The British reacted violently; using cannons to literally blow rebels apart as well as firing squads and hanging mutineers. This meant they could control the mutineers relatively quickly and faced little opposition, as they had few, outdated weapons. This supports the view that the Mutiny posed little significant threat as the mutineers were not powerful enough to fight and defeat the British. Furthermore the mutineers had no leaders to organize them. Before they were following the orders of British officers, therefore when they revolted they had no common leaders to organize them.
However, Gladstone did have unsuccessful legislation in Ireland, with the 1870 Irish land act, and the 1873 Irish universities bill. Both of these were fundamentally trying to be liberal, but had very illiberal factors to them such as not allowing students in his new university to study theology, philosophy and modern history. These reforms didn’t receive the same popularity or support as the disestablishment of the Irish church. Overall, you would probably argue that Gladstone was a success in Ireland, as his biggest and most controversial piece of legislation, yet it still managed to be very successful and appealed to the Irish people and the non-conformists whereas it scared off the Anglicans. Gladstone also introduced the removal of unjustified privilege, as he described
Also, he had very short supply of money-he solved this by getting taxes from rich people.Next,there was rivalry between the York and Lancaster families,so he married Elizabeth.Lastly, he didnt have a very strong claim to the throne,therefore,he married. Henry was a Roman-Catholic and the head of the Church within his time, was the Pope,and in Henry’s opinion,this was right,little did he know,later on this could change...in Henry’s case,the Tudors were definately important to History. Next is Henry VII’s son-Henry
Out of the eight main points of the settlement, I found that Elizabeth had rules that would please both Protestants and Catholic’s. For example one of her new laws was too be in charge of the church (pleasing Protestants), but not called ‘Head’ and was supported by bishops (pleasing Catholics). Another example of a Catholic based law was some church courts would remain. This is seen as pro-catholic because Protestants were against any form of church courts. Yet, the settlement was clearly not entirely favourable to Catholics.
This meant when he came to power, there wasn’t really that much religious tension. At this point the most dangerous extremist group was the Catholic, they had been because of the Anti-Catholic laws that she had past once the Catholic Plots had started to appear. James was favoured in the eyes of Catholics as he was the son of the Catholic martyr Mary, Queen of Scots. It has been said that before he came to throne, while he was King of Scotland he has promised the Catholics more tolerance. This has been greatly debated and in the end he didn’t become more tolerant towards the Catholics, he started to suppress them.
Socially the war was not revolutionary because, there was still that one race that was not treated like they belonged and felt like they were taking up space. Politically the war was not revolutionary because, the imprisoned slaves were not allowed to be apart of the Declaration of Independence. Therefore Revolution was both revolutionary and not revolutionary because, of the three stated topics above. The American Revolution was the most important event in the history of the world since the birth of Christ,-stated by Richard Price. The Revolution was revolutionary based on economic factors because, as apart of the empire the colonies were protected from foreign invasion by the British military.
The parliament would have been able to muster volunteers, but there was no money to equip them with weapons, and the only way that the Parliament would have been able to make money, would be by introducing taxes. However, the Parliament simply couldn’t just create money from taxes as everyone refused to pay the taxes. The payment of taxes could have been enforced, but there was no army to do the enforcement. There were no consequences to the people of the German Empire if they disobeyed the decisions of the Frankfurt Parliament, so decisions were not followed by the people. This was not surprising, as there was no previous history of a democracy in Germany before the Frankfurt Parliament, therefore there was not much support from the ordinary people for the new concept.
There is certainly a large cloud of controversy surrounding much of More’s life, work and death and such is the subject of this essay. Role as a lawyer and royal adviser: Thomas More was not always destined for a career in the legal profession as recorded by Erasmus in one of the first biographical accounts; “More pondered a religious vocation but burned to marry and so decided to become a good husband rather than a bad priest”. It is thought perhaps More saw a greater opportunity to serve others and God through the legal profession then through a life of solitude and devotion. It was also a better life, with good pay and the ability to have a family. His
This was seen as very bad news for the Catholics. Since the RUC always stuck with its traditional pro-unionist role, the police force was feared and hated by the Catholic people. This of course, angered many Catholics as they felt that they could not rely on such a corrupt service that basically hated them, but despite this, was supposed to be there to protect them. During the 1960’s, Catholic employment tended towards the lower end of the job market and they were employed mainly in unskilled and lower paying jobs such as, factory workers and clothing manufacturers. Of course, the Protestants on the other hand had relatively higher paying jobs for example, engineering and shipbuilding.
Although finance played a significant role in the deterioration of the relationship between Crown and Parliament, it was not the lone reason, due to the fact that there were other more important factors including foreign policy and Buckingham which caused the collapse in the relationship between Crown and Parliament. Firstly, finance was a critical factor in the breakdown in the relationship. For example, the Forced Loan caused a great amount of tension between Crown and Parliament and therefore, worsened relations. It worsened relations because Charles enforced illegal taxations on his subjects without any form of consent from Parliament. He required that his subjects “loan him the equivalent of five subsidies” and although it was “opposed by significant numbers in the localities,” the taxation still occurred as the government had “employed all its powers to eliminate resistance”.