explain why kings and barons clashed in the medieval period. [8]

• TAXATION - Henry III was a relatively stable King, but he upset the barons by fighting costly wars with France and increasing their taxation. He extended taxation to include lesser barons. In 1258 a group of disgruntled barons went to Henry III and demanded a range of reforms. The Earl of Leicester, SIMON DE MONTFORT, was the leader of the rebel barons. Henry was forced to accept the PROVISIONS OF OXFORD which meant that Henry would have to defer to 24 advisers (12 chosen by Henry and 12 elected by the barons). This parliament would meet three times a year and would select the PRIVY COUNCIL that would appoint local officials. This later developed into the first Parliament of 1265 when De Montfort called knights, the lesser gentry and merchants to London from each county and borough of England to discuss how to limit the power of the king and great barons.

• POWERFUL BARONS - In the 1380s Richard II’s relations with the barons declined as he promoted lesser known men such as Michael de la Pole, the Earl of , to CHANCELLOR. In 1386 the French were close to invasion and the King asked Parliament for money to defend the country. The Earls of and Arundel demanded that Michael de la Pole, the CHANCELLOR, be sacked. By 1387 Richard had been defeated in a civil war and the king was forced to execute his close allies. De la Pole fled the country for his own safety. By the 1390s Richard exiled Henry Bolingbroke to France. Henry had rebelled in the 1580s and there were rumours he might make a bid for the throne. Whilst Richard was away on campaign in Ireland, Henry Bolingbroke returned to England and raised an army. Richard was defeated in 1399 at Flint Castle in Wales. Richard was imprisoned and Henry took over. Richard officially ABDICATED (gave up the throne involuntarily) and Henry was crowned Henry IV in 1399.

10. What was the significance of Magna Carta? [14]

• Limiting the power of King John – At the end of the Barons War with John, the barons issued a royal charter of demands which John was forced to accept. This became known as the MAGNA CARTA. All people were to be tried by jury. The King could not sell justice. A council of 25 barons would be set up to ensure that the King was respecting the rights and the laws of the charter. The charter defined that a formal relationship should exist between the monarch and barons. The king was now subject to the law. These were radical ideas. But John overturned the treaty and continued the civil war until his death in 1216. Therefore this only temporally limited the power of John.

• Magna Carta as the basis of Parliament -. In 1265 following the defeat of Henry III to Simon de Montfort, De Montfort asked two representatives from each BOROUGH to come to London to form the first sitting of Parliament. De Montfort used the Parliament to restore the MAGNA CARTA. This continued to be used by Henry following De Montfort’s death, whereby the first item at every Parliament meeting was always for the king to accept the MAGNA CARTA. This continued under Edward I, who was the first king to share his concerns with Parliament and use Parliament to give him the money for wars. He reissued the MAGNA CARTA in 1297 to ensure that Parliament remained on his side. All medieval kings had to accept the conditions of Magna Carta when they became king. This ensured that monarchs were now subject to the law, and placed legal limits on their power.

11. d‘The most significant problem faced by medieval monarchs was war.’ How far do you agree with this view? [14]

• YES – WAR WAS SIGNIFICANT. Wars with France were signficiant for King John and Henry II. Both of these meant that the King had to ask the Barons for more taxation, and often they weren’t consulted. The Barons were also expected to raise troops to support the foreign war. When these wars proved costly and also failed, the King lost the support of the Barons. In both cases these then led to all-out rebellions by the Barons, and the King losing power as a result, King John with Magna Carta and Henry II through the Provisions of Oxford and also Simon de Montfort’s first Parliament. The also led to in-fighting between the factional houses of York and Lancaster which ultimately was a civil war. This led to Henry VI being captured by Edward IV in 1471 after his defeat, Edward IV being forced to flee as a result of the ambitions of the Earl of Warwick, his sons being possibly murdered on the orders of Richard III, and Richard III himself being killed I the Battle of Bosworth. The Civil War over access to the king and then the fight for the throne itself saw England completely destabilised and without effective, secure and peaceful rule for over 30 years.

• NO – TAXATION AND POWERFUL BARONS

Taxation: However, it can be argued that taxation was the cause of much of the unrest by both barons and the wider commons. The barons only began to lose support for King John, when in an attempt to ensure more success in the wars with France, he raised taxes by over 25%. This, combined with losing further battles, and a lack of consultation with the barons, led to their withdrawing support and was one of the major causes in the Barons War against John. It also contributed to the unrest against Henry II, for essentially the same reasons. In both cases taxation and the lack of consultation led to tensions with the Barons.

Powerful Barons however were the largest problem facing Medieval Kings. As described, when they were pushed too far with taxation, foreign wars, or simply being ignored in favour of the kings close relatives or foreign advisors, the Barons rose up to limit the power of the King. This was seen by both John and Henry II, and worse so by Richard II where the combination of all of these factors led to his defeat by the most powerful English barons, Henry Bolingbroke, who was able to defeat Richard at Flint Castle in Wales and become Henry IV. When the nobles became too powerful and the King proved personally weak, then over-powerful barons ended up either fighting each other in power struggles, as seen between Somerset and York at the start of the Wars of the Roses, or even attacking the King himself when they had grown over-mighty, as seen again in the Wars of the Roses by the actions of Edward IV against Henry VI.

Conclusion: Thus, over powerful Barons were the most serious problem facing Medieval Kings, taxation and a lack of consultation led to them causing unrest with the King, which resulted in wars whereby the King either lost power or his life. Wars were significant yes, but they were often caused by over-powerful barons in medieval times.

12. How important was religion in helping Henry VIII and rule? [14]

• Important: Henry VIII – When Henry made the Act of Supremacy in 1534, he became the Supreme Head of the . This was done more to gain an annulment for his marriage to and to ensure his later marriage to . But it also made it a treasonous offence to criticise or question the King in matters of religion, leading to the execution of key individuals like Thomas More. When Henry faced rebellion over the religious changes, for instance in the Pilgrimage of Grace, he was able to accuse the leaders of treason as they had sought to challenge the authority of the King over religion. Therefore religion became an important tool for Henry to assert his authority and ensure loyalty.

• Elizabeth I - Elizabeth tried to create a moderate Protestant religious settlement, known as a Via Media, to try to balance differences between Catholics and Protestants in England and thus try to ensure their loyalty. The Elizabethan Religious Settlement, whilst Protestant, therefore was sufficiently moderate to ensure that there was no large-scale rebellion purely over religion against Elizabeth, and even the Northern Rebellion failed to really gain significant support, as Elizabeth was able to ensure enough popular support for her Settlement. She also used it as a symbol of loyalty, for as Supreme Governor of the Church, all public officials had to swear an oath of loyalty to the Queen of lose their jobs. Therefore Religion was important in securing the loyalty of the people to the monarch under both Henry and Elizabeth.

Other factor: Parliament Whilst religion gave both Henry and Elizabeth control over the Church and was used as a means of asserting authority, both monarchs had to ensure that they kept Parliament on side; they could not rule alone. Henry did this often through making compromises with MPs involving them in the decision making and encouraging co-operation. He also did it through rewarding powerful nobles for their support, for example the Earl Of Shrewsbury was given a senior command in the wars with France as a reward for his support. Henry also used them, through lords like Arundell, to ensure the threat of rebellion was stopped during the Pilgrimage of Grace. Henry also had the most powerful barons and nobles in the Privy Council to ensure they were given responsibility for their key tasks. Elizabeth also kept Parliament onside through her use of key advisors like William Cecil and Francis Walsingham. She even allowed them to raise and discuss matters that were directly under her remit, such as marriage, the succession and on some occasions Church Reform. Elizabeth would hear the concerns of her nobles at Parliament, and therefore ensure their loyalty.

• Conclusion: Religion was very important for Henry and Elizabeth, primarily in asserting their authority over the nobles and the commons. However, both Henry and Elizabeth faced rebellions in the North, in large part caused by religion, I would argue that religion was one of the biggest challenges facing Medieval monarchs, and only used as a balancing tool for the monarch in charge.

13. What was the most serious challenge facing monarchs in the ? [14] • Religion and rebellion: There were significant rebellions against both Henry and Elizabeth about Religion. For Henry this took the form of the Lincolnshire Rising and also the Pilgrimage of Grace, which both contained approximately 40,000 men and was considerably larger than the king’s forces. Both Lincoln and York were captured by the rebels, and the nobles in the North could not be relied upon to stop the rebels as they potentially sympathised with them. These were significant rebellions from virtually the whole of the North of England in the name of religion. Whilst both fizzled out, the Lincolnshire rising in the face of being accused of treason, and the Pilgrimage given Henry’s treatment of their leader, both posed the largest attack on Henry’s authority during his reign. • Rebellions against Elizabeth: It could also be seen in the reign of Elizabeth. Numerous Catholic plots were uncovered against her, for example around Mary Queen of Scots, the Northern Rising and the more numerous smaller plots like the Babington Plot. All of these were caused by the Religious Settlement of Elizabeth and a desire to return England to Catholicism. Durham was captured by the rebels in the Northern Rising, and the plots focusing on Mary did not stop until her death. Therefore, religion can be seen as being the main cause of rebellion against the Tudors. • Marriage and Succession: Henry only began to alter the religion in an attempt to secure an annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon and ensure his marriage to Anne Boleyn, in the belief that this would lead to a male heir. Thus the Act of Supremacy making him break from Rome and placing him as Supreme Head of the Church. This was done as it seemed unlikely Catherine would be able to have a male son, and Henry was so desperate to secure this that he risked everything to give him power and control of the Church. Religious and financial motives only became important after the initial break. • Marriage and Succession under Elizabeth: For Elizabeth, marriage and the succession caused numerous conflicts with Parliament and Mary Queen of Scots. So long as Elizabeth remained single and with no named heir, Mary Queen of Scots pressed her claim to the English throne and proved a constant source of Catholic rebellion, as seen in the Babington Plot. Indeed, the Northern Rebellion was partly done in an attempt to force Elizabeth to name Mary heir. The issue also caused constant friction with Parliament, whereby they tried to encourage the Queen to marry in Parliaments in 1563 and 1566, which they had little right to do. In the 1590s this continued with Peter Wentworth, who was imprisoned for his efforts. It even continued on Elizabeth’s death, whereby her Privy Council secretly plotted the succession of James VI of to the throne without Elizabeth’s approval. Whilst marriage and succession proved a constant annoyance to Elizabeth however, they did not on their own cause outright rebellion. • Conclusion: Marriage and succession were extremely significant challenges for Henry VIII and Elizabeth. Henry so badly needed an heir he was willing to break from Rome for it. Elizabeth faced many challenges due to her refusal to marry or name an heir. However, for both monarchs this did not on it’s own cause outright, largescale rebellion. Religion did that, through the attempt to resist Henry’s dissolution of the Monasteries, and through the numerous plots associated with Mary Queen of Scots for Elizabeth. 14. Describe two examples of tension between rulers and parliament in the period 1625-60. [4]

• Who has permission to collect taxes, King or Parliament (forced loans for the wars with France and Spain b Charles I, ship money in the 1530s, and one of the main causes of Charles I dismissing Parliament in 1529 (The )). • How Protestant should the church be (Scotland Prayer book debate in 1537 and attempt to force religious changes on Scotland caused war with Scotland. Very Protestant / Puritan Parliament clashed with Charles over fears he was trying to restore Catholicism, with marriage to his French, Catholic wife Henrietta Maria and redecorating churches in a more Catholic style) • How much advice Parliament should give a ruler (1: The Petition of Right (1628) meant that Charles could not take any steps to raise money without Parliament’s approval. He had to accept this as he was desperate for money for his costly foreign wars. But he dismissed Parliament the next year. 2: Grand remonstrance 1641 listed over 200 criticisms and demands of the king by Parliament, including the request that major religious changes should happen and that parliament should appoint all of the kings advisors. This alongside the Militia Act led Charles to accuse 5 MPs of treason and sparked the Civil War. 3: : The majority of Parliament were against putting Charles on trail after the Civil War. So a large number of MPs were thrown out, probably on Cromwell’s orders, to leave behind a Rump Parliament of 200 MPs who would vote against the King, calling for his execution. 4: The Barebones Parliament 1653 – Cromwell appointed his own Parliament of 144 MPs rather than allowing free elections. But he dismissed them when they became too radical, leaving himself in complete control.)

15. Explain why the monarchy was restored in 1660. [8]

No obvious successor to Cromwell • his son refused to be . He was not supported by the army or Parliament and had no experience in either. • Arguments between General Lambert in England and General Monck in Scotland lead to Rump Parliament being restored, but no agreement on who the new ruler should be as there was no acceptable candidate by both the army and Parliament. The only obvious candidate was Charles II, who Parliament began to negotiate with. Charles II was prepared to compromise • The Declaration of Breda (1660) saw Charles accept the power of Parliament, not be able to claim ship money or any other taxes used by his father. He did not have to call Parliament every year, but did so due to a need for money. In return he controlled the army and could veto new laws, and Parliament did not have the power to pass laws without the King’s approval. • The indemnity act protected most parliamentarians involved in the war. • This compromise meant Parliament supported him becoming King.

16. How significant was the execution of Charles I? [14]

Very, because it destroyed the idea of the divine right of Kings: • The army and Parliament had removed a King, despite the belief that he had been chosen by God. A reigning monarch had been overthrown and executed by the army with the support of some of Parliament for his failure to rule effectively. Future Kings had to work with Parliament to rule, not without them. • At his trial the Law and Parliament was recognised as superior to the King. This was also recognised by the declaration of Breda in 1660, when future Kings accepted that they could not control Parliament (although the power still remained firmly with the King) • It led to Cromwell ruling as Lord Protector, without a King. Cromwell did not need the support of Parliament, as he had control of the army. Thus he removed much opposition from MPs when the Rump Parliament was created, and even removed Parliament altogether when he dismissed the Barebones Parliament of 1653. • In the short term it led to England becoming more Puritan, e.g. the Reformation of manners. England was divided up under the control of major-generals in the army, who tried to stamp out swearing, prostitution, gambling, drunkenness and even Christmas. But their rule was deeply unpopular and a failure. The local gentry resented their challenge to their traditional powers as justices and magistrates. But there were limits because: • Cromwell ruled like a King as Lord Protectors, he controlled the army and could get rid of Parliaments if he disagreed with them. Therefore Cromwell acted just like Charles I had done, dismissing Parliament whenever it disagreed with him. He was even asked to be named King in 1657 (which he refused). • Following Cromwell’s death and the Declaration of Breda, Charles II was restored to the throne after 1660. He could still control the army and veto Laws. • Most people in England were still ruled by a small group in Parliament and had no vote or influence.

17. Stability depended on the quality of the ruler rather than on the system of government in the period 1625-60”. How far do you agree? [24]

Charles was a poor ruler because… • Charles struggled to raise enough taxation, e.g. Forced loans, ship money, unnecessary wars with Spain and Scotland. • Charles was not trusted by Parliament, e.g. petition of right (1628), personal rule (1629-40), sending troops to Parliament to arrest the 5 MPs (1642). • Charles refused to compromise, e.g. divine right of Kings, refusing a settlement to the civil war. • Charles was a military failure, e.g. Marston Moor, surrendering to Scots.

CROMWELL was a successful ruler because…

• He was able to raise taxation, had the support of the army, was able to compromise (accepting the humble petition and advice in 1657, which gave Parliament more power over taxes, reduced the size of the army and sbolished the rule of the major- generals.) and was a successful military leader (civil war, Battle of Naseby).

However, the system caused both rulers similar problems… • Religion, Charles seen as too Catholic (Prayer book, suspending ), Cromwell as too Puritan (Reformation of manners). • Parliament caused problems for both rulers, Charles (petition of right, grand remonstrance), Cromwell (Rump Parliament were too cautious and wanted to use religion to regain stability and control, bringing back censorship and allowing little religious tolerance, thereby disagreeing with Cromwell, and the Barebones Parliaments which proved too radical even for Cromwell) • Both failed to provide an heir, Charles was executed, Cromwell’s rule collapsed two years after his death. OVERALL, both rulers found religion and Parliament major challenges, so the system was difficult for any ruler. However, Charles incompetence leads to civil war and disaster while Cromwell was able to compromise and bring stability after civil war. So in conclusion the system needed an effective ruler who had the support of the army and was able to work effectively with Parliament, to achieve stability. Charles failed militarily, was unwilling to compromise with Parliament, and his financial and religious policies were unpopular. Whilst Cromwell acted as a dictator, he kept enough support within the army and in Parliament to ensure stability until his death.

18. Describe the problems between James II and parliament in the 1680s. [4] • Power: James faced an immediate rebellion from the DUKE OF MONMOUTH, Charles IIs illegitimate son. James crushed the rebellion although parliament was concerned that he kept the large army in case of future trouble. • Religion: James was married to a French Catholic and on friendly terms with the French Catholic King Louis XIV. He appeared to begin restoring Catholicism to England by forbidding Anglican ministers to preach anti-Catholic sermons and removing Protestants from government posts, replacing them with Catholic ministers. • Law changes: In 1687 – 1688 James published documents called INDULGENCES which he used to set aside the TEST and CORPORATIONS ACTS which prevented Catholics from being MPs, army officers and Justices of the Peace. He also set aside the HABEUS CORPUS Act which said that a person could not be arrested and held without being given a fair trial.

19. Explain why James II was overthrown in 1688? [8] • Religion: James was married to a French Catholic and on friendly terms with the French Catholic King Louis XIV. He appeared to begin restoring Catholicism to England by forbidding Anglican ministers to preach anti-Catholic sermons and removing Protestants from government posts, replacing them with Catholic ministers. • Law changes: In 1687 – 1688 James published documents called INDULGENCES which he used to set aside the TEST and CORPORATIONS ACTS which prevented Catholics from being MPs, army officers and Justices of the Peace. He also set aside the HABEUS CORPUS Act which said that a person could not be arrested and held without being given a fair trial. • Heir: In 1688 his wife had a son, James III, who was Catholic. Before this his heir was his Protestant daughter, Mary, who was married to William of Orange in the Netherlands. Parliament now feared that this would ensure England would become Catholic again. • The : Several nobles sent notes to the Dutch prince, WILLIAM OF ORANGE, who was the husband of James IIs Protestant daughter, MARY. James began to frantically change his policies, but WILLIAM OF ORANGE’S forces landed in . James II hid in a boat and subsequently fled to France. William and Mary were given full authority as monarchs of England. The agreement was called THE GLORIOUS REVOLUTION.

20. What was the significance of the in 1660? Restoration of monarchy: As there was no obvious successor to Cromwell following his death, and because there could not be agreement about one between Parliament and the Army, the Declaration of Breda was made with Charles II to restore the monarchy following the execution of Charles I in 1649. This was significant because it meant that the monarch was now again, not Parliament. However, there were limits placed on his power. • Limits to power: The Declaration of Breda (1660) saw Charles accept the power of Parliament, not be able to claim ship money or any other taxes used by his father. He did not have to call Parliament every year, but did so due to a need for money. In return he controlled the army and could veto new laws, and Parliament did not have the power to pass laws without the King’s approval. The indemnity act protected most parliamentarians involved in the war. This meant that whilst Charles was clearly still monarch, there were certain safeguards now made to limit his power. Parliament agreed a new hearth tax which raised money for Charles, but not enough, so he would still need to ask parliament if he was short of money. • Growth of political parties: The Whig and Party emerged during the 1670s and 1680s due to the concern that Charles was becoming too sympathetic towards Catholics. Both sides published petitions and pamphlets and held demonstrations and public meetings. The Whigs wanted more restrictions on the power of the king and greater powers for Parliament. They also wanted to exclude Charles’ brother James from the line of succession because he was a Catholic. The opposed the Whigs. Charles came down hard on the Whigs, several members were executed and their leader went into exile. But by the time of Charles’ death if was clear that there were some serious divisions within the country. • Enforcement of religious practice: The Civil War had seen the growth of radical religious groups like the Quakers, the Levellers, the Diggers etc. They alarmed people and the government as they posed an open challenge to traditional authority. There was religious toleration for these groups under Cromwell’s rule. However, a religious group, the Fifth Monarchists, staged an unsuccessful rebellion in 1661. This led to the introduction of the Clarendon Code. While dissenters like Quakers, etc. were not actively persecuted, the Code enforced a conformist Anglican (Church of England) Church on the majority of the population which meant that: people would be fined if they did not attend an Anglican Church; Anglican services used the same prayer book and services; The government had a say in the appointment of bishops and in the sermons that were preached every Sunday; and finally only Anglicans could be educated or held public offices.

21. What was the significance of the of the Glorious Revolution? [14]

• The BILL OF RIGHTS was introduced which forbade Catholic monarchs in England, Ireland and Scotland. William and Mary accepted an oath that they were not above the law, they could not suspend laws, Parliament had to meet once per year and William could collect important taxes for 4 years. But William was not just a figurehead. He refused 20 measures on the BILL OF RIGHTS. He chose when the country went to war. He appointed people into top jobs in the army, government and church. He passed a TOLERATION ACT which allowed Protestants to belong to other churches. • Re-writing history: THE WHIGS claimed a victory in the GLORIOUS REVOLUTION. They had removed an unpopular monarch. THE TORIES believed in the DIVINE RIGHT OF KINGS and wanted William to be a rather than a King. They agreed an incorrect narrative in which it was deemed JAMES II had abdicated and Parliament had been forced to invite WILLIAM to be King. • THE ACT OF UNION, 1707. Scotland has been through a massive economic disaster. In return for financial support from England, Scotland agreed to the ACT OF UNION which united the two countries. Not all Scots accepted this and two rebellions in 1715 and 1745 (JACOBITES) were launched, but crushed. • Parliament became increasingly important: The BANK OF ENGLAND was set up and investors loaned the country money. This was known as the NATIONAL DEBT. This was vital in times when war cost so much money. They were willing to do this as they knew Parliament would raise taxes to pay back the loans. This ensured Parliament became more important and met more regularly, and more elections were held. • Growth of Political Parties: It became increasingly likely that ministers were used by monarchs to run the country. This happened in Queen Anne’s reign since she had little political ability. As a result MPs began to group into political parties, the Whigs and the Tories. MPs were always landowners or gentry, but this was the beginning of the parliamentary democracy we have today.

22. Did monarchs rely more on conflict or co-operation with their subjects in the period c1000-c1800? [24]

• Argument: Monarchs only relied on conflict in gaining control of the country in the early Medieval period, e.g. the Viking invasion of Cnut and the Norman Conquest. As the Political Nation grew from Medieval to early modern times, monarchs needed the co-operation of their subjects to be successful, as attempts at conflict with Barons and Parliament actually limited the power of the monarch. • Medieval Conflict: Viking invasion of Swein and Cnut – 1) In 1013 the Viking King Swein ordered organised a full scale invasion of England which led to the defeat of the Anglo-Saxon King Aethelred, who had been unable to get the support of nobles in the and the North. 2) The Norman Conquest also saw successfully invade England in 1066 with the Battle of Hastings and the destruction of any rebellions through actions like the Harrying of the North. • Medieval and Early Modern Conflict and co-operation: • 1) Viking and Norman co-operation. Both Cnut and William the Conqueror still needed the co-operation of the following their invasion, hence in both cases they allowed leading Anglo-Saxon nobles to keep their land and position. Cnut made two Anglo-Saxons the earls in the Midlands and the North, and William also used the feudal system as a way to reward his supporters and ensure they controlled parts of England for him. • 2) Magna Carta. King John did not secure the co-operation of the Barons. He fell out with a large number of them for increasing taxes to pay for costly foreign wars with France. He failed to consult the barons about important decisions. He forced them to pay huge amounts of money to inherit their estates. John made it worse by selling justice to nobles who paid him the most money. As a reaction, they took up arms against John and forced him to accept Magna Carta, limiting his power. • 3) – Charles needed the support of Parliament. In the 1520s he needed to call Parliament to fund his wars with France and Spain. Their refusal to do this unless Charles accepted their Petition of Right in 1528 led to the King dissolving Parliament in 1529. What followed was highly unpopular rule in the 1530s where the King tried to collect taxes in the form of Ship Tax, and unpopular religious policies being enforced on the country. Ultimately Charles was forced to recall Parliament in 1540 following the failure of these policies and the resulting war with Scotland. This proves that Charles needed the support of Parliament to ensure successful government. The failure to achieve this led to Civil War in 1542. All prove that monarchs needed to co-operate with their subjects (Parliament, Church and Barons, not ordinary people). • Conclusion: Monarchs only relied on conflict in the Medieval Period as a way to gain control of England in the successful Viking and Norman invasions. But following this all subsequent rulers needed to ensure various degrees of co-operation with their subjects or risk significant challenges to their power. However, subjects does not mean ordinary people. During both of these periods, the monarchs only needed the support and co-operation of Barons and of Parliament, ordinary people were subject to control and severe consequences for failure to co-operate, for example the treatment of the North following the Norman Conquest, or the treatment of the Peasants following the Peasants Revolt.

23. ‘Monarchs were more powerful than their subjects in c1000-c1800.’ How far do you agree with this view? [24]

• 1000-1215 – Yes Norman Conquest: Following the Battle of Hastings, William had complete control of England. He owned all of the land, which was distributed to his followers using the Feudal system. He ensured that he was in charge by personally putting down any rebellion against him, as seen in the Harrying of the North and the resultant decision to build over 500 castles in all parts of England to enforce Norman rule. William used the Domesday Book to survey every area of England and to work out what was due to him in the form of taxation. However, even though William technically had complete control, he recognised the need to keep his loyal supporters on side by rewarding them with land and important jobs with the Feudal System.

• 1215-1600 – Balance of power (Choose one example) King John and Henry III: Both King John and Henry III did not keep the Barons support. They lost it as a result of unpopular taxes, costly foreign wars and a failure to consult the barons on important decisions. In both cases the Barons therefore went to war with the King and were able to place limitations on his power. In 1215 the Barons forced King John to sign Magna Carta which said that all people should be tried by a jury, which limited John’s power as he had begun to sell justice to nobles. It also stated that a council of 25 barons would be set up to make sure that the king respected the laws and rights set out in the charter. The king was now subject to the law. Whilst John had no intention of keeping to this agreement, as he returned to war against the barons in August 1215, it now set the precedent for all future medieval kings, who all swore to accept and agree to the terms of Magna Carta on their coronation. Henry III was forced to swear at first to the Provisions of Oxford in 1258, which stated that the king must defer to a council of 24 advisors, half of whom were chosen by the barons which would form a Privy Council to supervise the running of the kingdom. He was later captured again by Simon de Montfort who in 1265 asked for representatives from each borough and county to the first formal gathering of Parliament, which met to limit the power of the King and the great barons. Magna Carta was also re-issued to show that both Parliament and the King were subject to the law. Whilst de Montfort was defeated, Henry III continued to summon parliaments and all future kings did so. Charles I and Parliament: Charles needed the support of Parliament. In the 1520s he needed to call Parliament to fund his wars with France and Spain. Their refusal to do this unless Charles accepted their Petition of Right in 1528 led to the King dissolving Parliament in 1529. What followed was highly unpopular rule in the 1530s where the King tried to collect taxes in the form of Ship Tax, and unpopular religious policies being enforced on the country. Ultimately Charles was forced to recall Parliament in 1540 following the failure of these policies and the resulting war with Scotland. This proves that Charles needed the support of Parliament to ensure successful government. The failure to achieve this led to Civil War in 1542. • 1600-1800 – No The Glorious Revolution: In 1688 William of Orange was invited to invade England by Parliament and to become King. Parliament took the decisive step of going against their hereditary and arguably rightful king, James II (largely because of his Catholic religion), and instead replaced him with William. However, William and Mary had to swear an oath at their coronation that they would rule according to the laws passed in parliament. They were not above the law. They also had to agree on a Bill of Rights, which would prevent the monarch from suspending laws or keeping a large peacetime army. It also ensured Parliament would meet once a year and that MPs had the right to free speech in Parliament. It placed limits on how often the king could collect taxes. Whilst William retained a large amount of power, for example decisions about going to war and making the top appointments in government and the Church, in principle William now ruled subject to the approval of Parliament. • Conclusion: Monarchs only ruled effectively with the support of either their powerful nobles, barons or Parliament. Whilst the monarch was significantly more powerful that ordinary people, he had to ensure that he had the support and co-operation of his leading barons and MPs, otherwise they would take steps to remove or limit his power. So the king was only more powerful than his subjects (like barons or MPs) only so far as they were satisfied with their rule and their treatment under the monarch.

24. Was war the most serious problem rulers faced in the period c1000- c1800? Explain your answer. [24]

• YES – WAR WAS SIGNIFICANT in Medieval and . Wars with France were signficiant for King John and Henry II. Both of these meant that the King had to ask the Barons for more taxation, and often they weren’t consulted. The Barons were also expected to raise troops to support the foreign war. When these wars proved costly and also failed, the King lost the support of the Barons. In both cases these then led to all-out rebellions by the Barons, and the King losing power as a result, King John with Magna Carta and Henry II through the Provisions of Oxford and also Simon de Montfort’s first Parliament.

The Wars of the Roses also led to in-fighting between the factional houses of York and Lancaster which ultimately was a civil war. This led to Henry VI being captured by Edward IV in 1471 after his defeat, Edward IV being forced to flee as a result of the ambitions of the Earl of Warwick, his sons being possibly murdered on the orders of Richard III, and Richard III himself being killed I the Battle of Bosworth. The Civil War over access to the king and then the fight for the throne itself saw England completely destabilised and without effective, secure and peaceful rule for over 30 years.

NO – TAXATION AND POWERFUL BARONS

Taxation: However, it can be argued that taxation was the cause of much of the unrest by both barons and the wider commons. The barons only began to lose support for King John, when in an attempt to ensure more success in the wars with France, he raised taxes by over 25%. This, combined with losing further battles, and a lack of consultation with the barons, led to their withdrawing support and was one of the major causes in the Barons War against John. It also contributed to the unrest against Henry III, for essentially the same reasons but also by the fact that he gave his French relatives important jobs and privileges instead of his powerful barons. In both cases taxation and the lack of consultation led to tensions with the Barons and civil war. John was forced to sign Magna Carta and Henry III lost a huge amount of support and power in his conflict with Simon de Montfort and the Barons.

Powerful Barons however were the largest problem facing Medieval Kings. As described, when they were pushed too far with taxation, foreign wars, or simply being ignored in favour of the kings close relatives or foreign advisors, the Barons rose up to limit the power of the King. This was seen by both John and Henry II, and worse so by Richard II where the combination of all of these factors led to his defeat by the most powerful English barons, Henry Bolingbroke, who was able to defeat Richard at Flint Castle in Wales and become Henry IV. When the nobles became too powerful and the King proved personally weak, then over-powerful barons ended up either fighting each other in power struggles, as seen between Somerset and York at the start of the Wars of the Roses, or even attacking the King himself when they had grown over-mighty, as seen again in the Wars of the Roses by the actions of Edward IV against Henry VI.

Later period - Parliament: Over powerful Barons were replaced by the growing importance of Parliament during the reigns of the Tudors and Stuarts. Charles I needed the support of Parliament, but they were unwilling to co-operate unless Charles accepted their various demands for more consultation and power, for example with the Petition of Right in 1628, or the Grand Remonstrance of 1641. Charles failure to co-operate and instead to try to rule alone through his 11 year personal rule simply led to highly unpopular taxation and religious changes, whereby Charles was forced to recall Parliament, and even led to Civil War when Charles and Parliament proved unwilling to co-operate. It was only with the compromise of the Declaration of Breda that a settlement was reached that allowed Charles II to work effectively with the support of Parliament.

Conclusion – Wars were a significant problem for monarchs in the period 1000-1800 as these required huge amounts of money to ensure their success, and caused wider taxation. However, internal civil wars between the monarch and their subjects was actually the result of over- powerful barons during the Medieval period, and the growing demands for power of Parliament from 1215 onwards, and especially seen under Charles I with the English Civil War. Thus, wars were the result of the constant power struggle between monarchs and over-mighty subjects, and therefore not the most significant problem faced.

25. ‘In the period c1000-1800 the main cause of tension between rulers and their subjects was taxation.’ How far do you agree with this view? [24]

• Taxation (Choose one or two examples):

King John and Henry III: Taxation was the cause of much of the unrest by both barons and the wider commons. The barons only began to lose support for King John, when in an attempt to ensure more success in the wars with France, he raised taxes by over 25%. This, combined with losing further battles, and a lack of consultation with the barons, led to their withdrawing support and was one of the major causes in the Barons War against John. It also contributed to the unrest against Henry III, for essentially the same reasons but also by the fact that he gave his French relatives important jobs and privileges instead of his powerful barons. In both cases taxation and the lack of consultation led to tensions with the Barons and civil war. John was forced to sign Magna Carta and Henry III lost a huge amount of support and power in his conflict with Simon de Montfort and the Barons.

The Peasants Revolt: This revolt, led by Wat Tyler, was caused as a result of high levels of taxation to fund the ongoing war with France under Richard II. It was made worse by the outbreak of the Black Death thirty years before so there was popular discontent against the King, sparked off with his decision to increase the Poll Tax to a much higher rate than it had been previously. Whilst the rebellion was put down without a staged battle and Richard II making concessions to the rebels, they had still marched on London and besieged the , and executed some of his key advisors.

Charles I and Parliament: Charles needed the support of Parliament. In the 1520s he needed to call Parliament to fund his wars with France and Spain. Their refusal to do this unless Charles accepted their Petition of Right in 1528 led to the King dissolving Parliament in 1529. What followed was highly unpopular rule in the 1530s where the King tried to collect taxes in the form of Ship Tax, and unpopular religious policies being enforced on the country. There was significant protest about Charles trying to collect taxes, whereby some such as John Hampden believed he did not have the right to do so without the consent of Parliament. Hampden was arrested and put on trial, but many shared his view. Ultimately Charles was forced to recall Parliament in 1540 following the failure of these policies and the resulting war with Scotland, as he needed more money to fight the war with Scotland. However, many criticised the king and Parliament did not support him, so he shut this ‘Short Parliament’ down. This proves that Charles needed the support of Parliament, most importantly about taxation, to ensure successful government. The failure to achieve this led to Civil War in 1542.

No: Religion: Charles I and Parliament: Whilst many of Charles problems with Parliament stemmed from taxation, another serious cause of tension lay in religion. In 1625 he married the French Catholic princess Henrietta Maria. He suspended the recusancy laws that fined people for not attending Protestant services. He increased the power and authority of bishops. There were fears in Parliament, especially led by the extreme Puritans, that Charles would try to make England Catholic again. Charles’ war with Scotland was caused by his attempt to enforce the religious changes which he had introduced on England being rejected. So a large factor in the Civil War was religion.

James II and Glorious Revolution: James was married to a French Catholic and on friendly terms with the French Catholic King Louis XIV. He appeared to begin restoring Catholicism to England by forbidding Anglican ministers to preach anti- Catholic sermons and removing Protestants from government posts, replacing them with Catholic ministers. In 1687 – 1688 James published documents called INDULGENCES which he used to set aside the TEST and CORPORATIONS ACTS which prevented Catholics from being MPs, army officers and Justices of the Peace. He also set aside the HABEUS CORPUS Act which said that a person could not be arrested and held without being given a fair trial. In 1688 his wife had a son, James III, who was Catholic. Before this his heir was his Protestant daughter, Mary, who was married to William of Orange in the Netherlands. Parliament now feared that this would ensure England would become Catholic again. Several nobles sent notes to the Dutch prince, WILLIAM OF ORANGE, who was the husband of James IIs Protestant daughter, MARY. James began to frantically change his policies, but WILLIAM OF ORANGE’S forces landed in Devon. James II hid in a boat and subsequently fled to France. William and Mary were given full authority as monarchs of England. The agreement was called THE GLORIOUS REVOLUTION. Religion was arguably the main cause of this, and led to James II being defeated by Parliament and William of Orange, who preferred a Protestant heir.

Conclusion: In the Medieval and early modern periods, taxation was a huge cause of tension between subject and monarchs and often proved the spark that caused rebellion by the powerful barons. But during the 1600s the rise of Protestantism caused a change to this relationship whereby Parliament demanded that the monarch to be Protestant and ensure that England remained Protestant. Failure to do so led to Parliament actively deposing or executing the monarch.

26. Describe the actions of working-class movements in the 1800s. [4] Choose from two: • The Radicals: A new breed of political reformers emerged known as the Radicals. In 1812, John Cartwright formed the Hampden Club and William Cobbett published a magazine attacking the social inequality. Cartwright believed that all men should have the vote. Many working people in the industrial regions founded their own Hampden Clubs and produced pamphlets and petitions calling for reform. • Political Unions: Thomas Attwood, a banker in Birmingham, formed the BIRMINGHAM POLITICAL UNION (BPU). He wanted businessmen and industrialists to have the vote and should be able to become MPs. They would represent industry better in Parliament than existing MPS, and if industry prospered then workers would also prosper. He wanted the middle and lower classes to unite against the government. 50,000-100,000 would attend the meetings. Other political unions quickly emerged in industrial towns. • The Chartists: A new movement emerged from the discontent which wanted to force change in the political system. Chartism was a working class movement which had these principles known as the People’s Charter:-Universal suffrage, No property qualification to be an MP, Annual parliaments, Payment for MPs and a Secret ballot. In 1839 the Chartists presented a partition to parliament with over 1 million signatures on it so it was certainly a popular movement. The Chartists continued to press for change, but were constantly rejected. In 1848 the Chartists planned a huge meeting at Kennington Common in London. A petition with 1.5 million signatures was presented to parliament and rejected. After 1848 Chartism faded and historians have considered it to be a failure. But the Chartists did achieve the end of the Corn Laws and Chartism helped the Trade Unions to develop. • New Model Unions: In the 1850s NEW MODEL UNIONS were formed. The ASE (Amalgamated Society of Engineers) was the best known. Members paid membership fees and the unions supported them if they were ill or out of work. They avoided strikes and preferred to negotiate with employers to solve their disputes. Membership grew steadily so that 1 million men were in unions by 1874. Organisations like these convinced many MPs that the vote could be safely extended to ‘respectable’ working-class men. • Reform Parties: In 1864 the Radical MP JOHN BRIGHT formed the REFORM UNION. In 1865 several trade unions including the ASE created an organisation called the Reform League. The two groups collaborated closely. Large and sometimes violent meetings took place. These measures convinced both the Whig and Liberal parties that reform needed to take place.

27. What was the significance of the 1832 Parliamentary Reform Act? [8]

• Working Class protest had been effective: The work of the ASE, the Trade Unions, the Reform Union and the Reform League had all convinced many MPs that the vote could be extended to ‘respectable’ working class men, as well as showing that there was considerable support for the bill among middle class and working class men. The Whig Party had won the 1832 and its leader, Earl Grey, influenced by this protest movement, was able to pass the Reform Bill through both the House of Commons and . There had been numerous riots in many major cities. The unions had organised large meetings and had a lot of support. There was a genuine fear of a violent revolution if a reform did not happen, as had been the case in France. The Reform Bill avoided a potential revolution, and showed that Parliament could reform itself under enough pressure from workers’ and protest movements.

• Increase in number of voters: The electoral system in the 1800s was open to corruption. Big towns and cities were not represented. Wealthy men could buy constituencies in ‘rotten boroughs’ and usually only land or property owners could vote. 143 seats were taken away from rotten boroughs and distributed among the large industrial towns. Across the country the proportion of men who could vote rose from 11% to 18% in 1832. But only people paying at least £10 per year in rates could vote in boroughs. So whilst Rotten Boroughs were gotten rid of, the amount of people who could vote only slightly increased. Whilst cities gained more representation, the actual amount of people who could vote within it remained rather low.

• Not that much changed: The proportion of people who could vote only changed by a small degree. The majority of MPs were still landowners as they were the ones who could afford to do the job – it still was not paid. So very few working class or middle class men could afford to give up working and become MPs. There was still no secret ballot, so intimidation and corruption continued in the elections.

28. Describe the electoral system in 1800. [4] • In 1800 there were 658 MPs in the House of Commons. Each MP was elected to serve a CONSTITUENCY or region. Each constituency was either county or borough based and the size of the boroughs had been determined by the population in Medieval England. This was now very out of date and meant that some constituencies had a very small population, but could have a number of MPs representing it. These were rotten boroughs. OLD SARUM had no voters at all, but still returned two MPs. These cases were known as ‘Rotten Boroughs’, as wealthy men could effectively ‘buy’ constituencies where there was only a few voters. So corruption was rife. • Constituencies had different rules about who could vote. Usually only land – or property – owners could vote. A common rule to vote was that you needed to own land worth 40 shillings worth of property, but in some boroughs anyone who paid rates could vote. Again this was open to corruption whereby a landowner could have the local population ‘in his pocket’ and could ensure that the voters voted whichever way he chose through bribery or through choosing the voters. These were ‘Pocket Boroughs’. • There were no large towns or big cities represented. Instead many constituencies sent MPs to parliament because they had been important places in medieval or Tudor times. • There was no secret ballot since voting was done by a show of hands. This meant that people could be intimidated into voting for the candidate their landlord wanted.

29. Why was the electoral system being criticised in the early 1800s? [8] • Rotten and Pocket Boroughs: Each constituency was either county or borough based and the size of the boroughs had been determined by the population in Medieval England. This was now very out of date and meant that some constituencies had a very small population, but could have a number of MPs representing it. These were rotten boroughs. OLD SARUM had no voters at all, but still returned two MPs. These cases were known as ‘Rotten Boroughs’, as wealthy men could effectively ‘buy’ constituencies where there was only a few voters. So corruption was rife. Constituencies had different rules about who could vote. Usually only land – or property – owners could vote. A common rule to vote was that you needed to own land worth 40 shillings worth of property, but in some boroughs anyone who paid rates could vote. Again this was open to corruption whereby a landowner could have the local population ‘in his pocket’ and could ensure that the voters voted whichever way he chose through bribery or through choosing the voters. These were ‘Pocket Boroughs’. • In 1776 the American colonies rebelled and declared independence from Britain. In 1789 King Louis XVI of France was overthrown in a revolution and a revolutionary government took its place. These two events meant that there was a fear of a revolution in Britain and there was growing protest at the inequalities in the system. • In 1791 the radical writer Thomas Paine published an attack on the British political system in a book called THE RIGHTS OF MAN. In this work Paine argued that the British political system was corrupt and only represented the landowning class and privileged aristocracy. He called for more people to have the right to vote. The book was popular and 200,000 copies were sold which led to the government banning the book.

30. Which was more important: the 1867 Reform Act or the 1884 Reform Act? [8] • 1867 Reform Act: This was much more radical than the Great Reform Act of 1832. It was passed by the Tories under Disraeli. 45 small constituencies lost their MPs and these seats were given to the towns and counties with large populations. Therefore the voting system was beginning to become more representative of the population of the area it covered. In the boroughs, all men who owned or rented a house could vote (although this was mainly the better-off working classes). This Act finally ended the Pocket Boroughs. In the counties, men who owned or leased land could vote. The Act doubled the size of the electorate from 20 – 40% of the male population. Those without the vote were mostly agricultural labourers and unskilled industrial workers. • 1884 Reform Act: This Act was passed by the main rival to the Tories, the Whig party under Gladstone. It gave the vote to respectable householders in the countryside, so now both better-off working men in the cities and in the countryside could vote). The 1867 Act only applied to men in the cities. The Act also gave more seats to the big towns and cities, which tried to ensure fairer representation around the country. As a result, the electorate (amount of people who could vote) rose from 3 to 5 million. For the first time, constituencies represented fairly similar populations. • Judgement: The 1867 Act essentially gave much more representation to better off working men and more representation in the cities, as well as ending the remaining Pocket Boroughs.. This was much more radical than the 1832 Act and stopped some of the corruption in the political system. However, the 1884 Act tried to ensure fairer representation around the country, both in the cities and in the countryside and therefore the amount of men who could vote now increased to about 60%. However, neither Act was successful in giving the vote to all men, and there was no progress at all for women, who could not vote until 1918.

31. How significant were working-class movements in the period c1840 to the early 1900s? [14] • Argument: Working class movements became more united and more effective after the failure of the Great Reform Act of 1832 to live up to expectations. The development of New Model Unions, the Chartists, and the emergence of the Labour Party all put pressure on the government to pass the 2nd and 3rd Reform Acts, alongside the Liberal Reforms of the early 1900s. Whilst there were other factors such as the rivalry of the Whigs and Tories, arguably it was the pressure and potential threat of these working class movements that forced the government into accepting that political change was needed.

• Factor 1: The Chartists (Partially significant in developing future protest movements The Chartists emerged in the 1830s with the People’s Charter, demanding universal suffrage, annual parliaments, the secret ballot and other reforms to ensure that more working class people had a say in politics. To this effect, they present large petitions to Parliament, of over 1 million signatures. They also planned mass demonstrations, such as at Kennington Common, to demand political change. Sadly these were all rejected by Parliament. But whilst it could be argued that the Chartists were insignificant because they failed to secure political change in the 1840s, they did form the foundation for further protest movements later in the period, and they did help to achieve other reforms such as the end of the Corn Laws and improving conditions in factories.

• Factor 2: New Model Unions (Large membership and pressure convinced governments to reform) New Model Unions had high membership figures in the 1850s, and organisations like the ASE tried to pay member benefits when they were out of work or ill. By 1874 their membership was over 1 million, and they were able to convince many MPs that the vote could be extended to ‘respectable’ working class men. In 1864 the Reform Union brought several trade unions and the Reform Party of MP John Bright together. This union was able to exert a lot of pressure on the government. So by 1864 Disraeli passed the 2nd Reform Act, extending the vote to a larger range of towns and cities, doubling the size of the electorate. But further reform was still demanded. By the 1880s NMU Membership was over 2 million and represented by the new body of the Trade Union Council. Arguably, this pressure forced the Liberal leader Gladstone to create the 3rd Reform Act of 1884, which increased the size of the electorate even more, from 3 to 5 million, and tried to standardise the size of constituencies by their population. So the pressure of these trade unions was able to effectively raise the awareness in all political parties that reform was necessary.

• Factor 3: Labour (Fear of Labour rise led to Liberal Party creating Liberal Reforms and pushed for the Parliament Act of 1911) By 1900, workers’ rights were being threatened by the Taff Velley judgement, which essentially made strike action illegal. The TUC and the New Model Unions came together to form the early versions of the Labour Party. By the time of the 1906 elections, it had 29 seats in Parliament and represented over 8 million members. The leading Liberal Party was worried that the working class vote may shift towards the Labour Party. Whilst there were other factors behind them passing the Liberal Reforms, such as the work of charities, new thinking within the Party by members like Lloyd George and Churchill, the National Insurance Acts and the Pensions Act represented huge steps in ensuring government support for people in poverty. When the proposed budget for this was blocked in 1910 by the largely Tory House of Lords, The Liberals passed the Parliament Act meaning that effectively the House of Lords could no longer block a measure passed by the House of Commons. The fear of the new workers movement again put pressure on Liberal Party to create political change.

• Conclusion: The Working Class movements did not directly cause the Reform Acts of 1867 or 1884, or the Liberal Reforms of the early 20th Century. But the growing size of the political working class movements in the form of New Model Unions , the ASE and the TUC, and later the formation and emergence of Labour, all collectively were able to slowly either change the minds of the wider population and government that reform was necessary to ensure working class people were represented, or where that failed the fear of losing future elections to working class movements like the Labour Party, all ensured that a greater proportion than ever before of working class people had a political voice by the early 1900s. Whilst not all working class men, or any women were able to vote by 1918, the shift in the political nation that occurred in the 1800s largely happened as a result of working class movements.

32. Describe four ways in which government control increased during the world wars. [4] (Choose two) • PROPAGANDA and CENSORSHIP – Governments controlled information in both wars. Journalists had to submit articles to be approved by government censors before it could be published.In WW1 The Tribune was shut down for publishing anti-war articles and In 1941 the Daily Worker was shut for claiming that industry bosses were making profits out of the war. Books and films were censored in both wars and in WW2 the BBC co-operated with the government to keep morale up. In WW2 the media turned Winston Churchill into a legendary figure. • FOOD & RATIONING - WW1 – concern lay around supply ships that were being sunk by German submarines. In 1917 it was believed that the country only had 6 weeks supply of wheat. In WW1 RATIONING was not introduced until 1918 because the campaign to grow more food had worked. In WW2 rationing on food and clothes started at the beginning. A black market developed of luxury goods, but most agreed that it was fair and the health of the nation improved with rationing. • CONSCRIPTION – In World War One the government hoped 1 million volunteers for Kitchener’s army would be enough. The recruitment campaign was highly effective, but more men were needed. The war went on longer than expected. In 1916 the government introduced CONSCRIPTION for all 18-41 year old men. Some men did not want to fight for religious or political reasons and they had to go to a tribunal as a CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR. Some men went to prison or were sent to the front line to be stretcher bearers. The government controlled civilian workers as well as troops. The unions were very active and strikes over wages were regular. Usually the government backed down and wages increased. There were protests that women wages would undercut men so the government agreed they would be paid the same, but the women would lose their jobs at the end of the war. In World War Two CONSCRIPTION began the year before the war in 1938. The government was a coalition of Conservatives, Labour and Liberal politicians which worked well. The government and trade unions co-operated allowing men of 16 to work in the mines. In 1941 women were conscripted into the war effort as there was a lack of workers and huge industrial production was needed. Flexible child care schemes were introduced to allow women to work.

33. Describe the results of the general election in 1945. [4] • The Labour Party won the election which could be heralded as a success for working class movements. This heralded the decline of the Liberal Party. • The Labour Party introduced the reforms of the Beveridge Report were introduced, which essentially formed the ‘welfare state’: Family allowances being paid directly to the mother after the first child, National Insurance (1946) which provided compulsory insurance against unemployment or illness paid by the government, employer or worker contributions. National Health Service (1948) which introduced free health care for all British citizens. There was a massive House-building programme promising 1 million new homes by 1950s. The Labour Party introduced Nationalisation of industries like coal and railways, and finally attempted to provide full employment by creating millions of jobs.

34. Why was Britain’s war effort effective in the two world wars? [8] CONSCRIPTION: In World War One the government hoped 1 million volunteers for Kitchener’s army would be enough. The recruitment campaign was highly effective, but more men were needed as the war went on longer than expected. In 1916 the government introduced CONSCRIPTION for all 18-41 year old men. Some men did not want to fight for religious or political reasons and they had to go to a tribunal as a CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR. Some men went to prison or were sent to the front line to be stretcher bearers. This ensured there were enough men to fight in the war, as only about 5% of appeals were from conscientious objectors. The majority of exemptions granted were only temporary to allow men with families or businesses to make alternative arrangements. In World War Two CONSCRIPTION began the year before the war in 1938. The government was a coalition of Conservatives, Labour and Liberal politicians which worked well. As a result of conscription there were enough troops to support the war effort. DORA: The government also controlled civilian workers as well through DORA (the Defence of the Realm Act). It took control of the coal industry and set up its own munitions factories. Whilst there were strikes over, usually the government backed down and wages increased. There were protests that women wages would undercut men so the government agreed they would be paid the same, but the women would lose their jobs at the end of the war. This ensured that there was enough production in the Home Front for the war effort. In World War Two the government and trade unions co-operated allowing men of 16 to work in the mines. In 1941 women were conscripted into the war effort as there was a lack of workers and huge industrial production was needed. Flexible child care schemes were introduced to allow women to work. These measures ensured that production was sufficient to keep up with the demands of the war effort. Morale: Governments controlled information in both wars. In WW1 The Tribune was shut down for publishing anti-war articles and In 1941 the Daily Worker was shut for claiming that industry bosses were making profits out of the war. Books and films were censored in both wars and in WW2 the BBC co-operated with the government to keep morale up, as it censored itself and played a key role in informing the public and keeping up morale. Even though local newspapers were not as heavily censored, they generally remained supportive of both war efforts. Historians believe that British propaganda was generally effective in both wars. Adolf Hitler admired the work of British newspaper owner, Lord Northcliffe, which suggested it was effective. In WW2 the media turned Winston Churchill into a legendary figure. All of these measures ensured that the British public largely remained supportive of the war.

35. What was the significance of the 1945 general election? [8] • The Labour Party won the election which could be heralded as a success for working class movements. This heralded the decline of the Liberal Party. Power was now traded between the Labour Party and the Conservatives. The working class movement now had a voice in government acted for their interests. • The Labour Party introduced the reforms of the Beveridge Report were introduced, which essentially formed the ‘welfare state’: Family allowances being paid directly to the mother after the first child, National Insurance (1946) which provided compulsory insurance against unemployment or illness paid by the government, employer or worker contributions. National Health Service (1948) which introduced free health care for all British citizens. There was a massive House-building programme promising 1 million new homes by 1950s. The Labour Party introduced Nationalisation of industries like coal and railways, and finally attempted to provide full employment by creating millions of jobs. The government was now firmly acting in the interests of working people and trying to create a better Britain for ordinary people. • The Labour government of 1945-1951 laid down the policies that would be followed by both parties until Margaret Thatcher came to power in 1979. There was broad agreement about what the main issues were and how they should be handled. The Conservatives never reversed the changes of the Labour government. They largely agreed on the main issues. Both parties accepted that the country’s main problems needed to be tackled through intervention by parliament.

36. Describe two examples of challenges to the power of parliament in the period 1979-90. [4] • CND: THE CAMPAIGN FOR NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT was formed in the 1950s. CND membership increased significantly and in 1981 250,000 gathered in London for a rally. At Greenham Common a camp of 250,000 CND protesters remained until 2000. CND had support of up to 30% of the population. They asked awkward questions about having nuclear weapons and allowing the US to have nuclear bases in Britain. CND attracted Labour voters and, although it did not achieve disarmament, it was very influential in raising public awareness of the issue. • The Miners’ Strike of 1984-5: By the 1970s the coal industry was in decline and was losing money. Coal from overseas was much cheaper and British coal mines were outdated. Margaret Thatcher entrusted Neil McGregor as head of the NATIONAL COAL BOARD to close all mines. The NUM (NATIONAL UNION of MINEWORKERS) led by Arthur Scargill organised a strike which lasted for a year, and which caused violence between miners and the police. sympathised with the miners, but could see that the mines were losing money. This left a lot of anger and division across the country. • Greenpeace: Greenpeace was an environmental pressure group founded in Canada in 1971. It focused on carrying out high-profile direct action protests to highlight environmental issues. In the UK one of the main targets of Greenpeace was the British Nuclear Fuels Limited (BNFL) reprocessing plant at Sellafield. Greenpeace kept up a constant campaign in the media to highlight what it saw as the waste and danger of the plant. In 1983, four Greenpeace drivers tried to block a discharge pipe at the plant, claiming it was releasing more than 10 million litres of radioactive waste into the sea every day. As a result, Greenpeace was fined £50,000 and BNFL was granted a permanent injunction against them. BNFL was later found guilty of the discharge. As well as the obvious environmental point, Greenpeace was also challenging the government and accusing it of being in league with big businesses like BNFL at the expense of the environment and of the health of the local people. Greenpeace was an embarrassment to the government throughout the 1980s, although the Sellafield plant is still operating.

37. Explain why there was a lot of disillusionment with politics and politicians in Britain by the early 2000s. [8]

Disillusionment statistics: In the early 2000s, the Hansard Society began a survey of how the public felt about politics. It found;

• Only about 50% of the population is certain to vote in a general election. This was under 20% for people aged 18-24. • Fewer than 50% of the population say they are interested in politics. • Only 24% think that the parliamentary system is working well. Role of Thatcher and Blair Margaret Thatcher, leader of the Conservatives and Prime Minister in the 1980s, clashed with trade unions and severely weakened their power. She ended government support of the mining industry and closed all the mines that were no longer making any money. She drastically cut government spending in all areas including health, education and welfare. She privatised major industries including the railways and telephone system, and sold them to private businesses. These were previously run by the state. She also reduced income tax and corporation tax on businesses so they could keep more of their money. Tony Blair, leader of Labour and Prime Minister from 1997, made radical changes to the Labour Party, renaming it ‘New Labour’. He largely continued the policies introduced by Margaret Thatcher. Blair rejected the idea that government should run industries and kept many of the restrictions placed on trade unions. He worked hard to win over businesses, especially big banks. He involved private companies in issues such as health and education. Blair also often announced new policies through the media before they had even been discussed in Parliament, acting more like a US President than a typical prime minister. As a result of the policies of Blair and Thatcher, people began to distrust both the Conservatives and the New Labour Party, as they appeared to be acting in the interests of big business rather than the people. Professional Politicians Before the 1980s, politicians had careers in law, trade unions, journalism etc. before they became involved in politics. From the 1980s there has been the rise of professional politicians. The political parties became much more centralised and controlled which candidates stood for which constituencies, often not being local. This meant that MPs often had no career outside politics.

Greenpeace: Greenpeace was an environmental pressure group founded in Canada in 1971. It focused on carrying out high-profile direct action protests to highlight environmental issues. In the UK one of the main targets of Greenpeace was the British Nuclear Fuels Limited (BNFL) reprocessing plant at Sellafield. Greenpeace kept up a constant campaign in the media to highlight what it saw as the waste and danger of the plant. In 1983, four Greenpeace drivers tried to block a discharge pipe at the plant, claiming it was releasing more than 10 million litres of radioactive waste into the sea every day. As a result, Greenpeace was fined £50,000 and BNFL was granted a permanent injunction against them. BNFL was later found guilty of the discharge. As well as the obvious environmental point, Greenpeace was also challenging the government and accusing it of being in league with big businesses like BNFL at the expense of the environment and of the health of the local people. This further supported the concept that the government supported big business over the interests of the people or the environment. 38. How significant a challenge to government were pressure groups in the 1980s? [14] CND: THE CAMPAIGN FOR NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT was formed in the 1950s. CND membership increased significantly and in 1981 250,000 gathered in London for a rally. At Greenham Common a camp of 250,000 CND protesters remained until 2000. CND had support of up to 30% of the population. They asked awkward questions about having nuclear weapons and allowing the US to have nuclear bases in Britain. CND attracted Labour voters and, although it did not achieve disarmament, it was very influential in raising public awareness of the issue. In the 1990s countries around the world signed treaties limiting nuclear weapons. It cannot be proven that this is the result of the actions of the CND, but they may have contributed. The Miners’ Strike of 1984-5: By the 1970s the coal industry was in decline and was losing money. Coal from overseas was much cheaper and British coal mines were outdated. Margaret Thatcher entrusted Neil McGregor as head of the NATIONAL COAL BOARD to close all mines. The NUM (NATIONAL UNION of MINEWORKERS) led by Arthur Scargill organised a strike which lasted for a year, and which caused violence between miners and the police. British people sympathised with the miners, but could see that the mines were losing money. This left a lot of anger and division across the country. The Miners’ Strike did not stop the closing of the mines as the government had prepared for the possibility of a strike and had gathered large stockpiles of coal to keep the power stations running. Nor did the strike stop the destruction to the mining communities and the hardship and social problems that ensued as a result. So in real terms, it was not significant at stopping the government’s policies, but it did raise large public awareness of the issue and continues to arouse a lot of discontent to the Conservative party. Greenpeace: Greenpeace was an environmental pressure group founded in Canada in 1971. It focused on carrying out high-profile direct action protests to highlight environmental issues. In the UK one of the main targets of Greenpeace was the British Nuclear Fuels Limited (BNFL) reprocessing plant at Sellafield. Greenpeace kept up a constant campaign in the media to highlight what it saw as the waste and danger of the plant. In 1983, four Greenpeace drivers tried to block a discharge pipe at the plant, claiming it was releasing more than 10 million litres of radioactive waste into the sea every day. As a result, Greenpeace was fined £50,000 and BNFL was granted a permanent injunction against them. BNFL was later found guilty of the discharge. As well as the obvious environmental point, Greenpeace was also challenging the government and accusing it of being in league with big businesses like BNFL at the expense of the environment and of the health of the local people. Greenpeace was an embarrassment to the government throughout the 1980s, although the Sellafield plant is still operating. Greenpeace did not stop the waste and danger of the BNFL plant at Sellafield, but it did raise public awareness about the issue.

39. ‘Britain became much more democratic in the period c1485-2014.’ How far do you agree? [24] Argument: In the early modern period Parliament did grow in importance and gained much more rights than it had in the earlier Medieval Period. However, it consisted of large landowners generally and the majority of the population were unable to vote. This only began to change in the 1800s because of the Reform Acts, and did not really change until the Representation of the People Act in 1918. So Britain only became more democratic from the 1800s onwards. Before this only the balance of power shifted from monarch to parliament, but not to the people. Early Modern: Tudors: Under Henry VIII and Elizabeth, Parliament did grow in power to an extent, but ruled at the will of the monarch. Both Henry and Elizabeth co-operated with Parliament generally, for Henry to fund his wars, to pass the Act of Supremacy and subsequent religious changes, and in crushing the power of over-powerful nobles with the Acts of Attainder. Elizabeth also used it to support her religious changes with her Act of Supremacy, and in using members of the Privy Council to work alongside Parliament to pass laws and agree taxation. However, neither Henry or Elizabeth tolerated Parliament challenging their power, Henry tolerated no opposition to his religious changes and personally sat in Parliament to ensure that some of his religious acts were passed, and Elizabeth was unwilling to ever let Parliament have a real say in her religious policies, her marriage or the succession. Therefore Britain did not become more democratic under the Tudors. The Civil War: Parliament did grow in importance during the reign of Charles I, because of his refusal to co-operate with parliament or to accept their criticisms. He was forced to call Parliament to fund expensive military wars and to ensure his religious changes were funded in the 1520s. Upon their attempt to gain more of a say about taxation with the Petition of Right, Charles simply dismissed Parliament. However, he was forced to recall them in 1640 to ask for further money and taxes to fund the war with Scotland. Which they refused. This conflict continued until Charles defeat and execution in the Civil War, leading to Parliament ruling Britain under Cromwell. Whilst this severely limited the power of the monarch (they killed him!), it did not allow Britain to become more democratic as Parliament largely consisted of wealthy landowners and the majority of the population were unable to vote. Modern Period: 1800-1918 Reforms: Britain only became more democratic when it was forced to by working class protest movements, clashes between the Whig and Tory Party, or out of fear of a revolution. The 1832 Great Reform Act, passed by Lord Earl Grey of the Whig Party, did increase amount of men able to vote, but only from 11% to 18% and began to see some representation in industrial towns. The 1867 Reform Act ended many of the Rotten Boroughs common around Britain, and increased the amount of men able to vote from about 20-40%, as now better-off working men were able to vote. However, the Third Reform Act of 1884 was needed to extend this beyond just the cities and into the countryside. But even then, not all men could vote and no women could. This was not changed until the 1918 Representation of the People Act, partly made in recognition of World War One, but also the impact of the Suffragettes and the wider women’s protest movements. Britain did become more democratic during this period, but only when the government was effectively forced into changing the political system. Distrust by 2014: However, during the leadership of Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair, people became disillusioned with politics and the government, with election turnouts being approximately 50%, and only 24% of people thinking that parliament works effectively. Thatcher’s closure of the mines and responses to protest groups like Greenpeace and support of big businesses, alongside the privatisation of major industries and business, led some to claim that the government no longer represented the interests of the people, but instead big business. This was repeated under Blair, who essentially carried on these policies and continued to support privatisation of key parts of society like education and healthcare. Conclusion: Britain did not become more democratic until 1918. Only then because it was forced to by a significant amount of working class protest movements in the 1800s, and in 1918 only when women were given the vote alongside men due to their role in World War One and the impact of the suffrage societies. While by 2014 there is large disillusionment with politics, legally Britain is much more democratic than it was under the Tudors and Stuarts when it was ruled by monarchs and large-landowners in parliament.

40. ‘For most of the period c1485-c2014, monarchs were more powerful than their subjects.’ How far do you agree with this view? [24] Argument: Monarchs were more powerful than their subjects during the Tudor period, as long as the monarch was able to work alongside Parliament. However, this clearly was not the case during the English Civil War when Parliament went to war with their monarch, Charles I, and defeated and executed him in 1649. Whilst Charles II was restored, there were limits placed on his power. However, it wasn’t until the Glorious Revolution that Parliament became effectively more powerful than the monarch, and the system of constitutional monarchy that resulted from this remains to this day. Therefore monarchs were only more powerful than their subjects in the Tudor period, subsequently they lost power to an ever more important Parliament. Early Modern: Tudors: Under Henry VIII and Elizabeth, Parliament did grow in power to an extent, but ruled at the will of the monarch. Both Henry and Elizabeth co-operated with Parliament generally, for Henry to fund his wars, to pass the Act of Supremacy and subsequent religious changes, and in crushing the power of over-powerful nobles with the Acts of Attainder. Elizabeth also used it to support her religious changes with her Act of Supremacy, and in using members of the Privy Council to work alongside Parliament to pass laws and agree taxation. However, neither Henry or Elizabeth tolerated Parliament challenging their power, Henry tolerated no opposition to his religious changes and personally sat in Parliament to ensure that some of his religious acts were passed, and Elizabeth was unwilling to ever let Parliament have a real say in her religious policies, her marriage or the succession. Therefore the monarch was more powerful than their subjects during the Tudor period.

The Civil War: Charles I lost all power to Parliament during his reign, because of his refusal to co-operate with parliament or to accept their criticisms. He was forced to call Parliament to fund expensive military wars and to ensure his religious changes were funded in the 1520s. Upon their attempt to gain more of a say about taxation with the Petition of Right, Charles simply dismissed Parliament. However, he was forced to recall them in 1640 to ask for further money and taxes to fund the war with Scotland. Which they refused. This conflict continued until Charles defeat and execution in the Civil War, leading to Parliament ruling Britain under Cromwell. Whilst this severely limited the power of the monarch (they killed him!). Therefore the monarch was clearly not more powerful than their subjects, as Charles proved the monarch needed the support of leading subjects and Parliament to reign successfully.

The Glorious Revolution: In 1688 William of Orange was invited to invade England by Parliament and to become King. Parliament took the decisive step of going against their hereditary and arguably rightful king, James II (largely because of his Catholic religion), and instead replaced him with William. However, William and Mary had to swear an oath at their coronation that they would rule according to the laws passed in parliament. They were not above the law. They also had to agree on a Bill of Rights, which would prevent the monarch from suspending laws or keeping a large peacetime army. It also ensured Parliament would meet once a year and that MPs had the right to free speech in Parliament. It placed limits on how often the king could collect taxes. Whilst William retained a large amount of power, for example decisions about going to war and making the top appointments in government and the Church, in principle William now ruled subject to the approval of Parliament. Therefore he was not more powerful than his subjects.

Power of subjects increased in 1800s – 1918 During the 1800s, the monarchy continued to be limited by the consequences of the Glorious Revolution and the Bill of Rights. Therefore government was largely done by a minority of aristocratic, wealthy landowners in Parliament. The majority of the population had no say or representation and the system of elections was largely corrupt. However, this began to change with the passing of the 1832 Great Reform Act, the 2nd Reform Act of 1867 and the 3rd Reform Act of 1884. By the end of the 1800s the system of rotten and pocket boroughs had been ended, and the vote had been extended to about 60% of working men. However, it wasn’t until the 1918 Representation of the People Act that all men and some women began to have the right to vote and therefore gained more power. Whilst the power of the monarch had not significantly changed since the Glorious Revolution, the power of ordinary people to have a say in government greatly increased during the 1800s and by 1918.

World Wars: World War One and Two saw the government gain unprecedented levels of control of people’s lives with the passing of the Defence of the Realm Act (DORA) in 1914, which was repeated during the Second World War. The government used conscription to ensure that there was enough recruitment into the armed forces for the war effort. DORA allowed the government to take over key industries like mining and munitions factories to control production and ensure that there was enough production for the war effort. The government gained censorship over newspapers, which had to submit all articles for approval before publication. Therefore during the wars, the government had unprecedented powers over peoples lives. However, this was only limited to the war efforts and so was only short term.

Conclusion: Monarchs only had significantly more power than their subjects in this period under the Tudors, and even then generally by some active co-operation with Parliament. Charles I failed to realise this, and through his insistence on the Divine Right of Kings, lost all his authority and life. Whilst the powers of the monarchy were largely restored given with the Restoration, limits were placed on it during the Glorious Revolution which remain to this day with the concept of a ‘constitutional monarchy’. However, the power of the subjects has not remained consistent, and it wasn’t until the 1800s that ordinary working people began to have more of a say in the running of the country.

41. Was war the most serious problem which faced rulers in the period c1485-2014? Explain you answer. [24] Argument: Yes – World Wars and Civil War (Early Modern) Charles I and Civil War: War was a huge problem for Charles I. He constantly needed money from Parliament in order to fund his wars with France and Spain in the , which was refused unless Charles agreed to accept the Petition of Right, which limited Charles’ right to collect taxes. War continued to be a problem with Scotland in the 1630s as the Scots rebelled at Charles’ religious changes. Parliament refused to grant any more taxes to fund this war, which resulted in Charles losing more authority. It could be argued that the wars caused a large amount of the conflict between Charles and Parliament which led to the Civil War in 1642. Charles ultimately lost this, and was put on trial and executed in 1649 as a result. Therefore war was a serious problem because it worsened the relationship between Charles and Parliament, and ultimately cost him his throne and his life.

(Modern) World Wars: The First and Second World Wars were a significant challenge to government. During this period they faced shortages in the number of troops in the army, shortages in food and equipment, and issues of how to keep morale of the public high and encourage support for the war effort. However, this was handled successfully in the First World War through the introduction of DORA which gave the government unparalled powers over people’s lives, ensuring they could take control of key industries like munitions factories and coal mining to keep up production. Conscription was used in both wars to solve the problem of enough troops for the war effort. Censorship was used effectively on the national press to ensure that they did not publish material overly critical of the war effort. And even when an organisation was not directly controlled by the government, it generally censored itself, such as the BBC. Whilst there were disputes with trade unions over working hours and levels of pay, these were generally settled with payments of higher wages and equal payment for women workers. So whilst the concept of Total War placed Britain and the government under enormous pressure, the government was generally successful in dealing with it with few challenges to its authority. Therefore war was not the most significant problem facing rules in the modern era.

(Early Modern) Civil War + Religion: Charles I and Parliament: Whilst the Civil War with Parliament was a serious problem for Charles, it was not caused by wars but caused by issues over taxation, religion and disagreements about the role and power of Parliament. In 1625 Charles married the French Catholic princess Henrietta Maria. He suspended the recusancy laws that fined people for not attending Protestant services. He increased the power and authority of bishops. There were fears in Parliament, especially led by the extreme Puritans, that Charles would try to make England Catholic again. Charles’ war with Scotland was caused by his attempt to enforce the religious changes which he had introduced on England being rejected. The attempts to raise taxation to support these wars were not supported by Parliament unless he agreed to limits on his ‘Divine Right of Kings’. So whilst war was perhaps the most fatal problem for Charles, it was actually caused by a combination of religious unrest, taxation and conflict with parliament.

(Modern (1800s onwards) – Working Class protest: Workers groups like the Chartists, the Birmingham Political Union, New Model Unions such as the ASE, and the Reform Union and Reform League all grew to large, well-organised unions of workers during the 1800s and campaigned for greater political representation and universal suffrage. The governments during the 1800s were worried by the size and popularity of these movements, for example the Chartists were able to get petitions of 1.5 million presented to Parliament in 1848, BPU meetings drew audiences of 50,000-100,000 people, and New Model Unions achieved membership of over 1 million by 1874. The three Reform Acts of the 1800s were done in large part by the government due to their campaigning, but also the fear of violence and even potential revolution as had happened in France in 1789. The government was arguably forced to make changes to the political system because of the growing threat of these working class movements. Therefore war was not as significant in the 1800s – it did not challenge the authority of the government. The workers and trade unions did and were therefore more serious of a problem.

Conclusion: In the early modern period war was certainly a problem for rulers like Charles I. However, the Civil War was the result of a range of other factors such as religion, challenges to the concept of the divine right of kings, and taxation. Whilst the World Wars in the 20th Century proved very challenging, the government was able to implement laws such as DORA to ensure Britain was able to meet the demands of the war effort without any serious challenge to their rule. In the Modern period the much more serious challenge to the government was the growing popularity and strength of the workers movements demanding political change, not war.

42. ‘In the period c1485-2014 the balance of power shifted decisively towards the majority of the population.’ How far do you agree? [24] Argument: The balance of power through the early modern era saw the Tudor monarchs firmly in control and dealing effectively with any threats to their rule. The Civil War under Charles saw the rise of parliament, especially during the Interegnum under Cromwell. But in either case, either the King was in charge or a small group of wealthy landowners, Britain was far from democratic. This did not change until the Reform Acts of the 1800s and finally the Representation of the People Act in 1918. Finally, it could be argued that Britain by the early 2000s saw power become more centralised by the government and shifted away from workers and the majority of the population. Therefore the balance of power only shifted decisively in the 1800s as a result of worker protest and the reform acts, with little significant change for the majority taking place before then.

(Early Modern) Tudors Tudors: Under Henry VIII and Elizabeth, Parliament did grow in power to an extent, but ruled at the will of the monarch. Both Henry and Elizabeth co-operated with Parliament generally, for Henry to fund his wars, to pass the Act of Supremacy and subsequent religious changes, and in crushing the power of over-powerful nobles with the Acts of Attainder. Elizabeth also used it to support her religious changes with her Act of Supremacy, and in using members of the Privy Council to work alongside Parliament to pass laws and agree taxation. However, neither Henry or Elizabeth tolerated Parliament challenging their power, Henry tolerated no opposition to his religious changes and personally sat in Parliament to ensure that some of his religious acts were passed, and Elizabeth was unwilling to ever let Parliament have a real say in her religious policies, her marriage or the succession. The balance of power remained firmly in the hands of Tudor monarchs, not Parliament and certainly not the wider population. The Civil War: It could be argued that power shifted towards parliament during the reign of Charles I, because of his refusal to co-operate with parliament or to accept their criticisms. He was forced to call Parliament to fund expensive military wars and to ensure his religious changes were funded in the 1520s. Upon their attempt to gain more of a say about taxation with the Petition of Right, Charles simply dismissed Parliament. However, he was forced to recall them in 1640 to ask for further money and taxes to fund the war with Scotland. Which they refused. This conflict continued until Charles defeat and execution in the Civil War, leading to Parliament ruling Britain under Cromwell. Whilst this severely limited the power of the monarch (they killed him!), it did not allow Britain to become more democratic as Parliament largely consisted of wealthy landowners and the majority of the population were unable to vote.

The Glorious Revolution: In 1688 William of Orange was invited to invade England by Parliament and to become King. Parliament took the decisive step of going against their hereditary and arguably rightful king, James II (largely because of his Catholic religion), and instead replaced him with William. However, William and Mary had to swear an oath at their coronation that they would rule according to the laws passed in parliament. They were not above the law. They also had to agree on a Bill of Rights, which would prevent the monarch from suspending laws or keeping a large peacetime army. It also ensured Parliament would meet once a year and that MPs had the right to free speech in Parliament. It placed limits on how often the king could collect taxes. Whilst William retained a large amount of power, for example decisions about going to war and making the top appointments in government and the Church, in principle William now ruled subject to the approval of Parliament. But Parliament remained a small group of wealthy landowners in a corrupt political system which did not represent the wider population. So while power shifted towards parliament, it did not shift to the wider population.

(Modern) Power of subjects increased in 1800s – 1918 During the 1800s, the monarchy continued to be limited by the consequences of the Glorious Revolution and the Bill of Rights. Therefore government was largely done by a minority of aristocratic, wealthy landowners in Parliament. The majority of the population had no say or representation and the system of elections was largely corrupt. However, this began to change with the passing of the 1832 Great Reform Act, the 2nd Reform Act of 1867 and the 3rd Reform Act of 1884. By the end of the 1800s the system of rotten and pocket boroughs had been ended, and the vote had been extended to about 60% of working men. However, it wasn’t until the 1918 Representation of the People Act that all men and some women began to have the right to vote and therefore gained more power. Therefore the power of ordinary people to have a say in government greatly increased during the 1800s and by 1918.

Distrust by 2014: However, during the leadership of Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair, people became disillusioned with politics and the government, with election turnouts being approximately 50%, and only 24% of people thinking that parliament works effectively. Thatcher’s closure of the mines and responses to protest groups like Greenpeace and support of big businesses, alongside the privatisation of major industries and business, led some to claim that the government no longer represented the interests of the people, but instead big business. This was repeated under Blair, who essentially carried on these policies and continued to support privatisation of key parts of society like education and healthcare. Huge campaigns by the likes of the CND, the Miner’s Strike of 1984 and the Greenpeace protest at Sellafield were all stopped by the government. It began to appear to many in Britain that the government no longer acted in the interest if the people, but in big business, and that the majority of the population could be ignored by government in spite of popular protest movements.

Conclusion: There was little gains made during the early modern era for the general population – during the Tudor and power did shift decisively away from the monarch towards Parliament, but Parliament did not represent the majority of the population and instead acted in what they believed was best for the population, or themselves. It was only in the 1800s that significant changes were made to the concept of the political nation which enabled all men and women to get the vote by the early 1900s, as shown by the Representation of the People Act. Whilst there is large disillusionment with the present system of government, the gains made during the reform Acts remain in place. Power lies in the hands of an elected, democratic government, elected by the people. But this was not a consistent growth in power over time, and certainly not a decisive shift as it took the three reform acts and the Representation of the People Act to finally include the majority of the population in the political nation.

43. Describe two examples of how Charles I tried to rule without parliament in the years 1629-40. [4] 1) Personal Rule and the Long Parliament After 1629 Charles ruled for 11 years without Parliament. This is seen as the time of his PERSONAL RULE. Charles brought in strong ministers in such as William Laud, William Noy and Thomas Wentworth. William Juxon became Bishop of London. Charles raised money without parliament by restoring knighthood fines for landowners who did not attend their knighthood ceremony. Charles brought in SHIP MONEY to all counties which was a tax levied in coastal towns during war. 2) Religious changes Under Archbishop William Laud, churches became more decorated and more beautiful. Church services had more ceremony and ritual. A new was introduced to Scotland in 1637. This led to fears that Charles would try to restore Catholicism and also led to the war with Scotland when they refused to accept the religious changes.

44. Explain why medieval rulers sometimes clashed with their barons or bishops. [8]

Barons: TAXATION - Henry III was a relatively stable King, but he upset the barons by fighting costly wars with France and increasing their taxation. He extended taxation to include lesser barons. In 1258 a group of disgruntled barons went to Henry III and demanded a range of reforms. The Earl of Leicester, SIMON DE MONTFORT, was the leader of the rebel barons. Henry was forced to accept the PROVISIONS OF OXFORD which meant that Henry would have to defer to 24 advisers (12 chosen by Henry and 12 elected by the barons). This parliament would meet three times a year and would select the PRIVY COUNCIL that would appoint local officials. This later developed into the first Parliament of 1265 when De Montfort called knights, the lesser gentry and merchants to London from each county and borough of England to discuss how to limit the power of the king and great barons.

Bishops: Control of the Church - In the 1160s Henry wanted to increase the power of the monarchy over the church. He wanted some legal cases which were heard in the church courts to be moved to the royal courts. He also wanted more control over the appointment of bishops and abbots. Henry appointed his Chancellor, Thomas Becket, to the position of archbishop of Canterbury expecting that Becket would support him. Thomas Becket surprised Henry II by being far more loyal to the church than to the King. Becket refused to have churchmen tried in royal courts and he refused to allow Henry to appoint his own bishops and abbots. The two clashed and Henry’s fiery temper led to an argument which saw Becket escape to France, and ultimately his death in 1170. Henry had to accept the Treaty of Avranches which limited his power over the Church. This entire conflict stemmed from who really held the power in England, the Church or the King. 45. How significant was military power to Anglo-Saxon kings? [14] Claim to the throne: Military power was often the most important factor in claiming the throne, as defending the country was the primary role of any Anglo- Saxon king. They failed when they were unable to do this and were replaced by their opponent. Thus Aethelred was defeated by King Swein of Denmark and died opposing King Cnut in 1016. Cnut was able to execute some of Aethelred’s leading followers, but then allowed most of the Anglo-Saxon nobles to keep their land and position in return for their support. Harold Godwinson’s main claim to the throne was based on him being the most powerful Anglo-Saxon noble under . Therefore an Anglo-Saxon king’s reign depended on military power and military success to stay monarch and rule successfully. Support of nobles: Edward the Confessor lost much of his authority to the most powerful noble, earl Godwin, in 1051 as a result of their feud. The leading nobles around London and the South-East sided with Godwin against the King. Edward was forced to dismiss many of his Norman officials, who Godwin demanded be removed, and sack his Norman archbishop of Canterbury. Godwin was able to do this because he had the support of the wider nobles and the most military power. Therefore the king’s status depended on him having the support of his nobles which meant that he would be strong enough to achieve and enforce his aims. Without this military power, the king was essentially weak and could be challenged. Defending the country: An Anglo-Saxon kings main responsibility was defending the country. Aethelred the Unready faced a significant Viking invasion through the 990s and early 1000s. He made unwise decisions like killing all the Vikings in the North and the Midlands in 1002 which lost him the support of many nobles and encouraged revenge attacks by the Vikings. Aethelred was unable to stop the Viking attacks of Swein, and was forced into exile in Normandy. When he returned in 1016, he died trying to re-take the throne using military force. He did not have enough military power or support, and therefore lost his throne. Likewise Harold Godwinson needed to defend the country against William the Conqueror in 1066 at the Battle of Hastings. Although he had been successful against the Viking attack at the Battle of Stamford Bridge, Harold was partly unlucky and partly did not have enough military support or power to defeat William. This resulted in his death at Hastings. Therefore an Anglo-Saxon kings right to be king was dependent on him being able to defend it in battle with large military strength.

46. ‘In the early modern and modern periods monarchs and governments did not need the support of the people they ruled over.’ How far do you agree with this statement? [24]

Argument: In the early modern period, Stuart monarchs in particular needed the support of Parliament to rule effectively. Failure to secure this led to Civil War and the Glorious Revolution, which in both cases led to the monarch losing all power. In the modern era, Parliament was partly forced to make changes and reform the political system as they did not have the support of the wider population and especially the new workers movements. Therefore in over this whole period the support of the people they ruled over was essential, but in the 1600s this meant Parliament, and during the 1800s this meant the wider working (male) population.

• English Civil War – Charles needed the support of Parliament. In the 1520s he needed to call Parliament to fund his wars with France and Spain. Their refusal to do this unless Charles accepted their Petition of Right in 1528 led to the King dissolving Parliament in 1529. What followed was highly unpopular rule in the 1530s where the King tried to collect taxes in the form of Ship Tax, and unpopular religious policies being enforced on the country. Ultimately Charles was forced to recall Parliament in 1540 following the failure of these policies and the resulting war with Scotland. This proves that Charles needed the support of Parliament to ensure successful government. The failure to achieve this led to Civil War in 1542. Charles I therefore needed the support and co-operation of Parliament to rule effectively, it led to Civil War when he lost it.

• James II and Glorious Revolution: James II lost the support of Parliament. James was married to a French Catholic and on friendly terms with the French Catholic King Louis XIV. He appeared to begin restoring Catholicism to England by forbidding Anglican ministers to preach anti-Catholic sermons and removing Protestants from government posts, replacing them with Catholic ministers. In 1687 – 1688 James published documents called INDULGENCES which he used to set aside the TEST and CORPORATIONS ACTS which prevented Catholics from being MPs, army officers and Justices of the Peace. He also set aside the HABEUS CORPUS Act which said that a person could not be arrested and held without being given a fair trial. In 1688 his wife had a son, James III, who was Catholic. Before this his heir was his Protestant daughter, Mary, who was married to William of Orange in the Netherlands. Parliament now feared that this would ensure England would become Catholic again. Several nobles sent notes to the Dutch prince, WILLIAM OF ORANGE, who was the husband of James IIs Protestant daughter, MARY. James began to frantically change his policies, but WILLIAM OF ORANGE’S forces landed in Devon. James II hid in a boat and subsequently fled to France. William and Mary were given full authority as monarchs of England. The agreement was called THE GLORIOUS REVOLUTION. Therefore the king needed the support of Parliament (although not necessarily the wider population) during this period.

• (Modern) Working Class protest: Workers groups like the Chartists, the Birmingham Political Union, New Model Unions such as the ASE, and the Reform Union and Reform League all grew to large, well-organised unions of workers during the 1800s and campaigned for greater political representation and universal suffrage, and were opposed to the corruption of the political system and the fact that the majority of the population were not represented in government. The governments during the 1800s were worried by the size and popularity of these movements, for example the Chartists were able to get petitions of 1.5 million presented to Parliament in 1848, BPU meetings drew audiences of 50,000-100,000 people, and New Model Unions achieved membership of over 1 million by 1874. The three Reform Acts of the 1800s were done in large part by the government due to their campaigning, but also the fear of violence and even potential revolution as had happened in France in 1789. The government was arguably forced to make changes to the political system because of the growing threat of these working class movements. The Whig Party and the Tories in large part did not have the support of these groups, and so were forced to make changes to the political system to avoid further unrest. • Labour (Fear of Labour rise led to Liberal Party creating Liberal Reforms and pushed for the Parliament Act of 1911) The Liberal Reforms were partly done by the government out of a fear that they would lose support and power to the Labour Party if they did not. By 1900, workers’ rights were being threatened by the Taff Velley judgement, which essentially made strike action illegal. The TUC and the New Model Unions came together to form the early versions of the Labour Party. By the time of the 1906 elections, it had 29 seats in Parliament and represented over 8 million members. The leading Liberal Party was worried that the working class vote may shift towards the Labour Party. Whilst there were other factors behind them passing the Liberal Reforms, such as the work of charities, new thinking within the Party by members like Lloyd George and Churchill, the National Insurance Acts and the Pensions Act represented huge steps in ensuring government support for people in poverty. When the proposed budget for this was blocked in 1910 by the largely Tory House of Lords, The Liberals passed the Parliament Act meaning that effectively the House of Lords could no longer block a measure passed by the House of Commons. The fear of the new workers movement again put pressure on Liberal Party to create political change.

Conclusion: In the early modern period the monarch could be replaced if he did not have the support of Parliament. This was seen both by the reigns of Charles I and also James II. In the modern period the government was forced to make reforms to the political system in fear of the growing support of the workers suffrage movement, and this was also reflected in one of the factors contributing to the Liberal Reforms. Over all of this period, a government could not rule effectively if it did not have the support of the wider population and was forced to either make changes or be removed from power if it failed to do so.

47. Explain why some women were given the right to vote in 1918 (8)

Suffragist (NUWSS) campaigning - In 1897 the NUWSS (Suffragists) were formed, led by Millicent Fawcett. They had over 500 local branches around the country, around 50,000 fee-paying members and many volunteers. The Suffragists wrote thousands of letters to MPs, organised rallies and marches. They went to meetings held by all the political parties and asked questions about women’s suffrage (the right to vote). They effectively promoted their campaign in the newspapers. It is estimated that by the 1906 elections, about 40 MPs supported the idea of giving the vote to some women as a result. In 1913, the NUWSS ran a campaign that included over 400 meetings around the country. By 1914 Fawcett was exploring the possibility of an alliance with the Labour Party, using the NUWSS publicity to promote Labour candidates against the Liberals in the election. It is possible that the Prime Minister, Herbert Asquith, was considering giving the vote to some women by 1914 as a result of these actions.

Suffragette (WSPU) campaigning - In 1903 Emmeline Pankhurst formed another women’s suffrage group. They were called the WSPU (Suffragettes). The WSPU believed that the NUWSS were too peaceful and were getting nowhere. They wanted to try MILITANT methods such as violent protest, prison and hunger striking and disorder. In 1908 Emmeline Pankhurst and her daughter, Christabel, barged into the House of Commons. The WSPU effectively declared war on the Liberal government. However, they were a minority group of 2,000 members compared to the NUWSS who had 50,000 members. The Suffragettes purposefully get arrested. In prison they went on hunger strike and attempted to embarrass the government. The government issued the CAT and MOUSE ACT to release and re-arrest the Suffragettes when they are healthy again. In 1913 a Suffragette called EMILY DAVISON was killed by the King’s horse in the Derby race when she stepped out in front of it protesting for women’s suffrage. They had also committed acts of arson, setting fire to one MPs house, as well as violently attacking politicians. Their courage earned them sympathy, but their violent actions led many people to either switch support to the NUWSS or lose support for women’s suffrage.

War work in WW1 - When World War One broke out the WSPU and NUWSS supported the government and the suffragettes stopped their violent protest methods to support the war effort. The WSPU were involved in recruiting women into war work:- 800,000 women worked in heavy industries such as the coal industry. Women made up the majority of workers in the vital munitions factories. Women worked in the Women’s Land Army doing farming jobs. They served as nurses and drivers and wireless operators in the armed forces. Government departments took on 200,000 female clerks. This war work made the wider population begin to see that women were vital to running the country during war time, and deserved the right to vote. By 1918 the Prime Minister, Asquith, was convinced that women should be given the right to vote (although there was also a fear that suffragette action would start again once the war was over).

In January 1918 the government introduced the REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT to give women the vote over aged 30. This act also gave all men over 21 years old the vote. The act was received with opposition from the House of Lords, but it still passed. It was accepted as the first step by Millicent Fawcett towards universal female suffrage. Ultimately, women’s war work had proved their level of responsibility and the government could not refuse when they were considering giving more men the vote. In 1928 the Act was amended to ensure that all people, men and women, over the age of 21 had the right to vote.