Conflict Between Palestine and Israel

Introduction Since the Israelis and Palestinians believe that they have equal rights to the land that they live in, violence keeps erupting between the two groups. This is because the Palestinians argue that the Israelis chased them from their land while the Jews argue that the land belongs to them based on historical terms (Gunderson 2004, 82).Advertising We will write a custom research paper sample on Conflict Between Palestine and Israel specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More Various analysts argue that the historical perception involving the breakout of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one of the critical factors that have made the conflict to be more severe and uncontrollable. The various historical experiences that the two states have gone through have influenced them to make claims as well as justify their own side on why they should be at war with their neighbor (Matthews 2011, 43). Though the two states have shown their desi re to reach a peaceful resolution, a permanent solution has not been attained. The two states practice different cultures and their official languages also differ. This condition has made it difficult for the two states to reach a peaceful agreement (Fraser 2008, 76). Many people have written different accounts regarding the causes of the conflict between Israel and Palestine. However, most of the information that has been given out by people especially in the internet have only convinced people about the causes of the conflict rather than giving people the right information regarding the real causes of the war (Matthews 2011, 26). Since there are very many people who have written different accounts about the exact causes of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, there are those people who say that it is not possible for a single person to write a summary that details all the causes of the conflict. As a result, the various summaries that have been written regarding the causes of the Isr aeli-Palestinian conflict are not fully accepted by everyone who reads them. However, the various factors that have been attributed to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict include; historical encounter between the Jews and Arabs, occupation and settlements, influence of the Palestinian State, the issue of Palestine refugees, Palestinian Terror groups, repression of the Israelis, and the security of Israel (Abunimah 2007, 98). The goal of this study therefore is to conduct a detailed analysis about the various factors that started the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.Advertising Looking for research paper on international relations? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More Thesis Statement The conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians is attributed to the cultural differences that the two societies have with each other. In addition, the two societies fight for the same resources thereby making it difficult for them to come into a peace ful resolution with each other. The violence in the country has also interfered with the positive relations that Israel and Palestine have with other nations. Any efforts that have been applied to end the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians have only made the conflict to be more severe (Gelvin 2007, 35). Description of the Problem The conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians has been a subject of discussion by many international organizations. This issue has attracted the attention of various superpowers such as the United States. The US is concerned about ending this conflict because it has made the standards of living of the residents in the region to be unpleasant. Various International Organizations such as the UN believe that there are certain people who are legitimate and who would be willing to do anything so that the violence between the two societies comes to an end (Ross 2005, 78). The conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians is a big problem bec ause it has negatively affected the economic performance of the two states. No investor would be willing to invest in a region that is politically, socially and economically unstable. In addition, very many people live very desperate lives in their country because of the instability that is present in the region ( Nitzan and Bichler 2002, 102). The international community is concerned about the welfare of the innocent people in the two states. In order to ensure that the lives of such people are not put at stake, the international community is intervening by facilitating peaceful agreements between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Purpose Statement The purpose of this study is to analyze the various reasons that led to the conflicts between the Israelis and the Palestinians and the various consequences that the residents of these two states have had to cope with as a result of the conflict.Advertising We will write a custom research paper sample on Conflict Between Palestine and Israel specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More It seeks to identify the critical issues that have made it difficult to end the conflict between the two states. It will also provide possible solutions that can help end the conflict that has made the standards of living between the two states to deteriorate. Research Questions This study seeks to answer the following questions Is the cultural difference between the Israelis and Palestinians responsible for the conflict that exists between the two states? Is there any relationship between the conflict and the attitudes of the two states? What role does the history of Israelis and Palestinians play in worsening the conflict between the two states? What measures can be implemented in order to facilitate the attainment of peace between the two states? Are there any measures that can be implemented in order to positively impact on the attitudes of the Israelis and Palestinians? What role do th e terror groups play in promoting violent behavior between the two states? Theoretical Framework Culture plays a very important role in influencing how nations relate with each other. It serves as a very important variable for determining why clashes between states occur. Different societies clash because of greed for power and to satisfy their own self-interests. There are those societies which believe that being powerful makes a society to be stable. However recent studies have shown that culture is an important variable in terms of facilitating or retarding peaceful reconciliations between societies. It has been observed that the only way in which stability between nations can be achieved is when societies understand each other’s’ culture and appreciate it (Milton-Edwards 2009, 34). Culture also has a great influence in politics. The political stand of a particular society is governed by the culture of that society. It is because of this that different societies ha ve different political stands regarding how they wish their countries to be governed ( Nitzan and Bichler 2002, 106). For example, a Muslim dominated society is not ruled in the same way a Christian dominated society is ruled. This indicates that religion also has a strong role to play in influencing the way a society is governed. Inter-personal and Inter-group interactions also influence the manner in which a society is governed. If the members of a society do not relate positively, it is difficult to attain stability in such a society.Advertising Looking for research paper on international relations? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More The inter-group interactions between the Israelis and Palestinians can therefore be said to play an important role in promoting the violence that is prevalent between the two states. In order for a community to be stable, it needs to ensure that the mode of social communication between the members of the society is positive (Gunderson 2004, 67). This ensures that the members of the society relate with each other peacefully. A society therefore needs to focus on the quality of its interpersonal communication. In order for a society to ensure that its members communicate effectively, all the members should be given equal status in order to ensure that they cooperate in all of their daily activities (Caplan 2011, 78). In a society where people believe that they are superior to the others, it is not possible to reach an agreement thereby making it difficult to achieve peace. Since this is the case between Israelis and Palestinians, it is therefore difficult for the two societies to live peacefully. Background/ Literature Review The historical issues that that have prevailed between Israel and Palestine have played a major role in aggravating the conflict between the two states. For example, it is said that Judea used to be the home of the Jews initially. The Romans then inhabited the region and called it Palestine. The Arabs later conquered Palestine and declared it as their home for many years. A movement referred to as the Zionist movement was later introduced by the Jews whose goal was to enable the Jews return to their homeland. This movement did not put into consideration the large Arab population which had occupied the region at the time. In 1917, the British government required the Arabs to ensure that the Jews who had been chased out of the land found a place to live ( Nitzan and Bichler 2002, 107). However, the Jews did not take this issue lightly and they were not willing to welcome the Jews into the land. The Arabs therefore engaged in riots with the Je ws thereby making the two nations to become enemies. Because of the severe enmity that emerged as a result of the immigration of the Jews into Palestine, the British decided to stop the immigration process in order to stop the conflict that resulted from the immigration ( Nitzan and Bichler 2002, 108). However, the conflict between the Jews and the Arabs did not stop and the number of Jews who were killed in the conflict reached approximately 6 million. This made the British government to increase pressure and allow the Jews to migrate into Palestine forcefully. To end the conflict between the Arabs and the Jews, the United Nations decided to divide the land into Jewish and Arab lands in 1947 ( Kershner 2004, 47). However, this move only made the situation worse leading to a war breakout between the two states. The Jews emerged victorious and therefore decided to increase the size of their state. This led to the displacement of very many Palestinian refugees. As a result, the Arabs were not willing to reconcile with the Jews at all. This then led to the eruption of wars in 1956, 1967, 1973, and 1982 (Ross 2005, 67). The Israelis therefore engaged in a series of reprisals thereby worsening the conflict between the two countries. Since these two countries have different believes about their land, it has not been possible to bring the two states together and reconcile them. The two states argue that the origin of the conflict is the fault of the other state. There is no state that agrees to be the cause of the conflict. They blame each other. The occupation, settlements and land issues have also played a major role in the war between the Palestinians and Israel. The Gaza strip and West bank have been occupied by the Israel people. This region is estimated to be approximately 2,200 square miles. The Jews are said to have occupied this region during the 6 day war of 1967 when they decided to settle in the region. This region had the capacity of holding approximatel y 220,000 people. The Jews mostly occupied the West bank region. However, the Palestinians have always demanded that any land which had been conquered in 1967 belongs to them and that the Jews should evacuate the region (Matthews 2011, 78). However, this was not the case as Israel continued to increase the size of its land. The Jews concentrated on expanding their settlements even during the period when they were engaging in a peace process exercise with the Palestinians in 1993. The peace process continues even today and the Israelis have concentrated their efforts on increasing their settlements even more. Throughout the peace process exercise, Israel agreed to offer 97 percent of West Bank land and the entire Gaza region to the Arabs (Klein 2007, 23). However, the Palestinians did not accept the offer thereby making the peace process unsuccessful. The Palestinian state was formed to enable the Arabs reclaim the whole of Palestine. In 1988, the Palestine Liberation Organization in dicated that it was willing to accept the solution whereby two states would be formed in order to facilitate the peace process. However, the Oslo records whose goal was to facilitate the attainment of a peaceful agreement between the two states continued to settle the Jews thereby making violence between the two states erupt again in 2000. The Palestinians have always demanded for the state of Gaza and West Bank but the Jews have not been willing to let the land off their hands. The Jews are against the creation of a state in Gaza and West bank because they argue that it will act as a region whereby terror groups will reside (Kershner 2004, 13). Israel has also required that Palestine should be a state which does not have a military in order to limit the control that the state has over its resources and borders. Palestinians have however received support from the UN and the United States so that they can have their own Palestine State. However, various Palestine extremists do not su pport the idea of Oslo accords and they are concerned with idea of achieving a fully-fledged Palestinian state. Because of the different interests between the Arabs and the Jews therefore, it has not been possible for the two states to come into an agreement further making it difficult for the two states to devise an effective mechanism of resolving their conflicts (Gunderson 2004, 24). During the war that led to the creation of Israel in 1948, approximately 726,000 Palestinians were declared homeless. There were additional Palestinians who were made to free their state in 1967 (Klein 2007, 45). Today, there are more than 4 million Palestinians who are living as refugees. Most of these refugees live in very poor conditions. They are living in very crowded camps. These camps are located in West bank, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, and Gaza (Kershner 2004, 35). Most of the Palestinians therefore keep demanding that the refugees should be allowed to return to their homes where they can be provided with proper living standards. The Palestinians are supported by the UN General Assembly Resolution which advocates that the refugee Palestinians should be allowed to return to their home in Israel. However, the Israelis also argue that an equal number of Israelis went to the Arab lands in order to run away from the war which erupted when Israel was being created. The Israelis therefore oppose the return of the Palestinian refugees because they claim that this condition would create an influx of Arabs in Israel thereby making Israel an Arab state and remove it from the hands of the Jews. However, there are certain Palestinian groups which argue that when Israel requires that Israel refugees should also be made to return to Israel, Israel would come to an end because fighting would never end between the Jews and the Arabs. Most Palestinians do not have the interests on Israel at heart. Most Palestinian groups were formed in order to bring an end to Israel. The Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) also announced that Palestinians are mostly concerned about how they can participate in terrorist activities effectively. The Oslo Declaration of Principles together with PLO therefore signed an agreement in 1993 which said that Israel has a right to exist. As a result, the activities that Palestinians engage in should ensure that they do not interfere with the usual activities of the Israelites. In order to ensure that the Palestinians agreed to the signed agreement, Israel allowed Palestinian to take control of most parts of Gaza strip and West bank (Said 2001, 98). However, there was a group extremist Palestinians who were not willing to abide to the agreements and they instead started planning on how they would carry out suicide bombings in Israel. In order for the Israelis to cope with the violence that the Palestinians had initiated, the Israelis started to limit the number of Palestinians who came to work in the Israel. The aim of this process wa s to prevent the accumulation of terrorist groups into the region. Israel also ensured that there were strict checks at its borders in order to further limit access of terror groups into the region (Dershowitz 2006, 67). When the border between Israel and Palestine and Israel was closed, the standards of living of the Palestinians started to deteriorate. The workers who were not working in Israel would often be subjected to embarrassing searches. Such people were also made to wait for a very long time at the checkpoints. Because the Israelis did not want to take any chance at the checkpoints, the Israeli Army and Israeli Defense Force (IDF) used to pen fire on any vehicle that they suspected in order to prevent any incidences of suicide attack (Said 2001, 102). However, this nervousness made the Army and the defense force to open fire even on innocent people. The strict checks that were imposed on the borders therefore made it very difficult for the Palestinians to secure jobs in Je rusalem. However, after September 2000, the retaliations that Israel imposed to guard itself from the terror attacks by the Palestinians were made be more intense. Israel also went to an extent of assassinating those terrorists who the Palestinians were not willing to arrest. The Palestinians therefore carried out a series of bombings on March 2002 thereby forcing Israel to launch an operation aimed at occupying most of the regions in the West Bank which were being occupied by the Palestinians. This state of affairs forced Israel to further increase its checkpoints and its periods of curfew. This activity made it difficult for people to carry out their daily activities such as schooling or going to work. Many ditches were dug to surround towns thereby preventing people from leaving or entering towns (Dershowitz 2006, 78). In addition, houses of the terror groups were demolished and Olive groves were also uprooted in order to try and minimize the bombings. However, a study by the Isr aeli Defense Force has shown that the demolitions of the terror group houses did not prevent them from bombing their target areas. As a result, the IDF discontinued the destruction of the houses where suicide bombers used to live. To further tighten the security measures in the region, many Israelis are harassing the Palestinians by destroying their property and killing them whenever they find themselves in uncertain situations (Abunimah 2007, 78). Israel is a rather small country and almost all of Israel’s cities are in the range of any Palestinian state thereby making Israel an insecure country. This makes Israel to insist that Palestine should not have any military forces. West Bank is described as very important and any country would be willing to attack Israel to get West bank. In order for a peaceful coexistence to prevail between Israel and Palestine, Israel insists that Palestine should assure Israel that it would not allow any foreign army to enter its borders so as to ensure that Israel remains secure (Abunimah 2007, 67). However, since Palestine has not been able to honor its agreements with Israel, various conflicts keep erupting because Israel is committed to protecting its borders and would not allow any foreign state to take advantage of it (Caplan 2011, 56). Both Israel and Palestine have a right to the eastern part of Jerusalem. Jerusalem is described as a place where one of the holiest temple is found. The Al-Aqsa mosque is regarded as the holiest mosque by the Islam. This mosque therefore joins together the Jewish and Arabs thereby making them inseparable. The conflicts between Israelis and Palestinians have therefore made some Palestinians and Israelis to vacate the region (Kershner 2004). This condition has further worsened the conflicts between the two groups because each of the groups wants to be associated with the temple. Analysis The Israeli-Palestine conflict is an issue that has attracted the attention of international organi zations and some world superpowers such as the United States. It is also difficult for investors to perform their activities in these countries successfully. To ensure that the peace process exercise is successful, it is important for the International Community to help bring an end to the internal political stalemate between the two countries ( Ler 2008, 78). Without the interference from the International Community, it would not be possible for the two states to achieve any progress in their peace process exercise. However, it is not recommended for the two states to engage in any form of negotiations. This is because these negotiations are said to have a zero percent chance of enabling the two states to reach an agreement that would help bring the conflict to an end (Said 2001, 12). It is feared that any peace process which is characterized by open-ended consultations would result to fresh conflicts. However, these states should devise a mechanism that would enable them to reach agreements that would facilitate the success of the peace process exercise. The US has a significant influence on political stalemate that exists between Israel and Palestine. In order to ensure that these states become peaceful, the US can put in measures to ensure that prohibitions between the two states do not exist ( Ler 2008, 33). However, since the violence between the two states has been felt by the international community, the two states should try and exchange territories. In addition, since Jerusalem is of great importance to the two states, it should be left to act as the capital of the two cities (Ross 2005, 56). The Palestinian refugees who are willing to go back to their home should also be allowed to do so. The various political leaders in the region have also played a major role in fueling the conflicts between the two states. In this perspective therefore, any leader who does not show interest in facilitating the peace process between the two states should be remove d from power. Such a person should be removed from power he was brought into power through the ballot box. Using force to remove the politicians from power could further make it difficult to achieve peace between the two states. The economic peace of any country has a very critical role to play in encouraging investors to visit a given country. It is therefore important for the two states to focus on the manner in which they can improve their economic performance and forget about the differences that they have. Most of the Palestinians and Israelis would love peace to prevail in the region (Gunderson 2004, 82). However, they are in a state of uncertainty on whether the other party would be willing to reconcile. This state of uncertainty is brought by the politicians and the Israel and Palestinian extremists who believe that the two states should operate independently and not interfere with the activities of the other state. It has been noted that majority of the Israelis and Palesti nians would agree to the idea that would seem effective in ending the conflict between the two states (Said 2001, 56). They would even go against the will of their political leaders to ensure that peace prevails between the two states. The only limiting factor in this case is that most of the Israelis and Palestinians do not believe that there is a real partner for peace on the other side. There is a group of experts which stipulates that countries such as the United States and major International Organizations should employ diplomatic tools which would be effective in enhancing peace between the two states. However, these bodies should take caution because there are certain unplanned events which can occur when the diplomatic tools are used. The tools used can further aggravate the situation in these two states if they are not implemented in the right manner (Abunimah 2007, 15). The tools might also fail to work because the violence between the two states is characterized by uncert ainty. Powerful nations and the international community need to ensure that the intolerable behaviors of the Israelis and Palestinians are put to an end. The legitimate Palestinians and Israelis should be allowed to live in peace and feel secure (Matthews 2011, 79). The international community therefore needs to provide ample security in Palestine and Israel in order to ensure that usual activities within the region are conducted smoothly. Conclusion From the analysis therefore, it is true that the conflict between Israel and Palestine is an issue that that has attracted the attention of the international community. These states are said to have engaged in the conflict in order to liberate themselves from the challenges that they were facing. The conflict is so intense in that the United Nations has not been successful in its efforts aimed at ending the conflict. Instead, the situation keeps getting worse between the two states (Matthews 2011, 78). The conflict has made the living c onditions of the residents in the area to be intolerable. The hopes of reaching a peaceful resolution between the two states are fading slowly because the two states are ever suspicious of each other. Since it is true that peace talks would not be effective in ending the conflict between the two states, the International Community should come in and help reduce the conflict between the two societies (Ler 2008, 25). It can do this by addressing the negative attitudes that the two groups have towards each other. It should also deploy security personnel in the two states whose goal would be to protect the interests of the legitimate people in the region. Bibliography Abunimah, Ali. 2007. One Country: A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse. New York: Henry Holt and Company. Caplan, Neil. 2011. The Israel-Palestine Conflict: Contested Histories. New York: John Wiley Sons. Dershowitz, Alan. 2006. The Case for Peace: How the Arab-Israeli Conflict Can Be Resolved. New York: John Wiley Sons. Fraser, T G. 2008. The Arab-Israeli conflict. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. Gelvin, James L. 2007. The Israel-Palestine Conflict: One Hundred Years of War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gunderson, Cory Gideon. 2004. The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. Minneapolis MN: ABDO. Kershner, Isabel. Barrier: 2004. The Seam of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. Hampshire: Palgrave MacMillan. Klein, Menachem. 2007. A Possible Peace Between Israel and Palestine: An Insider’s Account of the Geneva Initiative. Columbia: Columbia University Press. Ler, Gregory. 2008. Israel’s Rising Economy and Its Drawbacks – Causes, Consequences and Remedies. Munich: GRIN Verlag. Matthews, Elizabeth. 2011. The Israel-Palestine Conflict. New York: Taylor Francis. Milton-Edwards, Beverley. 2009. The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: A People’s War. New York: Taylor Francis. Nitzan, Jonathan, and Shimshon Bichler. 2002. The Global Political Economy Of Israel. Lond on: Pluto Press. Ross, Dennis. 2005. The Missing Peace: The Inside Story Of The Fight For Middle East Peace. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Said, Edward W. 2001. The End of the Peace Process: Oslo and After. London: Vintage Books. This research paper on Conflict Between Palestine and Israel was written and submitted by user Samara C. to help you with your own studies. You are free to use it for research and reference purposes in order to write your own paper; however, you must cite it accordingly. You can donate your paper here.

Stakeholder Society essays

Stakeholder Society essays Social equality has long been a dream of many Americans. It would be wonderful to live in a society where everyone had equal or nearly equal opportunities, but the United States will never be the land of equal opportunity because it is just not going to happen because we have been socially stratified for too long to ever be equal. However, as Ackerman and Alstott propose in The Stakeholder Society, we may be able to offer Americans an equal monetary offering from the government, but is this going to work? Ackerman and Alstott propose to simply raise taxes 2% and give every American eighty thousand dollars sometime in there twenties, considering that they are stable minded and graduated from high school. Recipients would not receive the eighty thousand dollars in one lump sum, but over a period of a few years. When the recipient dies, if they have sufficient funds, they repay the eighty thousand dollars back to the government where it will be used for redistribution. At first, this sounds like a great idea, however, there are many underlying problems. First of all, there are way too many irresponsible people who will blow their money on toys such as new cars, electronics, or on drugs and become drug addicts. Giving a check for twenty thousand dollars to a twenty-five year old and telling them that they can do whatever they please with it is pretty brave. Giving large handouts will also teach people to spend irresponsibly and not manage their money. They will not know what to do when the money runs out and they are still earning seven dollars an hour at some job that they hate. Instead of giving any twenty-some year old American eighty thousand dollars, I believe the government should provide a program to provide funding government funding for college. Every American should be able to go to college for free. This is the time when many people accrue large debts through loans and living expenses bu ...

Strengths, weaknesses and uses of the Economic Value Added Essay

Strengths, weaknesses and uses of the Economic Value Added - Essay Example Economic Value Added (EVA) model also referred to as economic profit refers to the value created above the shareholders investment. Basically, shareholders and other investors are more interested in EVA since it depicts the actual returns that a company makes after the cost of financing the company’s capital is deducted. In order to obtain the economic profits, the cost of capital must be less than the return on the firm’s capital employed. This paper candidly evaluates the uses of Economic Value Added model in a business as well as its strengths and weaknesses.Uses of EVAÃ'ŽEVA is obtained by subtracting the cost of capital from Net Operating Profit After Tax (NOPAT).In this regard, Al Ehrbar (2008) depicts that it is a useful tool for measuring the extent to which value has been lost or added on the business performance. After accounting for the various aspects covered by the balance sheet, EVA indicates the amount of the residual income. There are various factors th at cause an increase of EVA. First, if capital employed does not increase and the NOPAT increases. Secondly, EVA increases if the additional capital invested generates more returns than the cost of capital. EVA can also increase if the capital that was earlier invested in a business is divested if it fails to cover the cost of capital used by a business.

Child hood obesity in elementary school age Research Paper

Child hood obesity in elementary school age - Research Paper Example Obesity has been termed as an epidemic owing to the rise in the statistics of the people suffering from this health condition. Childhood obesity is a major issue of concern in the United States because of the increase in the number of children who have started becoming obese. This has led to a rise in the risk of various pathological conditions in these children. Over the last three decades, the graph of obesity has shown an upward trend and childhood obesity statistics have soared more than twice in these years. This rise has led to show the link between obesity and life hampering health conditions including diabetes, cancer as well as cardiac diseases. Not only this, psychological and social issues are also prevalent amongst these children. This problem needs to be tackled and measures need to be taken to overcome this epidemic of obesity. Promotion of a healthy lifestyle with the collaborative efforts of the state, media and educational institutions can prove to be beneficial in t he prevention of obesity. Childhood obesity has thus reached to alarming levels in the United States and effective preventive measures are needed as childhood obesity is associated with a large number of diseases. Obesity is a condition where an individual has an increased amount of body fat and hence an increased body weight. Obesity results when a person consumes an excessive amount of calories in comparison to the amount of calories that are burnt or utilized. Obesity amongst children has greatly risen in the United States and a report by the Institute of Medicine put forward that up to 9 million children and adolescents above the age of 6 years had increased weight and obesity in the United States. ... Obesity results when a person consumes an excessive amount of calories in comparison to the amount of calories that are burnt or utilized. Thus, there is increased accumulation of fat in the body (CDC 2013). Obesity amongst children has greatly risen in the United States and a report by the Institute of Medicine put forward that up to 9 million children and adolescents above the age of 6 years had increased weight and obesity in the United States. This has been accompanied with a surge in the healthcare expenditure for the management of obesity related pathologies that result in these individuals (Witeing, 2008, pg. 545). Obesity results due to a large number of causes which include the influence of the media and physical inactivity. Racial characteristics and societal influences are also known to play a role in the causation of obesity. A higher incidence of obesity is seen amongst the children belonging to the African American, Mexican American and Native American groups. Societal factors also play a part in leading to obesity. This can be seen as in certain localities in the United States, supermarkets and outlets providing fresh foods are not in close vicinity in comparison to the fast food restaurants and other unhealthy alternatives. Thus, this promotes unhealthy eating habits amongst the individuals. Also in certain areas, open spaces for walking and physical activity are not present. This along with a rise in crime rate in certain areas and increased traffic prevents the parents from allowing their children from going out and hence the children are indulged in indoor activities like watching television and playing video games. Physical activity education has also decreased in the schools and this accompanied with increased

Response question Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words - 1

Response question - Essay Example He discusses the healthy food of Asia but since they are following the U.S then who is left for us to look up to? No doubt his video is informative but due to lack of guidance about the lifestyle and diet it deviates from the main topic. Had he told about the correct diet and provided a chart of healthy food it would have served for the right purpose. Obesity is becoming common and has deformed the human figure in the past few decades. In this way we are moving forward to devolvement. The children are fed on junk and processed foods. They consume all the foods that are unhealthy from the age that is vulnerable and they become use to it. They refuse to intake the home made food and rely more on the take away foods. Though Ornish has not mentioned the reasons of obesity and did not talk about the prevention, however this is one of the common reasons. As obesity is common among people and they do not pay any heed to it and as a result they are unaware of the consequences. His video fails to provide the methods of prevention. Exercise can help a great deal in losing weight and getting rid of the obese figure. He does not talk about the life style either. These missing points make his video lacking in this very important aspect. He should have guided the people about the proper diet and lifestyle that are required in the prevention of the fatal

History of the Reformation in Wales

History of the Reformation in Wales The Reformation is one of the most studied, most discussed and heavily analysed periods of English history, arousing controversy and interest through the works of academics and the private study of interested individuals alike. J.A. Froude called it [T]he greatest incident in English history, but it would be just as easy to call it an act of sacrilege motivated by a selfish tyrant, interested more in perpetuating his own line than fulfilling his self-proclaimed role as defender of the faith. No matter the differences of historical opinion, its importance cannot be denied, and nor can its impact. Yet few authors have deigned to focus on the impact of this turbulent course of events on the principality of Wales, nor has there been much discussion of the role of its governor, Rowland Lee. This essay will do exactly that. It will begin with an analysis of the Reformation Acts as this author has dubbed them, the statutes enacted by Henry with the specific aim ofremaking the English church in his image. These measures affected thecountry as a whole, and any aspects peculiar to Wales will be examined. The essay will continue with a detailed look at the Welsh Acts,†statutes often called (wrongly) Acts of Union. Obviously, their effectis specific to Wales, and the attitudes of the Welsh people will be especially noteworthy here. Finally, the scope of the inquiry will turn to the man who implemented those policies as President of the Council of Wales: Rowland Lee, Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield. To some he was a blood-thirsty man,the hanging bishop who instigated a reign of terror. To others he was a skilled and efficient administrator, a man who was given a job to do and who took the actions necessary to its success. Once this essay isfinished, the thoughts of the writer will be well known, it will be upto the reader to make the final judgement. The background to the Reformation is long and complex, and is morethan a simple matter of a childish egotists desire to take what he hasbeen told he cannot have. Nor is the motivation as simple as apolitical need to secure the continuation of his line through the birthof a healthy son. Both of these were factors in Henrys thinking, butthey were not as simplistic as they have been portrayed. Henry was ascholar and had the capacity for intelligent, theoretical and theological thought. The Reformation was in part the end result of atheory of kingship based on the kingship of David in the Bible, and ona notion of imperium, that a king was the sole final arbiter of allmatters within his realm. Unfortunately, we do not have the available time or space to go into the causes of the Reformation in more detail. All that need concern the reader for the purpose of this study is that the Popes refusal to annul Henry VIIIs marriage to Catherine of Aragon (thereby invalidating the papal dispensation that had made the marriage legal inthe first place) led Henry to break with the Church of Rome and taketotal control of the church in England. The Church of England, as it became known, had the King at its head; he was the defender of the faith, and no foreign power could determine religious policy in his realm, just as it could not determine administrative policies or set taxation. There is a logical (if not theological) sense in this policy,and it was one that fitted with Henrys newfound theory of kingship. (i) The Reformation in General: A Legislative Revolution Henry was a king who ruled with parliament, and this makes analysis ofhis policies easier, since there is a clear legislative framework toalmost every reforming measure he undertook. Indeed, the parliamentthat enacted this legislation was dubbed the Reformation Parliament.It was through Parliament and the legal apparatus at his disposal thatHenry and Cromwell conducted the reformation of the Church, which wasto become Henrys church. The birth of the Reformation (at least in legal terms) came in the formof the Act of Restraint of Appeals (1533). It stated that as King ofEngland, Henry owed submission to no man, not even the Pope. The actproceeded on the basis that a king owed allegiance and obedience to Godand God alone. No earthly being could tell him how to interpret theScripture, or prevent him from annulling a marriage he had adjudgedsinful. In both theory and practice, it created an autonomous Church ofEngland, with the King at its head. The Act (as with almost alllegislation) was politically motivated, for (as its name implies) itbarred an English citizen from appealing to the Vatican against anydecision made by an English ecclesiastical court. The motivation forthis was obvious. It meant that if an English ecclesiastical courtruled that the marriage between the King and Catherine of Aragon wasinvalid, Catherine could not appeal to the pope. If she did, anyresponse would have no legal force within the Engli sh realm. Since theecclesiastical courts were now as much the kings courts as any otherlegal forum, they would dispense a decision in line with hisinterpretation of the law. This may seem tyrannical and corrupt tomodern eyes, but in Tudor England it made perfect sense. The courtsystem existed because the king was meant to dispense justice but couldnot hope to adjudicate every case himself. Personal intervention ofthis sort was impracticable. With this in mind, for a king to advisethe court of the correct decision was a constitutional act of theutmost legality. Part of the coronation oath was the preservation ofjustice; that is (in theory) all interference in a court case was; theking assuming duties he had previously sworn to perform. It is clear that dealing with his political and marital problems werefar more important to Henry and his government than reforming theChurch itself. The second key measure in the Henrician/Cromwellianreform programme was the Act of Succession (March 1534). The Actconfirmed the bastardy of Mary Tudor, (who had lost her title ofPrincess and was now referred to as the Lady Mary). Mary wasdisinherited and the Princess Elizabeth was named the kings truesuccessor. More importantly, the Act provided that any subject, if soordered, should swear an oath recognising its provisions. Most peoplecomplied without question, but both Thomas More and Bishop John Fisherrefused to take it. Both men paid for this allegiance to the Pope withtheir lives. The Princess Dowager (as Catherine of Aragon was nowdesignated), and her daughter also refused, but their relationship tothe Emperor restrained Henry, who left them to their own devices. It wasnt until later in 1534 (November) that the real changesbegan. The Act of Supremacy gave a legal, statutory definition of thekings position within the structure of this newly created Church ofEngland. It gave the king a statutory title of Supreme Head of theChurch of England and assigned the king all prerogatives to the saiddignity of supreme head of the same church belonging and appertaining.In effect, the pope was being displaced as the head of the church inEngland. Henry of course, had a different view. It was the kings ofEngland who had been displaced by the pope, based on spurious doctrinethat contradicted the Holy Scriptures. God had always intended that theking be master of all matters in his realm. That was why He selectedkings personally, putting them on the throne through his divine powers.His intervention at Bosworth Field had put the Tudors in control of thekingdom of England, and Henry was not about to let some bishop of Romeusurp his God-given authority. That would be to defy the will of God.Naturally, Henry was able to find theologians with concurring views.Richard Sampson, Bishop of Chichester wrote a treatise on the subjectthat made the very point Henry was making in the Act of Succession. Itsaid that The word of God is to obey the King, and not the Bishop ofRome.† Despite all of this, the Church of England remained an essentiallyCatholic church, since Henry had little interest in Protestantism.Indeed, many of the measures he did introduce of an evangelical naturewere later reversed. The Ten Articles of 1536 are a prime example ofHenrys attempts to steer a level course between the extremeCatholic/conservative and Anglican/evangelical wings of his new church.He was eager to keep it a broad church, but not willing to countenanceheresy (he burned papists and people who denied the sacraments withequal vigour). They were supposed to constitute a formulary for the newand improved Henrician church and were not without their controversies.For one thing, it only explicitly recognised three sacraments(baptism, penance and the Eucharist), where the Catholic Churchrecognised seven. Emphasis was laid upon the words of the Scriptures,and the merits of simple Christian life (something difficult torecognise in the grandiose magnificence of Renaissance royal co urts).It was not however, an anti-Catholic formulation as such. It did notcondemn the Mass, nor did it condemn the Catholic call for good works.It was a balancing act, with a little something for everybody, and Weirhas described it as a tentative move in an evangelical direction. Ifit was such a move, it was one that Henry soon reversed. The Act of SixArticles in 1539 resolved any latent ambiguity that existed in theEnglish church, returning it to a clearly Catholic structure. Clericalmarriage was condemned and the vows of chastity were now held to besacred and unbreakable, which put Archbishop Cranmer in an unfortunateposition as his marriage had been an open secret for some time. He wasundoubtedly not alone in finding himself in what was now a compromisingsituation, and it is somewhat ironic that Henry was enactinglegislation to combat illegal marriages. One thing of course, remainedunchanged; papal supremacy was not restored, nor could it be. Henry hadspent years espousing his ow n supremacy over the church, and it hadbeen the guiding principle behind his reign for the past decade. Evenif he had wanted to reverse what he had done and re-enter the CatholicChurch, it would be a political mistake of the highest order, and notone that he was prepared to make. Only one man could have dominion overEngland, and that man was its king. (ii) The Dissolution of the Monasteries: Royal Motives and a Welsh Perspective The Dissolution of the Monasteries was seen by some as an unwarrantedattack on a helpless class of people with no means to defendthemselves, and by others as a necessary purging of a corrupt andparasitical class of clergymen who served no pastoral or practicalpurpose. In reality, it was in the main, a land grab. There was anincreasing likelihood of war with France and Henry had gained fewfriends following Englands break with Rome. As the arch-pragmatist andchief minister Cromwell saw it, the monasteries were an untappedresource. Now that the king was overall arbiter of the churchsfuture, he had a legal authority over the monasteries that he had neverhad before. With this new ecclesiastical power came a desire toexercise it. Cromwell managed to push through an extremely efficientprogramme of dissolution, despite the objections of the kings newbride, Jane Seymour. In four short years, all five-hundred andsixty-three religious houses would be closed, and their inmatespensioned off. This freed up an enormous amount of land and finances which, naturallybecame the property of the Crown. With the injection of the abbeysrevenues into the treasury, the royal income doubled. This new moneywould help to finance Henrys extensive (and expensive) buildingprojects and the acquisition of new property (among other things). TheCrown also annexed monastic lands worth  £120, 000 a year, a massiveamount of money at the time, which amounted to one fifth of thekingdoms landed wealth. The Reformation was a time when the king had no significant standingarmy, despite the threat from the Catholic powers of France and Spainand the not unlikely threat of civil rebellion. To offset this risk,Henry redistributed a third of this new land to secure the loyalty ofimportant men, men who he would come to depend on when the northerupted in rebellion in 1536-7. Whilst the church held one quarter of all Welsh land it was notprolific in its membership. In 1500, Cistercian monasteries averagedonly six monks. Augustinian monasteries averaged five monks, with theBenedictine order averaging a mere three monks a monastery. Theso-called Great Abbey at Tintern only had thirteen monks. All in all,the dissolution displaced two hundred and fifty monks, nuns and friars,not an extreme number. Indeed, Henry could easily have described them as a minor casualty that benefited the whole nation. The effect on the people of Wales was somewhat more serious, as thepoor relied on the benefactory nature of the Welsh monasteries andpriories. This was a country where fifty per cent of the populationsuffered from malnutrition and an equal percentage of newborn babiesfailed to survive their first year. A lifespan of thirty-five years wasalso not uncommon, which is low, even for medieval Europe. The sheerpoverty and susceptibility to illness (a result of their malnutrition)of the Welsh working class made them dependent on the principalitysforty-six monasteries for alms and food. What made this worse was thatall of the Welsh monasteries were relatively poor, and so all of themwere dissolved in the initial cull of the lesser monasteries. In onefell swoop, Welsh monasticism was ended; for the Welsh there was noadjustment period, no breathing space; all of their monasteries went atonce. With the monasteries gone, a vital source of relief was cut off,a fact that no doubt hit hard in poor h omes throughout Wales andengendered a lot of distaste for the Tudor regime. A dynasty that theWelsh people had supported at its inception was taking away a vitalsource of support. It was to get worse too, as the new Church ofEngland cracked down on idolatry and (in Welsh eyes) took an axe to thepeoples heritage. (iii) The Idolatry Crackdown: A Welsh Perspective As has been stated above, the Reformation began as an essentiallypolitical process, resolving the question of absolute dominion andwhether the church was to be ruled from Rome or by the divinelyappointed sovereign of the nation in question. However, as the TenArticles of 1536 demonstrates, the Reformation did incorporate somereform of the church into its programme. A part of this thatparticularly affected Wales was the crusade against idolatry andimages. In 1538, Thomas Cromwell issued an Injunction ordering every parishchurch to stock an English bible to be made available for all whowished to read it and interpret the Scriptures themselves. As we willsee below, this was of little benefit to the Welsh. In the same year, asimilar Injunction ordered that every shrine in the country was to bedestroyed. This is where the popular image of thugs running around thecountry smashing up churches comes from, and it is a view that is notwithout some justification. As always, Cromwell was very effective, andeven the shrine of Thomas Becket (one of the countrys holiestpilgrimage places) was lost as a result of the zealous evangelicaldestruction squads. This had a particularly damaging effect on Wales,where cultural-religious relics were highly venerated. In a move thataccorded perfectly with the Reformations attempt to completelyassimilate the Welsh nation and culture, the principalitys relics wereruthlessly swept away, with almost nothing (if any thing) surviving thecull. Village processions would often have sacred images carried inthem, these priceless relics were lost. One such relic was the healing cup of Nant Eos. This sacred relicwas in reality no more than a cracked piece of wood, but to the Welshit had mystical powers. Whilst such a phrase sounds laughable to modernears, there is little doubt that the Welsh believed in the cupsproperties. Not only did it have remarkable healing properties, itpossessed the ability to cleanse your soul, keeping you out of hell andin extreme cases, it was believed to bring you back from that foulplace of purgatory. To the Welsh therefore, this was not merely avenerated image, but a physical key to salvation and a medical toolthat went far beyond contemporary healing techniques. As we have seen,Tudor Wales was a grim place and to remove relics such as the cup ofNant Eos was to eliminate hope itself for many of the people whobelieved in them. At a time when the Acts of Union were doing theirvery best to dilute and destroy the very basics of Welsh culture, thepolicies of the Reformation were providing a complementar y service inthe field of religious relics. (i) Why unify? The Welsh Problem The Welsh problem had been of concern to Henry VIII for some time bythe coming of the Reformation. Even though he had never been anyfarther west than Bristol, he was aware that the country which hadhelped his father to the throne was an alien one, out of step with therest of his realm. In a period of heightened nationalism, thedifferences between the Principality and its ruler were brought into amuch sharper focus, and became more clearly defined as a threat to theuniformity of the Henrician imperium. The Welsh language was an ugly tongue when compared to the Latin,French and Greek he had learned at the hands of his tutors, and it hadan alien sound to it. To a paranoid man, it could also be construed asthe ideal way to foment rebellion; after all, it is hard to root outtraitors when you cannot understand what they are saying It wasnt just the Welsh language that concerned the king. Walesstill had a distinct legal system, based on Gaelic traditions whichwere alien to a country based on Norman ideals. The Welsh system was sodifferent that it did not even recognise the English distinctionbetween civil and criminal cases; one of the central tenets of thecommon law system. Outrageously to a modern western audience,manslaughter and deliberate homicide were not even considered realcrimes. In England, such acts were offences against the community, tobe judged in royal courts, and nothing could alter the prosecutorsright to pursue a criminal case. In Wales (and Ireland), it was the kinwho had been wronged, and they who sought a remedy, and as in somemodern cultures, the family could seek financial reparations. None of this was, strictly speaking, a threat to society, or the soundadministration of the Principality. What was (or at least should havebeen) a genuine cause for central concern was that the conquest had notmanaged to eliminate the operation of the law of galanas, a lawregarding blood feuds and the appropriate resolution of such disputes.The principle of compensation was fundamental to the justice of thefeud, and it is not impossible that compensation could have included alife in return for a life. As we have seen above, tolerance was not one of Henry VIIIs qualities.He did not recognise alternative forms and systems of justice,especially when they were operating in his imperium. The root cause ofthe Reformation was his determination to see that his law was the law,and that no legal system, ecclesiastical or civil, could co-exist withhis own. Henry himself said that the Welsh laws were sinister usagesand customs used by the lords of the March for thraldom and tyranny. Of a more practical concern, there was a serious problem with law andorder throughout Wales and it was this that was the root cause ofHenrys acts of union. As Henry himself said in 1520: realms withoutjustice be but tyrannies and robberies Wales was not as much of aproblem as the Marches, which were a patchwork of autonomous fiefdoms,where lawlessness and violence abounded. The main problem with theMarcher lordships was centuries old. The constant threat of rebellionin Wales had led to the Marches becoming a buffer zone between thePrincipality and England, a medieval Rhineland, designed to keep theWelsh wolf from the door. To combat the Welsh threat, extensive powershad been delegated to the Marcher lords, powers that had never beenreclaimed. Within any one lordship, the lord had legislative power and,as Susan Brigden has said, they possessed virtual judicialomnicompetence within their own domain. There were a total of onehundred and thirty-seven separate jurisdictions where the king s writsimply did not run. They were notorious hideouts for outlaws andcriminals, a situation not helped by the fact that a murderer couldsimply cross state lines into another lordship to avoid punishment.For serious, career criminals the Marches were a safe haven that theking could simply no longer permit. The situation is believed to havebeen so bad that J.A. Williamson described Wales as wild anduntroubled by Parliaments laws, or by any law at all, being in aworse state of crime and disorder than England had been in the civilwars. For a king so obsessed with sovereignty and control over hisown domains, reform of the Marches and the principality as a whole wassimply a matter of time. All of these things, coupled with thetheoretical imperative that England was an empire, ensured that theActs of Union were not a long time coming. (ii) The Acts of Union: Aims and Effects Before the Acts are examined, one thing must be made clear; Henrywanted control of Wales, he did not want to set up an effective Welshgovernment, capable of managing its own affairs and getting a grip onlaw and order. He was not interested in bolstering the Welshadministration by giving them the tools to get the job done. What hewanted was a full scale incorporation of the Principality into theEnglish sovereignty. Once this was accomplished, the traditionalEnglish mechanisms could see to law and order in the tried and testedways. As has been exhaustively discussed above, the biggest problem wasthat the very nature of the Marcher lordships hindered the maintenanceof law and order. Therefore, they were a primary target of the 1536 Actwhich saw to their abolition. Some were combined with the unshiredWelsh lands to create the new counties of Monmouth, Brecon, Radnor,Montgomery and Denbigh (in 1543 Monmouth was transferred to England andtwo new counties of Glamorgan and Pembroke were crea ted). The rest ofthe lordships were incorporated into adjacent English counties. Crimescommitted in Marcher lordships could not be avoided by fleeing toanother jurisdiction; they were to be tried in English courts. Thepractice of cymortha, the imposition of obligatory gifts (a majorsource of revenue for Marcher lords) was forbidden. Any Marcherlordship official deemed guilty of corruption or oppression could betried and punished by the Council of Wales, whose powers wereincreased. The patchwork of anarchy had been abolished. Welsh law was another target of the 1536 Act. Henrys distrust of alienjurisdictions could lead to only one natural outcome; English law wasestablished as the law of the land throughout Wales. There were to beno more dual systems, with Welsh and English law operating side byside; from 1534 onwards, the Welsh legal system was no more differentto the national system than was the Sussex or Derbyshire legal system.English rules of tenure and inheritance replaced older Welsh customs.There was only one law in Wales: the Kings law. Of course, the change in legal structure would have meant nothingwithout the mechanisms and means to enforce it. Courts of greatsessions and Justices of the Peace were introduced to bring the Englishcommon law to Wales. The Council of Wales (which sat in Ludlow castlein Shropshire) was now the equivalent of a Welsh Privy Council andCourt of Star Chamber combined, and under the leadership of BishopRowland Lee, was responsible for enforcing the law in Wales (below, wewill examine the success and question the methods of Bishop Lee). To ensure the erosion of the Welsh language, English was to be thenational legal language of Wales. All court hearings were to beconducted in English (which caused obvious problems) and all publicofficials in Wales had to speak English. This was a clever move, itwedded the Welsh gentry to the Crown, anglicising them and driving afirm wedge between them and the Welsh lower classes. Any student ofhistory knows that a revolution needs the support of the middleclasses; the Act of Union ensured there was no benefit to suchco-operation. The Acts of 1536 and 1543 were not all bad news for the people ofWales. Indeed, they had some very tangible benefits. For one thing, thelegal distinctions between Henrys English and Welsh subjects wereeliminated. The Welsh were no longer second class citizens, they couldexpect the same level of due process as their English neighbours anddecades-long impediments to the acquisition and inheritance of landwere therefore removed. Whilst Welsh courts operated on Englishprinciples they were not answerable to Westminster but to theChanceries in Caernarfon and Carmarthen; thereby giving the Welshcourts an autonomy granted to no other section of the kingdom. Mostimportantly to modern eyes (although the reaction at the time wasprobably fairly moderate), the 1536 Act entitled Wales torepresentation at Parliament for the first time in its history. In 1543it sent twenty-seven MPs to Westminster. Clearly, the incorporationinto England was total, with Wales deriving the benefits as well as thecultu ral assaults of a full-blown union with England. Whilst somehistorians claim that the Statute of Rhuddlan (1284) created a unionbetween the two countries, this is somewhat short-sighted. Rhuddlan putWales under the auspices of the English kings, but it made Wales acolony, where its own inhabitants were left to their own devices andtreated as less than their English counterparts. Whilst the acts of1536 and 1543 were a clear attempt to assimilate and dissipate theWelsh culture, it also took positive steps to bring the Welsh into thefold, giving them rights they had never before enjoyed. In Henryscase, the lord giveth at the same time as the lord taketh away.Whatever the pros and cons of Henrician reforms, the Welsh language isstill alive over four hundred and fifty years later, and the Welshcontinue to be proud of their culture and their history. Rowland Lee was appointed president of the Council of Wales as partof a move to gain greater central control of the realm. In Ireland, theEarl of Kildare was replaced as governor by Sir William Skeffington (amilitary captain) and Lord Dacre was replaced as warden of the westmarches in the north by the Earl of Cumberland. All of this happened inthe space of a single month. As has been outlined above, Wales was ananarchic area, in need of a firm hand. Lee was to be that hand, andover the next nine years he conducted what some historians wouldcharacterise as a reign of terror. Like any sensible person, and in line with the thoughts of hissovereign, Lee was alive to the possibility that a Catholic nation suchas France or Spain was likely to invade. Lee took active measures todefend the coasts, recruiting soldiers and hunting out resources torepair the royal castles which had been falling into disrepair. At thetime of their construction, Welsh castles such as those built by EdwardI were designed as Welsh outposts, military strongholds in a freshlyconquered and belligerent colony. By the 1530s, the age ofcastle-building was over. Having mentioned above that Henry VIII hadused the monastic income to fund his extensive building projects; thismay surprise the reader of this piece. But do not be surprised. HenryVIII was a palace builder. He wanted large, glamorous and opulentresidences to relax in and house a Renaissance court that was worthy ofthe name. The type of uncomfortable and old-fashioned castle thatEdward I had deemed necessary in the thirteenth century was deemed ananachronism. They were also hugely expensive. This meant that Lee hadto make do with the castles he already had and hope that there wasntan invasion. Since his prayers were answered in this respect, we cannotjudge Lees success in this area. All we can say is that he seems tohave taken all the precautions a reasonable man could have taken. Lees greatest success and the biggest anvil dragging his reputationdown is his policy regarding law and order. This essay has discussed atsome length the lawlessness and turbulence that abounded in the WelshMarches prior to the arrival of Bishop Lee. His reports were in partresponsible for the reforms found in the 1536 Act, an act which gavethe Council of Wales the means to take Welsh matters in hand. Itensured that the patchwork of private judicial enclaves and palatinatesbecame a large English common law blanket under Lee’s jurisdiction.There is no doubt that Lee earned his nickname of the hanging bishop.Indeed, his entire policy on law and order was to hang people, the morethe better. Hanging was to be done frequently and publicly, especiallyif the criminal in question was of a more respectable background thanthe common criminal. Davies credits Lee with saying that executing agentleman was better than dispatching a hundred petty wretches andclaims he boasted that he had exe cuted four of the best blood inShropshire. Even if this is true, it is a sound policy. One of themajor scourges of the Wars of the Roses had been the major families andtheir constant liberty-taking where the law was concerned. Greatfamilies would wage private wars and other nobles would keep a hold ontheir territories by fear and licensing thugs and criminals to run riotthroughout their lands. The Marcher lordships were no different. Therewas little respect for the law. One way to instil a healthy fearfulrespect of the law was to prove that no-one was above it. If a wealthylanded gentleman could swing from the gallows for a crime then anyonecould. This author is no fan of capital punishment and would point tothe fact that people still kill each other in states where the deathpenalty exists. But in the case of Bishop Lee, it would be incrediblydifficult to argue that his policy of hanging did not act as adeterrent. The Marches and the rest of the principality quickly fellinto line. T he chronicler Elis Gruffyd claims that Lee executed fivethousand men in six years and this would certainly accord with theprinciple ascribed to Lee that it was better to hang a hundred innocentmen than let a guilty one escape the noose. If Lee really did despatchfive thousand souls to meet their maker, then it is easy to see whyWales became a more orderly region under his rule. In 1538, the manhimself said that order and quiet such as is now in England prevailedall over Wales. A key question when determining Lees success is the extent to whichLee benefited from the reforms of 1536, and whether the success of Leewas really the success of administrative reform as imposed byWestminster. After all, the key thread running through the criticism of the Marcherlordships is that they lacked a uniform legal system and an effectiveand unified administrative machine. The Act of 1536 gave Wales boththese things and therefore, the argument could be made, brought orderto the Principality. Before this argument is debunked, it is necessaryto give it a full airing by going over exactly how the Act aided BishopLees pursuit of order. Much was made in the previous section of the legal, jurisdictional andpolitical patchwork that existed in the Marches. Naturally this causedserious administrative problems for Bishop Lee. The extensive rightsgranted to the Marcher lords in the previous century still existed,even if the political and military justification for such a delegationof royal authority no longer did. This left the Council prettypowerless where the lordships were concerned, and meant that any reformLee undertook had to be confined to the Principality. Not that that wasan easy task, for the Principality had, in many places, Welsh andEnglish law operating side by side. These jurisdictional problems weresolved in one fell swoop by the 1536 Act; Lee went from having littleor no jurisdiction to having legal authority over all of Wales. Withoutthis reform of Marcher and Principality law, Lees task would have beenmuch more difficult than it was. Lee now had the power to punish History of the Reformation in Wales History of the Reformation in Wales The Reformation is one of the most studied, most discussed and heavily analysed periods of English history, arousing controversy and interest through the works of academics and the private study of interested individuals alike. J.A. Froude called it [T]he greatest incident in English history, but it would be just as easy to call it an act of sacrilege motivated by a selfish tyrant, interested more in perpetuating his own line than fulfilling his self-proclaimed role as defender of the faith. No matter the differences of historical opinion, its importance cannot be denied, and nor can its impact. Yet few authors have deigned to focus on the impact of this turbulent course of events on the principality of Wales, nor has there been much discussion of the role of its governor, Rowland Lee. This essay will do exactly that. It will begin with an analysis of the Reformation Acts as this author has dubbed them, the statutes enacted by Henry with the specific aim ofremaking the English church in his image. These measures affected thecountry as a whole, and any aspects peculiar to Wales will be examined. The essay will continue with a detailed look at the Welsh Acts,†statutes often called (wrongly) Acts of Union. Obviously, their effectis specific to Wales, and the attitudes of the Welsh people will be especially noteworthy here. Finally, the scope of the inquiry will turn to the man who implemented those policies as President of the Council of Wales: Rowland Lee, Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield. To some he was a blood-thirsty man,the hanging bishop who instigated a reign of terror. To others he was a skilled and efficient administrator, a man who was given a job to do and who took the actions necessary to its success. Once this essay isfinished, the thoughts of the writer will be well known, it will be upto the reader to make the final judgement. The background to the Reformation is long and complex, and is morethan a simple matter of a childish egotists desire to take what he hasbeen told he cannot have. Nor is the motivation as simple as apolitical need to secure the continuation of his line through the birthof a healthy son. Both of these were factors in Henrys thinking, butthey were not as simplistic as they have been portrayed. Henry was ascholar and had the capacity for intelligent, theoretical and theological thought. The Reformation was in part the end result of atheory of kingship based on the kingship of David in the Bible, and ona notion of imperium, that a king was the sole final arbiter of allmatters within his realm. Unfortunately, we do not have the available time or space to go into the causes of the Reformation in more detail. All that need concern the reader for the purpose of this study is that the Popes refusal to annul Henry VIIIs marriage to Catherine of Aragon (thereby invalidating the papal dispensation that had made the marriage legal inthe first place) led Henry to break with the Church of Rome and taketotal control of the church in England. The Church of England, as it became known, had the King at its head; he was the defender of the faith, and no foreign power could determine religious policy in his realm, just as it could not determine administrative policies or set taxation. There is a logical (if not theological) sense in this policy,and it was one that fitted with Henrys newfound theory of kingship. (i) The Reformation in General: A Legislative Revolution Henry was a king who ruled with parliament, and this makes analysis ofhis policies easier, since there is a clear legislative framework toalmost every reforming measure he undertook. Indeed, the parliamentthat enacted this legislation was dubbed the Reformation Parliament.It was through Parliament and the legal apparatus at his disposal thatHenry and Cromwell conducted the reformation of the Church, which wasto become Henrys church. The birth of the Reformation (at least in legal terms) came in the formof the Act of Restraint of Appeals (1533). It stated that as King ofEngland, Henry owed submission to no man, not even the Pope. The actproceeded on the basis that a king owed allegiance and obedience to Godand God alone. No earthly being could tell him how to interpret theScripture, or prevent him from annulling a marriage he had adjudgedsinful. In both theory and practice, it created an autonomous Church ofEngland, with the King at its head. The Act (as with almost alllegislation) was politically motivated, for (as its name implies) itbarred an English citizen from appealing to the Vatican against anydecision made by an English ecclesiastical court. The motivation forthis was obvious. It meant that if an English ecclesiastical courtruled that the marriage between the King and Catherine of Aragon wasinvalid, Catherine could not appeal to the pope. If she did, anyresponse would have no legal force within the Engli sh realm. Since theecclesiastical courts were now as much the kings courts as any otherlegal forum, they would dispense a decision in line with hisinterpretation of the law. This may seem tyrannical and corrupt tomodern eyes, but in Tudor England it made perfect sense. The courtsystem existed because the king was meant to dispense justice but couldnot hope to adjudicate every case himself. Personal intervention ofthis sort was impracticable. With this in mind, for a king to advisethe court of the correct decision was a constitutional act of theutmost legality. Part of the coronation oath was the preservation ofjustice; that is (in theory) all interference in a court case was; theking assuming duties he had previously sworn to perform. It is clear that dealing with his political and marital problems werefar more important to Henry and his government than reforming theChurch itself. The second key measure in the Henrician/Cromwellianreform programme was the Act of Succession (March 1534). The Actconfirmed the bastardy of Mary Tudor, (who had lost her title ofPrincess and was now referred to as the Lady Mary). Mary wasdisinherited and the Princess Elizabeth was named the kings truesuccessor. More importantly, the Act provided that any subject, if soordered, should swear an oath recognising its provisions. Most peoplecomplied without question, but both Thomas More and Bishop John Fisherrefused to take it. Both men paid for this allegiance to the Pope withtheir lives. The Princess Dowager (as Catherine of Aragon was nowdesignated), and her daughter also refused, but their relationship tothe Emperor restrained Henry, who left them to their own devices. It wasnt until later in 1534 (November) that the real changesbegan. The Act of Supremacy gave a legal, statutory definition of thekings position within the structure of this newly created Church ofEngland. It gave the king a statutory title of Supreme Head of theChurch of England and assigned the king all prerogatives to the saiddignity of supreme head of the same church belonging and appertaining.In effect, the pope was being displaced as the head of the church inEngland. Henry of course, had a different view. It was the kings ofEngland who had been displaced by the pope, based on spurious doctrinethat contradicted the Holy Scriptures. God had always intended that theking be master of all matters in his realm. That was why He selectedkings personally, putting them on the throne through his divine powers.His intervention at Bosworth Field had put the Tudors in control of thekingdom of England, and Henry was not about to let some bishop of Romeusurp his God-given authority. That would be to defy the will of God.Naturally, Henry was able to find theologians with concurring views.Richard Sampson, Bishop of Chichester wrote a treatise on the subjectthat made the very point Henry was making in the Act of Succession. Itsaid that The word of God is to obey the King, and not the Bishop ofRome.† Despite all of this, the Church of England remained an essentiallyCatholic church, since Henry had little interest in Protestantism.Indeed, many of the measures he did introduce of an evangelical naturewere later reversed. The Ten Articles of 1536 are a prime example ofHenrys attempts to steer a level course between the extremeCatholic/conservative and Anglican/evangelical wings of his new church.He was eager to keep it a broad church, but not willing to countenanceheresy (he burned papists and people who denied the sacraments withequal vigour). They were supposed to constitute a formulary for the newand improved Henrician church and were not without their controversies.For one thing, it only explicitly recognised three sacraments(baptism, penance and the Eucharist), where the Catholic Churchrecognised seven. Emphasis was laid upon the words of the Scriptures,and the merits of simple Christian life (something difficult torecognise in the grandiose magnificence of Renaissance royal co urts).It was not however, an anti-Catholic formulation as such. It did notcondemn the Mass, nor did it condemn the Catholic call for good works.It was a balancing act, with a little something for everybody, and Weirhas described it as a tentative move in an evangelical direction. Ifit was such a move, it was one that Henry soon reversed. The Act of SixArticles in 1539 resolved any latent ambiguity that existed in theEnglish church, returning it to a clearly Catholic structure. Clericalmarriage was condemned and the vows of chastity were now held to besacred and unbreakable, which put Archbishop Cranmer in an unfortunateposition as his marriage had been an open secret for some time. He wasundoubtedly not alone in finding himself in what was now a compromisingsituation, and it is somewhat ironic that Henry was enactinglegislation to combat illegal marriages. One thing of course, remainedunchanged; papal supremacy was not restored, nor could it be. Henry hadspent years espousing his ow n supremacy over the church, and it hadbeen the guiding principle behind his reign for the past decade. Evenif he had wanted to reverse what he had done and re-enter the CatholicChurch, it would be a political mistake of the highest order, and notone that he was prepared to make. Only one man could have dominion overEngland, and that man was its king. (ii) The Dissolution of the Monasteries: Royal Motives and a Welsh Perspective The Dissolution of the Monasteries was seen by some as an unwarrantedattack on a helpless class of people with no means to defendthemselves, and by others as a necessary purging of a corrupt andparasitical class of clergymen who served no pastoral or practicalpurpose. In reality, it was in the main, a land grab. There was anincreasing likelihood of war with France and Henry had gained fewfriends following Englands break with Rome. As the arch-pragmatist andchief minister Cromwell saw it, the monasteries were an untappedresource. Now that the king was overall arbiter of the churchsfuture, he had a legal authority over the monasteries that he had neverhad before. With this new ecclesiastical power came a desire toexercise it. Cromwell managed to push through an extremely efficientprogramme of dissolution, despite the objections of the kings newbride, Jane Seymour. In four short years, all five-hundred andsixty-three religious houses would be closed, and their inmatespensioned off. This freed up an enormous amount of land and finances which, naturallybecame the property of the Crown. With the injection of the abbeysrevenues into the treasury, the royal income doubled. This new moneywould help to finance Henrys extensive (and expensive) buildingprojects and the acquisition of new property (among other things). TheCrown also annexed monastic lands worth  £120, 000 a year, a massiveamount of money at the time, which amounted to one fifth of thekingdoms landed wealth. The Reformation was a time when the king had no significant standingarmy, despite the threat from the Catholic powers of France and Spainand the not unlikely threat of civil rebellion. To offset this risk,Henry redistributed a third of this new land to secure the loyalty ofimportant men, men who he would come to depend on when the northerupted in rebellion in 1536-7. Whilst the church held one quarter of all Welsh land it was notprolific in its membership. In 1500, Cistercian monasteries averagedonly six monks. Augustinian monasteries averaged five monks, with theBenedictine order averaging a mere three monks a monastery. Theso-called Great Abbey at Tintern only had thirteen monks. All in all,the dissolution displaced two hundred and fifty monks, nuns and friars,not an extreme number. Indeed, Henry could easily have described them as a minor casualty that benefited the whole nation. The effect on the people of Wales was somewhat more serious, as thepoor relied on the benefactory nature of the Welsh monasteries andpriories. This was a country where fifty per cent of the populationsuffered from malnutrition and an equal percentage of newborn babiesfailed to survive their first year. A lifespan of thirty-five years wasalso not uncommon, which is low, even for medieval Europe. The sheerpoverty and susceptibility to illness (a result of their malnutrition)of the Welsh working class made them dependent on the principalitysforty-six monasteries for alms and food. What made this worse was thatall of the Welsh monasteries were relatively poor, and so all of themwere dissolved in the initial cull of the lesser monasteries. In onefell swoop, Welsh monasticism was ended; for the Welsh there was noadjustment period, no breathing space; all of their monasteries went atonce. With the monasteries gone, a vital source of relief was cut off,a fact that no doubt hit hard in poor h omes throughout Wales andengendered a lot of distaste for the Tudor regime. A dynasty that theWelsh people had supported at its inception was taking away a vitalsource of support. It was to get worse too, as the new Church ofEngland cracked down on idolatry and (in Welsh eyes) took an axe to thepeoples heritage. (iii) The Idolatry Crackdown: A Welsh Perspective As has been stated above, the Reformation began as an essentiallypolitical process, resolving the question of absolute dominion andwhether the church was to be ruled from Rome or by the divinelyappointed sovereign of the nation in question. However, as the TenArticles of 1536 demonstrates, the Reformation did incorporate somereform of the church into its programme. A part of this thatparticularly affected Wales was the crusade against idolatry andimages. In 1538, Thomas Cromwell issued an Injunction ordering every parishchurch to stock an English bible to be made available for all whowished to read it and interpret the Scriptures themselves. As we willsee below, this was of little benefit to the Welsh. In the same year, asimilar Injunction ordered that every shrine in the country was to bedestroyed. This is where the popular image of thugs running around thecountry smashing up churches comes from, and it is a view that is notwithout some justification. As always, Cromwell was very effective, andeven the shrine of Thomas Becket (one of the countrys holiestpilgrimage places) was lost as a result of the zealous evangelicaldestruction squads. This had a particularly damaging effect on Wales,where cultural-religious relics were highly venerated. In a move thataccorded perfectly with the Reformations attempt to completelyassimilate the Welsh nation and culture, the principalitys relics wereruthlessly swept away, with almost nothing (if any thing) surviving thecull. Village processions would often have sacred images carried inthem, these priceless relics were lost. One such relic was the healing cup of Nant Eos. This sacred relicwas in reality no more than a cracked piece of wood, but to the Welshit had mystical powers. Whilst such a phrase sounds laughable to modernears, there is little doubt that the Welsh believed in the cupsproperties. Not only did it have remarkable healing properties, itpossessed the ability to cleanse your soul, keeping you out of hell andin extreme cases, it was believed to bring you back from that foulplace of purgatory. To the Welsh therefore, this was not merely avenerated image, but a physical key to salvation and a medical toolthat went far beyond contemporary healing techniques. As we have seen,Tudor Wales was a grim place and to remove relics such as the cup ofNant Eos was to eliminate hope itself for many of the people whobelieved in them. At a time when the Acts of Union were doing theirvery best to dilute and destroy the very basics of Welsh culture, thepolicies of the Reformation were providing a complementar y service inthe field of religious relics. (i) Why unify? The Welsh Problem The Welsh problem had been of concern to Henry VIII for some time bythe coming of the Reformation. Even though he had never been anyfarther west than Bristol, he was aware that the country which hadhelped his father to the throne was an alien one, out of step with therest of his realm. In a period of heightened nationalism, thedifferences between the Principality and its ruler were brought into amuch sharper focus, and became more clearly defined as a threat to theuniformity of the Henrician imperium. The Welsh language was an ugly tongue when compared to the Latin,French and Greek he had learned at the hands of his tutors, and it hadan alien sound to it. To a paranoid man, it could also be construed asthe ideal way to foment rebellion; after all, it is hard to root outtraitors when you cannot understand what they are saying It wasnt just the Welsh language that concerned the king. Walesstill had a distinct legal system, based on Gaelic traditions whichwere alien to a country based on Norman ideals. The Welsh system was sodifferent that it did not even recognise the English distinctionbetween civil and criminal cases; one of the central tenets of thecommon law system. Outrageously to a modern western audience,manslaughter and deliberate homicide were not even considered realcrimes. In England, such acts were offences against the community, tobe judged in royal courts, and nothing could alter the prosecutorsright to pursue a criminal case. In Wales (and Ireland), it was the kinwho had been wronged, and they who sought a remedy, and as in somemodern cultures, the family could seek financial reparations. None of this was, strictly speaking, a threat to society, or the soundadministration of the Principality. What was (or at least should havebeen) a genuine cause for central concern was that the conquest had notmanaged to eliminate the operation of the law of galanas, a lawregarding blood feuds and the appropriate resolution of such disputes.The principle of compensation was fundamental to the justice of thefeud, and it is not impossible that compensation could have included alife in return for a life. As we have seen above, tolerance was not one of Henry VIIIs qualities.He did not recognise alternative forms and systems of justice,especially when they were operating in his imperium. The root cause ofthe Reformation was his determination to see that his law was the law,and that no legal system, ecclesiastical or civil, could co-exist withhis own. Henry himself said that the Welsh laws were sinister usagesand customs used by the lords of the March for thraldom and tyranny. Of a more practical concern, there was a serious problem with law andorder throughout Wales and it was this that was the root cause ofHenrys acts of union. As Henry himself said in 1520: realms withoutjustice be but tyrannies and robberies Wales was not as much of aproblem as the Marches, which were a patchwork of autonomous fiefdoms,where lawlessness and violence abounded. The main problem with theMarcher lordships was centuries old. The constant threat of rebellionin Wales had led to the Marches becoming a buffer zone between thePrincipality and England, a medieval Rhineland, designed to keep theWelsh wolf from the door. To combat the Welsh threat, extensive powershad been delegated to the Marcher lords, powers that had never beenreclaimed. Within any one lordship, the lord had legislative power and,as Susan Brigden has said, they possessed virtual judicialomnicompetence within their own domain. There were a total of onehundred and thirty-seven separate jurisdictions where the king s writsimply did not run. They were notorious hideouts for outlaws andcriminals, a situation not helped by the fact that a murderer couldsimply cross state lines into another lordship to avoid punishment.For serious, career criminals the Marches were a safe haven that theking could simply no longer permit. The situation is believed to havebeen so bad that J.A. Williamson described Wales as wild anduntroubled by Parliaments laws, or by any law at all, being in aworse state of crime and disorder than England had been in the civilwars. For a king so obsessed with sovereignty and control over hisown domains, reform of the Marches and the principality as a whole wassimply a matter of time. All of these things, coupled with thetheoretical imperative that England was an empire, ensured that theActs of Union were not a long time coming. (ii) The Acts of Union: Aims and Effects Before the Acts are examined, one thing must be made clear; Henrywanted control of Wales, he did not want to set up an effective Welshgovernment, capable of managing its own affairs and getting a grip onlaw and order. He was not interested in bolstering the Welshadministration by giving them the tools to get the job done. What hewanted was a full scale incorporation of the Principality into theEnglish sovereignty. Once this was accomplished, the traditionalEnglish mechanisms could see to law and order in the tried and testedways. As has been exhaustively discussed above, the biggest problem wasthat the very nature of the Marcher lordships hindered the maintenanceof law and order. Therefore, they were a primary target of the 1536 Actwhich saw to their abolition. Some were combined with the unshiredWelsh lands to create the new counties of Monmouth, Brecon, Radnor,Montgomery and Denbigh (in 1543 Monmouth was transferred to England andtwo new counties of Glamorgan and Pembroke were crea ted). The rest ofthe lordships were incorporated into adjacent English counties. Crimescommitted in Marcher lordships could not be avoided by fleeing toanother jurisdiction; they were to be tried in English courts. Thepractice of cymortha, the imposition of obligatory gifts (a majorsource of revenue for Marcher lords) was forbidden. Any Marcherlordship official deemed guilty of corruption or oppression could betried and punished by the Council of Wales, whose powers wereincreased. The patchwork of anarchy had been abolished. Welsh law was another target of the 1536 Act. Henrys distrust of alienjurisdictions could lead to only one natural outcome; English law wasestablished as the law of the land throughout Wales. There were to beno more dual systems, with Welsh and English law operating side byside; from 1534 onwards, the Welsh legal system was no more differentto the national system than was the Sussex or Derbyshire legal system.English rules of tenure and inheritance replaced older Welsh customs.There was only one law in Wales: the Kings law. Of course, the change in legal structure would have meant nothingwithout the mechanisms and means to enforce it. Courts of greatsessions and Justices of the Peace were introduced to bring the Englishcommon law to Wales. The Council of Wales (which sat in Ludlow castlein Shropshire) was now the equivalent of a Welsh Privy Council andCourt of Star Chamber combined, and under the leadership of BishopRowland Lee, was responsible for enforcing the law in Wales (below, wewill examine the success and question the methods of Bishop Lee). To ensure the erosion of the Welsh language, English was to be thenational legal language of Wales. All court hearings were to beconducted in English (which caused obvious problems) and all publicofficials in Wales had to speak English. This was a clever move, itwedded the Welsh gentry to the Crown, anglicising them and driving afirm wedge between them and the Welsh lower classes. Any student ofhistory knows that a revolution needs the support of the middleclasses; the Act of Union ensured there was no benefit to suchco-operation. The Acts of 1536 and 1543 were not all bad news for the people ofWales. Indeed, they had some very tangible benefits. For one thing, thelegal distinctions between Henrys English and Welsh subjects wereeliminated. The Welsh were no longer second class citizens, they couldexpect the same level of due process as their English neighbours anddecades-long impediments to the acquisition and inheritance of landwere therefore removed. Whilst Welsh courts operated on Englishprinciples they were not answerable to Westminster but to theChanceries in Caernarfon and Carmarthen; thereby giving the Welshcourts an autonomy granted to no other section of the kingdom. Mostimportantly to modern eyes (although the reaction at the time wasprobably fairly moderate), the 1536 Act entitled Wales torepresentation at Parliament for the first time in its history. In 1543it sent twenty-seven MPs to Westminster. Clearly, the incorporationinto England was total, with Wales deriving the benefits as well as thecultu ral assaults of a full-blown union with England. Whilst somehistorians claim that the Statute of Rhuddlan (1284) created a unionbetween the two countries, this is somewhat short-sighted. Rhuddlan putWales under the auspices of the English kings, but it made Wales acolony, where its own inhabitants were left to their own devices andtreated as less than their English counterparts. Whilst the acts of1536 and 1543 were a clear attempt to assimilate and dissipate theWelsh culture, it also took positive steps to bring the Welsh into thefold, giving them rights they had never before enjoyed. In Henryscase, the lord giveth at the same time as the lord taketh away.Whatever the pros and cons of Henrician reforms, the Welsh language isstill alive over four hundred and fifty years later, and the Welshcontinue to be proud of their culture and their history. Rowland Lee was appointed president of the Council of Wales as partof a move to gain greater central control of the realm. In Ireland, theEarl of Kildare was replaced as governor by Sir William Skeffington (amilitary captain) and Lord Dacre was replaced as warden of the westmarches in the north by the Earl of Cumberland. All of this happened inthe space of a single month. As has been outlined above, Wales was ananarchic area, in need of a firm hand. Lee was to be that hand, andover the next nine years he conducted what some historians wouldcharacterise as a reign of terror. Like any sensible person, and in line with the thoughts of hissovereign, Lee was alive to the possibility that a Catholic nation suchas France or Spain was likely to invade. Lee took active measures todefend the coasts, recruiting soldiers and hunting out resources torepair the royal castles which had been falling into disrepair. At thetime of their construction, Welsh castles such as those built by EdwardI were designed as Welsh outposts, military strongholds in a freshlyconquered and belligerent colony. By the 1530s, the age ofcastle-building was over. Having mentioned above that Henry VIII hadused the monastic income to fund his extensive building projects; thismay surprise the reader of this piece. But do not be surprised. HenryVIII was a palace builder. He wanted large, glamorous and opulentresidences to relax in and house a Renaissance court that was worthy ofthe name. The type of uncomfortable and old-fashioned castle thatEdward I had deemed necessary in the thirteenth century was deemed ananachronism. They were also hugely expensive. This meant that Lee hadto make do with the castles he already had and hope that there wasntan invasion. Since his prayers were answered in this respect, we cannotjudge Lees success in this area. All we can say is that he seems tohave taken all the precautions a reasonable man could have taken. Lees greatest success and the biggest anvil dragging his reputationdown is his policy regarding law and order. This essay has discussed atsome length the lawlessness and turbulence that abounded in the WelshMarches prior to the arrival of Bishop Lee. His reports were in partresponsible for the reforms found in the 1536 Act, an act which gavethe Council of Wales the means to take Welsh matters in hand. Itensured that the patchwork of private judicial enclaves and palatinatesbecame a large English common law blanket under Lee’s jurisdiction.There is no doubt that Lee earned his nickname of the hanging bishop.Indeed, his entire policy on law and order was to hang people, the morethe better. Hanging was to be done frequently and publicly, especiallyif the criminal in question was of a more respectable background thanthe common criminal. Davies credits Lee with saying that executing agentleman was better than dispatching a hundred petty wretches andclaims he boasted that he had exe cuted four of the best blood inShropshire. Even if this is true, it is a sound policy. One of themajor scourges of the Wars of the Roses had been the major families andtheir constant liberty-taking where the law was concerned. Greatfamilies would wage private wars and other nobles would keep a hold ontheir territories by fear and licensing thugs and criminals to run riotthroughout their lands. The Marcher lordships were no different. Therewas little respect for the law. One way to instil a healthy fearfulrespect of the law was to prove that no-one was above it. If a wealthylanded gentleman could swing from the gallows for a crime then anyonecould. This author is no fan of capital punishment and would point tothe fact that people still kill each other in states where the deathpenalty exists. But in the case of Bishop Lee, it would be incrediblydifficult to argue that his policy of hanging did not act as adeterrent. The Marches and the rest of the principality quickly fellinto line. T he chronicler Elis Gruffyd claims that Lee executed fivethousand men in six years and this would certainly accord with theprinciple ascribed to Lee that it was better to hang a hundred innocentmen than let a guilty one escape the noose. If Lee really did despatchfive thousand souls to meet their maker, then it is easy to see whyWales became a more orderly region under his rule. In 1538, the manhimself said that order and quiet such as is now in England prevailedall over Wales. A key question when determining Lees success is the extent to whichLee benefited from the reforms of 1536, and whether the success of Leewas really the success of administrative reform as imposed byWestminster. After all, the key thread running through the criticism of the Marcherlordships is that they lacked a uniform legal system and an effectiveand unified administrative machine. The Act of 1536 gave Wales boththese things and therefore, the argument could be made, brought orderto the Principality. Before this argument is debunked, it is necessaryto give it a full airing by going over exactly how the Act aided BishopLees pursuit of order. Much was made in the previous section of the legal, jurisdictional andpolitical patchwork that existed in the Marches. Naturally this causedserious administrative problems for Bishop Lee. The extensive rightsgranted to the Marcher lords in the previous century still existed,even if the political and military justification for such a delegationof royal authority no longer did. This left the Council prettypowerless where the lordships were concerned, and meant that any reformLee undertook had to be confined to the Principality. Not that that wasan easy task, for the Principality had, in many places, Welsh andEnglish law operating side by side. These jurisdictional problems weresolved in one fell swoop by the 1536 Act; Lee went from having littleor no jurisdiction to having legal authority over all of Wales. Withoutthis reform of Marcher and Principality law, Lees task would have beenmuch more difficult than it was. Lee now had the power to punish