british history (1)

Question 1

the general state (8)

Answer 1

• (1) people did things to improve things
• (2) other people (same as usual, landed class, aristocracy, PA and HoC) disagreed/resisted
• (3) m-class do-gooders aimed for social reform, but this screwed up working situ for w-class (hours lessened, but pay wasn’t upped = less pay all around; arguably worse than before)
• (4) general situ still bad; little changed, still working/living conditions horrible; education barely developed
• bunch of low-key acts passed; didn’t do much, but tried
• (5) used ‘pity the poor’ vibe on m/h classes to make change (i.e. reports of kids dying underground covered in ash shocked some into action)
• (6) didn’t take much for w-class to have a problem with the magical ‘reform’ that just screwed everyone over again
• (7) ultimately w-class to failed at doing something about it due to a lack of resources (i.e. political sway, money, the usual - e.g. anti-PLAA)
• (8) although pre-anti-gov-revv aided in supporting chartism later on

Question 2

key figures - for reform (10)

Answer 2

• (1) sir james kay-shuttleworth (1st sec, edu, living conditions)
• (2) chadwick (poor law 1834, living/health)
• (3) lord shaftsbury (MP, gender/work issues)
• (4) robert owen (mills, work hrs)
• (5) feargus o’connor (chartist leader, land)
• (6) richard oastler (reformer, improve preexisting structure)
• (7) thomas carlyle (fascism, chartism=’disease’ from discontent)
• **(8) william lovett **(chartist leader, ‘people’s charter’, non-violent)
• (9) john frost (chartist leader, newport rising)
• (10) robert peel (PM, founded cons party, repealed corn laws, prisons/met police)

Question 3

educational state (general 1)

positives: (2)

negatives (3)

+legislation (2)

Answer 3

General:
- (1) Gov funded schools, developed education (somewhat)

Positives:
- (1) state intervention, financial support, adequate structure made by 1850
- (2) aid from religious orgs/charities

Negatives:
- (1) uneasy partnership w state+church societies (last for 20+yrs)
- (2) modern standards: edu remained poor
- (3) minimum amount of structure and guidance necessary to subjugate working classes (were actively content)

Legislation:
- (1) Factory act 1833 (Legal requirement for factory owners to provide basic level of education, 9-13)
- (2) Church of England proposals (1839, 1840)

Question 4

workplace state (general 3)

workplace weaknesses (4)

+legislation (6)

Answer 4

General:
- (1) acts to aid worker’s hrs, but lessen pay
- (2) some interested stirred (mill owners, middle-class do-gooders), but fizzled out
- (3) committees made, working class consciousness developed (later moved to chartism)

Weaknesses:
- (1) 1831 factory act wasn’t obligatory
- (2) Sadler lost influence post-Leeds mp loss
- (3) 1833 Shaftsbury gave up cause for 10hr bill
- (4) 1833 factory act; parents lied abt kid’s DOBs

Legislation:
- (1) 1844 factory act
- (2) 1840 royal commission
- (3) 1842 mines act
- (4) 1830 oastler/yorkshire slavery publicity
- (5) 1831 factory act (no child labour under 9yrs)
- (6) 1842 mining report shocked m-classes

Question 5

social state (general 3)

positives (2)
weaknesses (4)

+legislation (6)

Answer 5

General:
- (1) upper didn’t care (except few); middle had a problem, but not that bad; lower didn’t like, but had few rights to change it
- (2) those for> if health of poor improved, less stress on poor relief system
- (3) Cholera outbreak (1848) forced Gov to act

Positives:
- (1) Chadwick’s Sanitary/State reports extent of issue; small moves made (medical officer per town, refuse cleaned from city, sewer drainage)
- (2) 1842 Sanitary Report (important, Chadwick, ‘fever inquiry’)

Negatives:
- (1) Gov didn’t gaf
- (2) poor had few rights to change it
- (3) middle ok enough to not mind
- (4) when major public health reform introduced in PA (1847), defeated by ‘Dirty Party’

Legislation:
- (1) 1848 Public Health Act
- (2) 1835 Municipal Corporations Act
- (3) 1842 Sanitary Report
- (4) 1844 Health of Towns Association
- (5) 1834 Poor Law Amendment Act
- (6) Anti-poor law movement

Question 6

political state (general 4)

+legislation (-)

Answer 6

General:
- (1) Gov against giving ofc
- (2) middle-class ok enough to not mind (some did)
- (3) poor lacking enough rights to achieve
- (4) Chadwick, Lord Shaftsbury, Robert Owen

Question 7

chartism (general 4)

phases (3)

successes/positives (5)

failures/negatives (2)

Answer 7

General:
- (1) late 1830s; demands of the People’s Charter
- (2) political movement with socio-economic undercurrents
- (3) 5 factors: disillusionment with Reform Act; opposition to Whig reforms (1830s); ‘war of the unstamped’; attacks on trade unions; state of the economy
- (4) Feargus O’Connor, Thomas Carlyle, William Lovett, John Frost

Phases:
- (1) 36-39; hope
- (2) 40-42; disillusionment
- (3) 43-48; laughingstock

Success/positives:
- (1) Chartism est bc necessity for change; clickbaited by past pseudo-reforms^ (1832, 1839, 1828)
- (2) +middle-class do-gooders looking for change
- (3) est hope/exposure for change; future change then facilitated by this
- (4) ^ although did little for actual legislation
- (5) left legacy of hope and confidence for working-class communities, inspiring future attempts

Failure/negatives:
- (1) varying gradients, demanded too much too quickly
- (2) financial, social and working conditions that created Chartism stopped it from developing