The terms of the Act meant the Church was disestablished and disowned, leaving it to govern itself. It would also be deprived of some of its property which would now be redistributed for education purposes/catholic churches. It was the most successful Irish Act ever and extended the principle of religious liberalism to Ireland. The Act was so liberal, it could be considered radical. As well as this, Gladstone also wanted to improve landlord and tenant relationships as the landlords could easily evict tenants randomly as it was a very unfair controlling system.
Despite the reformation, many ordinary people were religiously, socially and economically dependent on the remaining catholic institutions and social structures that remained, for example the Chantries. And whilst it can be argued that the protestant privy council under Somerset was hesitant to impress radical reform, their policy of completing the attack on church corporate property in the chantries act 1547, did more to dismantle the local community, and therefore the socio-economic stability of the ordinary person since the reformation. For example, the chantry was the cornerstone of local villages such as Morebath in Devon. The Chantries Act required representatives from each parish to declare anything that was liable for confiscation. For the people of Morebath, this meant a prohibition of the church ale.
Source G suggests that the monasteries wrongly abused their influential power over the common folk, gaining money from the supposed religious relics they claimed to be in ownership of. Items such as ‘God’s coat, Our Lady’s smock’ and ‘part of God’s supper,’ this implies corruption because deception was being used against the ordinary worshippers. Source G also suggests that corruption was held amongst monks, telling us of their illegitimate children under their supposed life of celibacy and the holy fathers inability to life such a life ‘The Pope, considering this holy father’s weakness, has given him license to keep a whore.’ Source G is a report given by Richard Layton to Cromwell in 1535, providing Cromwell with ammunition for the Valor Ecclesiasticus. Source H is similar to Source G suggesting that there was corruption in the monasteries, stating that the monasteries live in ‘Manifest sin, vicious, carnal and abominable living.’ The source also states that such doing is on the increase ‘their vicious living shamelessly increases’ suggesting that the only way in order to stop such doings, was to dissolve the monasteries. Source H confirms the points made in Source G, suggesting corruption was at the heart of royal motives for dissolution.
However the monasteries had money in abundance, both in terms of currency and in land. One conclusion is therefore, is that Henry dissolved the monasteries in order to tap their wealth. However, there are also other possible reasons that I believe influenced Henry’s decision to dissolve the greater monasteries. There are also suggestions that Henry believed the dissolution of the monasteries was necessary because the Church and the clerical order as a whole was becoming increasingly corrupt. The three sources also mostly agree with the view that the dissolution of larger monasteries was largely driven by financial motives.
This is demonstrated in documents 4, 5, and 6. Henry Haskell states that “The government undertook such far-reaching responsibility in affairs that the fiber of the citizens weakened” (Document 4) This shows that the decline of the empire was due to heavy taxation that couldn’t support the government. If the taxes couldn’t sustain the government then it wouldn’t be able to control the people. According to Montanelli “The military crisis was the result of… proud old aristocracy’s… shortage of children” (Document 5) This means that many children weren’t old enough to go into the military which caused the decrease of soldiers. With the lack of soldiers, it would be easier to invade Rome, which could’ve led to the decline of the Empire.
There were also reports that John severely punished his enemies and used the courts to help his friends. He was also accused of killing his own nephew Arthur because he was a rival to his throne. Most of these reports on John were written by monks and these were unreliable because John had quarrelled with their leader the Pope. This meant only a few monks were unbiased and wrote truthfully about John. For example another source this time written by a monk in Barnwell said that John was a good ruler and that his own men should not have deserted him.
Henry’s unusual toleration of the Huguenots caused trouble for the native Catholics in France and angered Pope Clement but this toleration would somewhat prevail in the Edict of Nantes because of what the nation and the two factions suffered prior to its creation. The Edict of Nantes not only granted successions to both sides but they were far fairer to the Huguenots including the granting of their civil rights, the rights that they lost in the Edict of Boulogne. The Edict of Boulogne was a slap in the face for the Huguenots as it segregated them from modern society, permitting them to only preach in the towns of La Rochelle, Mountauban and Nimes and even with that, only in their own homes. No
The new taxes that were imposed on baptism, burial and marriage were resented by many of the commons as a great number, particularly the poorer people, could not afford to pay them and they feared that this would prevent their salvation. Source B suggests that Robert Aske led the uprising in an attempt to prevent or reduce the ‘rising entry-fines and new taxes’. Source B also states that the ‘nobles and gentry disliked… the Statute of Uses’. This was an Act of Parliament which limited the application of uses in property law and had been introduced by Henry as a way for him to rectify his financial issues, so perhaps (as Source B suggests) the nobles had helped to lead the rebellion in an attempt to revert this
The law brought positive changes to the country encouraging more people to seek employment, “working people developed their own self-help movement”. Walsh M, et al, 2000. But also created some negative changes, working conditions were extremely harsh and families were split up. The amendment act was disliked by the poor population of the country because of the leissez-faire system the government had in place, the government’s approach on leissez-faire was to intervene as little as possible with the direction of economic affairs. This had an impact on the poor, it caused stigma and the poor had a mark of disgrace on their reputation.
Pope Urban II looked to regain some of the power that the position of the pope had lost due to the Gregorian reforms. He used the Crusades to manipulate clergy and laity alike to achieve his own ends. The laity had various reasons for becoming involved in the Crusades. For those of the lower class, it was an attempt to better their lives in some way, even if it just meant getting them off the land they had been bound to for their whole lives. For those of the knightly class, it was a way of penance; by killing the “heathens” they were able to cleanse their sins.