How serious was the Radical challenge to Lord Liverpool’s Government in the period from 1812 to 1822? Radicals were groups of people throughout Britain campaigning for change; some historians believed they wanted a revolution while others believed they simply wanted a reform. These radicals had caused serious problems for a previous British Prime minister, Pitt, and these problems continued throughout Liverpool’s premiership. This radical threat has been debated between the historians over the years on the seriousness of the events that followed because of the radical threat. During the period 1812- 1822 many radical threats occurred and historians have been split on the level of seriousness they posed.
Throughout history, mankind has waged war against each other various reasons. These reasons are often times proven to be trivial and superfluous thus making wars preventable. The American civil war was a war that was inevitable because of key events leading up to the war divided the country to the point where it made war unpreventable. The first issue that made the civil war unavoidable was the Declaration of Independence (cite). The writer of the Declaration was Thomas Jefferson who wrote it based off the ideals of the enlightenment period.
The English Parliament passed the Sugar Act in 1764, which taxed imported sugar, lumber, dye, coffee and wine, making merchants raise their prices on these goods. The colonists understood this process and knew that it helped in regulating commerce. What they didn’t appreciate was the March, 1965 Stamp Act, an Act that made colonists pay for any stamp on a printed document, and in the beginning, almost anything made of paper, even playing cards. The colonists were not pleased with this Act and viewed it as a way to raise money for Britain. The Sons of Liberty, a group formed to protect the rights of colonists, led protests and rallied against the new Act, sometimes with violence and destruction.
The Labour economy policies are also a reason why they lost. Gaitskell promised to increase public spending without increasing taxes. This put his credibility under question. Another reason is that although voters were happy with the nationalisation of electricity, gas, atomic energy and airline industries they thought public ownership of coal and the railways had been a failure when they were last in government and there was little enthusiasm for further nationalisation which Labour was committed to by Clause Four of the Labour Party Constitution. Another reason why Conservatives won is that in there manifesto they promised to stabilise the cost of living which would close the gap between rich and poor and double everyone’s standard of living.
The last years of Henrys reign was dominated by conservative and reformist factions . In this essay I will assess the extent of the threat created due to the rivalry of factions that had affected the stability of the government. The execution of Cromwell (1940) was a success for conservatives as was also Henrys marriage to Catharine Haword. The marriage was a gateway to influencing Henry by carving out a new royal policy via Catharine H. This increased tension between the Reformists and conservatives and so the reformists took action to destroy the reputations of Cahrine H , Duke of Norfolk and Gardiner. On the contrary this shows that the disputes between these factions may imply that the King was weak and not in control thus significantly threatening the stability of government .
Nicholas Baker Nature, Society and Self 09/25/2010 Summarize and Contrast In Thoreau’s essay “Civil Disobedience,” written in 1849, he explains that the real meaning of this is “disobedience of the state.” He feels that any person associated with the law is a disgrace. Much like the tax payers of Concord who care more about farming and agriculture then humanity are hypocrites for supporting Thoreau’s cause to ban slavery and stop the war against Mexico, when in fact they pay taxes to the state and government which directly helps pay for the war itself. He feels that the government is also responsible for many injustices because many government employees in fact change their positions on war and that it is “not too soon for honest men to rebel and revolutionize.” Thoreau explains that many people who do not support these laws also believe in the political way to change them, and continue to respect these laws until they are changed. He feels that the process of which is drawn out and that it may take years for laws to be changed, and that abolitionists should stand up for what they believe in and rebel against the constitution regardless of imprisonment. Thoreau was imprisoned after refusing to pay taxes, and says he felt free when he was jailed.
Explain why James I felt that the royal prerogative was under threat in the 1621 Parliament. (12 marks) James I felt that the royal prerogative was under threat in the 1621 Parliament for many reasons. In this essay I am going to write about some of the different reasons as to why James felt that the royal prerogative was under threat in the 1621 Parliament and how these reasons could of affected future relations between the king and Parliament. Firstly, the Parliament of 1621 met in difficult times as it was a time of economic depression, caused by the Thirty Years War and the consequent fall in exports to a devastated Europe. As well as that, there was a very bad harvest in 1621 which caused widespread distress and finally there was wide support for anti-Spanish foreign policy.
Because of the large amounts of profit they were making, they ended up buying more land and equipment on credit. However, when the war ended, the economy was disastrous once again, with farmers having to default onto this credit as a result of a lower amount of profit they were making. To fix these economic problems, Harding implemented a number of economic policies. The Secretary of the Treasury, Andrew Mellon, passed the Fordney-McCumber Tariff Act was passed, which allowed Harding to raise any tariff by 50%. The act also emplaced the Tariff of 1922.
Combining under one political structure would solve many of the problems and instabilities that they were faced. Corn Laws gave Canadian farmers a market in Britain, which was not available to their American counterparts. Exports were just as valuable to Britain as to Canada. However, when the Corn Laws were repealed by Britain in 1846, the Canadian farmers were now placed in competition with the Americans and other countries for the British markets. This increased stress for the farmers as their main source of income and survival drastically decreased.
The British authority responded by passing the coercive Act which closed the ports until the debt for the tea was paid off. Prior to the seven years’ war, the colonist enjoyed great autonomy. The mother country rarely interfered with the colonist affair but however, after the war, the autonomy the colonists once enjoyed was significantly reduced. Britain put limitations to the colonies by adding the inauspicious Acts. The Acts fueled anger toward the Mother Country making their relationship precarious.