In source A, there are several unconvincing points. For example “idea leader of a party based on the resistance to change”, this doesn’t agree with my general knowledge as between 1821-23 Liverpool guided parliament though a huge reshuffle. This included new MP’s bringing new ideas and thoughts into parliament alongside more experienced MP’s. For example Robert Peel was made home secretary in 1822, this helped Britain secure good trade links as it improved the situation that Britain found it’s self in after the Napoleonic Wars. Moreover, in the extract it says that Liverpool was the “worst for guiding the country through a time of social and economic change”. I don’t believe that this is accurate, as there were several acts and laws that were put through parliament to improve the standers of living for the working class. For example the amendments to the poor law, which was originally created in 1601, this happened several times under Liverpool’s government. One amendment was the speenham system, this was created to put the working class back into work. Some would say that these acts were reactionary, however I believe that they were brought into stabilise but also build for the future of Britain.
However, in source A, there is a sense of truth when the source says “if opposed… [you would be] witched or wronged”. In lord Liverpool’s government there were high amounts of political repression. Such as the peterloo massacre, The Peterloo Massacre occurred at St Peter's Field, Manchester, England, on 16 August 1819, when cavalry charged into a crowd of 60,000–80,000 who had gathered to demand the reform of parliamentary representation. This was also a protest against the loss of jobs and the high amounts of poverty because of the unemployment, but Liverpool sent in troops to stop the escalating. The army ended up killing 20 people and several images. This type of repression was not uncommon as the country’s political system was under pressure, as the government was trying to prevent a revolution like they had in France. This caused lord Liverpool’s government to act in a repressive manner. The source on the whole doesn’t give a very convincing recount on the events of Liverpool’s government.
In source B, there are several accurate points. For example the extract realises that Liverpool “need[ed] to safe guard the standers of living for the poor “. This is accurate as government had been trying to stabilise the social economic problems for some years. This was shown with the Gilberts act, where people were given an increased chance to work, this worked alongside the speenham system, which only had the soul aim to employ people on a short term bases. Moreover in the extract it states that lord Liverpool’s administration “was more popular in the country than at any previous time”. This is proven as more people were against the constitutional monarchy then ever as people thought that the government were finally improving the standers of living for the working class. This caused Britain to be more content then it had been since the civil war.
However, in extract B, the statement “Liverpool… [Was] the architect of the liberal, free trade Victorian state” this is not very accurate as most of the liberal ideas came from William Pitt. He always wanted free trade for Great Britain as he believed that it would help the poor and upper classes, overall boosting the economy. However he was only pushing this because of the original idea form Adam Smith around 20 years before Pitt was in any power. Therefore the liberal and free trade ideas didn’t come from the Liverpool government but had actually been in government for a while. Overall extract B seems accurate and gives a good analysis of Lord Liverpool’s government and his time as prime minister.
No comments:
Post a Comment