GCE
History A
Advanced GCE A2 H506
Advanced Subsidiary GCE AS H106
Mark Schemes for the Units
January 2010
HX06/MS/R/10J
Oxford Cambridge and RSA Examinations
OCR (Oxford Cambridge and RSA) is a leading UK awarding body, providing a wide range of
qualifications to meet the needs of pupils of all ages and abilities. OCR qualifications include
AS/A Levels, Diplomas, GCSEs, OCR Nationals, Functional Skills, Key Skills, Entry
Level qualifications, NVQs and vocational qualifications in areas such as IT, business,
languages, teaching/training, administration and secretarial skills.
It is also responsible for developing new specifications to meet national requirements and the
needs of students and teachers. OCR is a not-for-profit organisation; any surplus made is
invested back into the establishment to help towards the development of qualifications and
support which keep pace with the changing needs of today’s society.
This mark scheme is published as an aid to teachers and students, to indicate the requirements
of the examination. It shows the basis on which marks were awarded by Examiners. It does not
indicate the details of the discussions which took place at an Examiners’ meeting before marking
commenced.
All Examiners are instructed that alternative correct answers and unexpected approaches in
candidates’ scripts must be given marks that fairly reflect the relevant knowledge and skills
demonstrated.
Mark schemes should be read in conjunction with the published question papers and the Report
on the Examination.
OCR will not enter into any discussion or correspondence in connection with this mark scheme.
© OCR 2010
Any enquiries about publications should be addressed to:
OCR Publications
PO Box 5050
Annesley
NOTTINGHAM
NG15 0DL
Telephone:
Facsimile:
E-mail:
0870 770 6622
01223 552610
[email protected]
CONTENTS
Advanced GCE History (H506)
Advanced Subsidiary GCE History (H106)
MARK SCHEMES FOR THE UNITS
Unit/Content
AS/A2 HISTORY
Page
SYLLABUS-SPECIFIC MARKING INSTRUCTIONS
1
F961 British History Period studies
14
F962 European and World History Period Studies
29
F963 British History Enquiries
57
Option A: Medieval and Early Modern 1066-1660
57
F964 European and World History Enquiries
72
F966 Historical Themes
88
Grade Thresholds
110
Marking Instructions
AS/A2 HISTORY SYLLABUS-SPECIFIC
MARKING INSTRUCTIONS
AS UNIT F961 & UNIT F962 – PERIOD STUDIES
Distribution of marks for each level that reflects the Unit’s AOs and corresponds to the
UMS
2 answers: each maximum mark 50.
A01a
A01b
IA
21-24
24-26
IB
18-20
22-23
II
16-17
19-21
III
14-15
16-18
IV
12-13
13-15
V
9-11
11-12
VI
4-8
6-10
VII
0-3
0-5
Notes:
(i)
Allocate marks to the most appropriate level for each AO.
(ii)
If several marks are available in a box, work from the top mark down until the best
fit has been found.
(iii)
Many answers will not fall at the same level for each AO.
(iv)
Analysis refers to developed explanations; evaluation refers to the argued weighing
up/assessment of factors in relation to their significance in explaining an issue or in
explaining linkages between different factors.
1
Marking Instructions
AOs
Total
mark for
each
question
= 50
Level IA
Level IB
Level II
Level III
AO1a
Recall, select and deploy historical
knowledge appropriately, and
communicate knowledge and
understanding of history in a clear
and effective manner.
 Uses a wide range of accurate,
detailed and relevant evidence
 Accurate and confident
use of appropriate historical
terminology
 Answer is clearly structured and
coherent; communicates accurately
and legibly
AO1b
Demonstrate understanding of the past through
explanation, analysis and arriving at substantiated
judgements of:
- key concepts such as causation, consequence,
continuity, change and significance within an historical
context;
- the relationships between key features and
characteristics of the periods studied
 Clear and accurate understanding of key concepts
relevant to analysis and to the topic
 Clear and accurate understanding of the significance of
issues in their historical context
 Answer is consistently and relevantly analytical with
developed and substantiated explanations, some of
which may be unexpected
 The argument evaluates a range of relevant factors and
reaches clearly substantiated judgements about relative
importance and/or links.
21-24
Uses accurate, detailed and
relevant evidence
 Accurate use of a range of
appropriate historical terminology
 Answer is clearly structured and
mostly coherent; writes accurately
and legibly
24-26
 Clear and accurate understanding of most key concepts
relevant to analysis and to the topic
 Answer is mostly consistently and relevantly analytical
with mostly developed and substantiated explanations
 Clear understanding of the significance of issues in their
historical context.
 Substantiated judgements about relative importance of
and/or links between factors will be made but quality of
explanation in support may not be consistently high.
18-20
Uses mostly accurate, detailed and
relevant evidence which
demonstrates a competent
command of the topic
Generally accurate use of historical
terminology
 Answer is structured and mostly
coherent; writing is legible and
communication is generally clear
22-23
 Mostly clear and accurate understanding of many key
concepts relevant to analysis and to the topic
 Clear understanding of the significance of most relevant
issues in their historical context
 Much of the answer is relevantly analytical and
substantiated with detailed evidence but there may be
some description
 The analysis of factors and/ or issues provides some
judgements about relative importance and/or linkages.
16-17
Uses accurate and relevant
evidence which demonstrates
some command of the topic but
there may be some inaccuracy
Answer includes relevant
historical terminology but this may
not be extensive or always
accurately used
Most of the answer is organised
and structured; the answer is
mostly legible and clearly
communicated
19-21
 Some/uneven understanding of key concepts relevant to
analysis and of concepts relevant to their historical
context
 Answers may be a mixture of analysis and explanation
but also simple description of relevant material and
narrative of relevant events OR answers may provide
more consistent analysis but the quality will be uneven
and its support often general or thin.
 Answer considers a number of factors but with very little
evaluation of importance or linkages between
factors/issues
 Points made about importance or about developments in
the context of the period will often be little more than
assertions and descriptions



14-15
16-18
2
Marking Instructions
AOs
Level IV
Level V
Level VI
Level VII
AO1a
 There is deployment of relevant
knowledge but level/accuracy of
detail will vary; there may be some
evidence that is tangential or
irrelevant.
 Some unclear and/or underdeveloped and/or disorganised
sections; mostly satisfactory level of
communication.
AO1b
 Understanding of key concepts relevant to analysis and
the topic is variable but in general is satisfactory.
 Limited and patchy understanding of a few relevant
issues in their historical context.
 Answer may be largely descriptive/ narratives of events
and links between this and analytical comments will
typically be weak or unexplained OR answers will mix
passages of descriptive material with occasional
explained analysis.
 Limited points made about importance/links or about
developments in the context of the period will be little
more than assertions and descriptions
12-13
 There is some relevant accurate
historical knowledge deployed: this
may be generalised and patchy.
There may be inaccuracies and
irrelevant material also
 Some accurate use of relevant
historical terminology but often
inaccurate/ inappropriate use
 Often unclear and disorganised
sections; writing will often be clear if
basic but there may be some
illegibility and weak prose where the
sense is not clear or obvious
13-15
 General and sometimes inaccurate understanding of key
concepts relevant to analysis and of concepts relevant to
the topic
 General or weak understanding of the significance of
most relevant issues in their historical context
 Attempts at analysis will be weak or generalised, based
on plausible but unsubstantiated points or points with
very general or inappropriate substantiation OR there
may be a relevant but patchy description of
events/developments coupled with judgements that are
no more than assertions
 There will be some understanding of the question but
answers may focus on the topic not address the focus of
the question
9-11
Use of relevant evidence will be
limited; there will be much
irrelevance and inaccuracy
 Answer may have little
organisation or structure; weak use
of English and poor organisation
11-12
 Very little understanding of key concepts
 Very limited understanding of the topic or of the
question’s requirements
 Limited explanation will be very brief/ fragmentary
 The answer will be characterised by generalised
assertion and/or description/ narratives, often brief
4-8
No understanding of the topic or of
the question’s requirements; little
relevant and accurate knowledge
 Very fragmentary and disorganised
response; very poor use of English
and some incoherence
6-10
No understanding of key concepts or historical
developments.
 No valid explanations
 Typically very brief and very descriptive answer
0-3
0-5
3
Marking Instructions
AS UNIT F963 & UNIT F964 – Historical Enquiries
Maximum mark 100. 1 answer: 2 parts.
Question (a) Maximum mark 30
A01a
A01b
AO2a
IA
6
8
16
IB
6
7
13-15
II
5
6
11-12
III
4
5
9-10
IV
3
4
7-8
V
2
3
5-6
VI
1
2
3-4
VII
0
0-1
0-2
Notes related to Question (a)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
Allocate marks to the most appropriate level for each AO
If several marks are available in a box, work from the top mark down until the best fit has
been found
Many answers will not fall at the same level for each AO
Question (b) Maximum mark 70
A01a
A01b
AO2a
AO2b
IA
9-10
11-12
26-28
20
IB
8
9-10
23-25
17-19
II
7
8
20-22
14-16
III
6
6-7
17-19
11-13
IV
4-5
4-5
14-16
8-10
V
3
3
11-13
6-7
VI
2
2
5-10
3-5
VII
0-1
0-1
0-4
0-2
Notes related to Part B:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
Allocate marks to the most appropriate level for each AO
If several marks are available in a box, work from the top mark down until the best fit has
been found
Many answers will not be at the same level for each AO
4
Marking Instructions
AOs
Total for
each
question =
30
Level IA
Level IB
Level II
Marking Grid for Question (a)
AO1a
AO1b
Recall, select and deploy
Demonstrate understanding of
historical knowledge
the past through explanation,
appropriately, and
analysis and arriving at
communicate knowledge and
substantiated judgements of:
understanding of history in a
- key concepts such as
clear and effective manner.
causation, consequence,
continuity, change and
significance within an historical
context;
- the relationships between
key features and
characteristics of the periods
studied.
 Accurate use of a range of
 Answer is consistently and
appropriate historical
relevantly analytical with
terminology
developed comparison and
judgement
 Answer is clearly structured
and coherent; communicates  Clear and accurate
accurately and legibly
understanding of key
concepts relevant to
analysis and to the topic
 Clear and accurate
understanding of the
significance of issues in
their historical context
6
 Accurate use of a range of
appropriate historical
terminology
 Answer is clearly structured
and coherent; communicates
accurately and legibly
8
 Judgements are supported
by appropriate references
to both content and
provenance
 Very good level of
understanding of key
concepts
 Clear and accurate
understanding of the
significance of issues in
their historical context
6
Generally accurate use of
historical terminology
Answer is structured and
mostly coherent; writing is
legible and communication is
generally clear
7
 Good attempt at
explanation/ analysis but
uneven overall judgements
 Mostly clear and accurate
understanding of key
concepts
 Clear understanding of the
significance of most
relevant issues in their
historical context
5
6
5
AO2a
As part of an historical enquiry,
analyse and evaluate a range
of appropriate source material
with discrimination.
 Response provides a
focused comparison and/or
contrast of both content and
provenance
 Evaluates qualities such as
reliability, completeness,
consistency, typicality, and
especially utility, in relation
to the question




16
Response provides an
effective comparison
and/or contrast of both
content and provenance
Evaluates a range of
qualities of authenticity,
completeness,
consistency, typicality and
usefulness in relation to the
question
13-15
Provides a relevant
comparison and/ or
contrast of both content
and provenance
Answer lacks
completeness in evaluating
most of the range of
available criteria (eg.
limited use of the
introductions and/ or
attributions)
11-12
Marking Instructions
AOs
Level III
AO1a
 Answer includes relevant
historical terminology but
this may not be extensive or
always accurately used
 Most of the answer is
organised and structured;
the answer is mostly legible
and clearly communicated

Level IV

4
There may be some
evidence that is
tangential or irrelevant
Some unclear and/or
under-developed and/or
disorganised sections;
mostly satisfactory level
of communication
Level VI
Level VII



AO2a
Provides a comparison
and/ or contrast
Makes limited links with the
sources by focusing too
much on content or on
provenance
The organisation is
uneven, confining the
comparison to the second
half of the answer or simply
to a concluding paragraph
9-10
 Response attempts a
comparison and/or
contrast but the comment
is largely sequential
 Few points of
comparative provenance
or discussion of
similarity/difference of
content
7-8
 Identifies some points of
agreement and/or
disagreement
 The comparison and/or
contrast is implicit
 There is no judgement
3
There may be
inaccuracies and
irrelevant material.
 Some accurate use of
relevant historical
terminology but often
inaccurate/ inappropriate
use
 Often unclear and
disorganised sections;
writing will often be clear
if basic but there may be
some illegibility and weak
prose where the sense is
not clear or obvious
2
There will be much
irrelevance and inaccuracy
Answer may have little
organisation or structure;
weak use of English and
poor organisation
4
 General and sometimes
inaccurate understanding of
key concepts relevant to
analysis and of concepts
relevant to the topic
 General or weak
understanding of the
significance of most relevant
issues in their historical
context
3
 Limited explanation but
mainly description /
narrative
 Very little understanding of
key concepts
5-6
 Very weak commentary on
one point of agreement/
disagreement
 Sources may be
paraphrased with no real
attempt to compare and/or
contrast
1
No understanding of the
topic or of the question’s
requirements
 Totally irrelevant answer
 Very poor use of English
2
 Weak explanation, and
descriptive / narrative
commentary on the sources
No understanding of key
concepts
3-4
 No attempt to provide a
comparison and/or contrast
 Sources are paraphrased
or copied out

Level V
AO1b
A mixture of internal analysis
and discussion of similarities
and/or differences. A
judgement is unlikely
 Some/uneven understanding
of many key concepts relevant
to analysis and of many
concepts relevant to the topic
 Uneven understanding of the
significance of most relevant
issues in their historical
context
5
 Mostly satisfactory
understanding of key concepts
 Mostly satisfactory explanation
but some unlinked though
relevant assertions, description
/ narrative
 There is no judgement
0-1
0
6
0-2
Marking Instructions
Marking Grid for Question (b)
AOs
Total
mark for
the
question
= 70
Level IA
Level IB
AO1a
Recall, select and
deploy historical
knowledge
appropriately, and
communicate
knowledge and
understanding of
history in a clear and
effective manner.
 Uses a wide range
of accurate, detailed
and relevant
evidence
 Accurate and
confident use of
appropriate
historical
terminology
 Answer is clearly
structured and
coherent;
communicates
accurately and
legibly
9-10
Uses accurate,
detailed and relevant
evidence
 Accurate use of a
range of appropriate
historical
terminology
 Answer is clearly
structured and
mostly coherent;
writes accurately
and legibly
8
AO1b
Demonstrate
understanding of the
past through
explanation, analysis
and arriving at
substantiated
judgements of:
- key concepts such as
causation,
consequence,
continuity, change and
significance within an
historical context;
- the relationships
between key features
and characteristics of
the periods studied.
 Clear and accurate
understanding of key
concepts relevant to
analysis and to the
topic
 Clear and accurate
understanding of the
significance of issues
in their historical
context
 Answer is consistently
and relevantly
analytical with
developed
explanations leading
to careful judgements
AO2a
As part of an historical
enquiry, analyse and
evaluate a range of
appropriate source
material with
discrimination.
AO2b
Analyse and evaluate,
in relation to the
historical context, how
aspects of the past
have been interpreted
and represented in
different ways.
 Excellent analysis
and evaluation of
all sources with
high levels of
discrimination
 Analyses and
evaluates the
limitations of the
sources and what is
required to add to
their completeness
as a set
 Excellent analysis
and evaluation of the
historical
interpretation using
all sources and own
knowledge to reach
a clear conclusion
 Fully understands
that the sources may
either support or
refute the
interpretation
11-12
 Clear and accurate
understanding of most
key concepts relevant
to analysis and to the
topic
 Clear understanding
of the significance of
issues in their
historical context
 Judgements are
supported by
appropriate
references to both
content and
provenance
9-10
26-28
 Focussed analysis
and evaluation of
all sources with
high levels of
discrimination
 Analyses and
evaluates the
limitations of the
sources and what is
required to add to
their completeness
as a set
20
 Focussed analysis
and evaluation of the
historical
interpretation using
all sources and own
knowledge to reach
a clear conclusion
 Understands that the
sources may either
support or refute the
interpretation
23-25
17-19
7
Marking Instructions
AOs
Level II
Level III
Level
IV
AO1a
Uses mostly
accurate, detailed
and relevant
evidence which
demonstrates a
competent command
of the topic
Generally accurate use
of historical
terminology
Answer is structured
and mostly coherent;
writing is legible and
communication is
generally clear
7
 Uses accurate and
relevant evidence
which demonstrates
some command of
the topic but there
may be some
inaccuracy
 Answer includes
relevant historical
terminology but this
may not be
extensive or always
accurately used
 Most of the answer
is organised and
structured; the
answer is mostly
legible and clearly
communicated
6
 There is deployment
of relevant
knowledge but level/
accuracy of detail
will vary; there may
be some evidence
that is tangential or
irrelevant
 Some unclear
and/or underdeveloped and/or
disorganised
sections; mostly
satisfactory level of
communication
4-5
AO1b
 Mostly clear and
accurate
understanding of key
concepts
 Clear understanding
of the significance of
most relevant issues
in their historical
context.
 Good attempt at
explanation/ analysis
but uneven overall
judgements
AO2a
 Focussed analysis
and evaluation of
most of the
sources with good
levels of
discrimination
 Analyses and
evaluates some of
the limitations of
the sources and
what is required to
add to their
completeness as a
set
8
Shows a sound
understanding of key
concepts.
Sound awareness of
the significance of
issues in their
historical context
Attempts an
explanation/ analysis
but overall judgement
may be incomplete
20-22
 Refers to most of
the sources to
illustrate an
argument rather
than analysing and
evaluating their
evidence
 Aware of some of
the sources’
limitations either
individually or as a
set
6-7
 Mostly satisfactory
understanding of key
concepts
 Some explanation but
not always linked to
the question
 Assertions,
description / narrative
will characterise part
of the answer
17-19
 Sources are
discussed
sequentially
 Considers some
of the limitations
of the sources;
but may not
establish a sense
of different views
4-5
14-16
8
AO2b
 Focussed analysis
and evaluation of the
historical
interpretation using
most of the sources
and appropriate own
knowledge to reach a
clear conclusion
 There may be some
imbalance between
discussion of the
sources and use of
external knowledge in
evaluating the
interpretation
14-16
 Sound analysis and
evaluation of the
historical
interpretation.
 There may be some
description and
unevenness
between use of own
knowledge and use
of sources
 Answers which use
the sources but no
own knowledge in
assessing the
interpretation have a
Level III ceiling
11-13
 Some analysis and
evaluation of the
historical
interpretation with
increasing amounts
of description
 Response is more
imbalanced than
Level III in using
sources and own
knowledge
 Answers that use
own knowledge but
make no use of the
sources in assessing
the interpretation
have a Level IV
ceiling
8-10
Marking Instructions
AOs
Level V
Level
VI
Level
VII
AO1a
There is some
relevant historical
knowledge deployed:
this may be
generalised and
patchy. There may
be inaccuracies and
irrelevant material
Some accurate use of
relevant historical
terminology but often
inaccurate/
inappropriate use
Often unclear and
disorganized sections;
writing will often be
basic and there may
be some illegibility and
weak prose where the
sense is not clear or
obvious
3
Use of relevant
evidence will be
limited; there will be
much irrelevance and
inaccuracy
 Answer may have
little organisation or
structure
 Weak use of English
and poor
organisation
2
No understanding of
the topic or of the
question’s
requirements; little
relevant and accurate
knowledge
Very fragmentary and
disorganised response;
very poor use of
English and some
incoherence
0-1
AO1b
General and
sometimes inaccurate
understanding of key
concepts relevant to
analysis and of
concepts relevant to
the topic
General or weak
understanding of the
significance of most
relevant issues in their
historical context
AO2a
Limited attempt to
use the sources or
discriminate
between them; they
are discussed
sequentially
Sources will be used
for reference and
illustration of an
argument
AO2b
Mainly description
with limited comment
on the context of the
question
Little effective analysis
of how far the sources
support the
interpretation
3
 Very little
understanding of
key concepts.
 No explanation.
 Assertion, description
/ narrative
predominate
11-13
 Weak application
of the sources to
the question
 Weak attempt at
analysis
6-7
 Weak contextual
knowledge
 Mainly description
with weak
evaluation of the
historical
interpretation
2
No understanding of
key concepts
 Weak explanation,
assertion, description
/ narrative
5-10
 Very weak
application of the
sources to the
question
 No attempt at
analysis
3-5
 Very weak attempt at
evaluating the
historical
interpretation
 Heavily descriptive
 No contextual
knowledge
0-1
0-4
9
0-2
Marking Instructions
F966
Maximum mark 120 for this unit.
2 answers: Each maximum mark 60
A01a
A01b
IA
18-20
36-40
IB
16-17
32-35
II
14-15
28-31
III
12-13
24-27
IV
10-11
20-23
V
8-9
16-19
VI
4-7
8-15
VII
0-3
0-7
Notes:
(i)
Allocate marks to the most appropriate level for each AO.
(ii)
If several marks are available in a box, work from the top mark down until the best
fit has been found.
(iii)
Many answers will not fall at the same level for each AO.
(iv)
Candidates will demonstrate synoptic skills by drawing together appropriate
techniques, knowledge and understanding to evaluate developments over the
whole of the period
10
Marking Instructions
AO1a
AOs
Total mark
for each
question =
60
Level IA
Level IB
Level II
AO1b
Recall, select and deploy
historical knowledge
appropriately, and communicate
knowledge and understanding of
history in a clear and effective
manner.
Demonstrate understanding of the past
through explanation, analysis and arriving at
substantiated judgements of:
- key concepts such as causation,
consequence, continuity, change and
significance within an historical context;
- the relationships between key features and
characteristics of the periods studied
• Uses a wide range of accurate
and relevant evidence
• Accurate and confident use of
appropriate historical
terminology
• Answer is clearly structured and
coherent; communicates
accurately and legibly.
18-20
• Excellent understanding of key concepts (eg.
continuity and change) relevant to analysis in
their historical context
• Excellent synthesis and synoptic assessment
• Answer is consistently and relevantly
analytical with developed explanations and
supported judgements
• May make unexpected but substantiated
connections over the whole period
36-40
• Uses accurate and relevant
evidence
• Accurate use of a range of
appropriate historical
terminology
• Answer is clearly structured and
mostly coherent; communicates
accurately and legibly
• Very good level of understanding of key
concepts (eg. continuity and change) in their
historical context.
• Answer is consistently focused on the
question set
• Very good level of explanation/ analysis, and
provides supported judgements.
• Very good synthesis and synoptic
assessment of the whole period
16-17
32-35
• Uses mostly accurate and
relevant evidence
• Generally accurate use of
historical terminology
• Answer is structured and mostly
coherent; writing is legible and
communication is generally clear
• Good level of understanding of key concepts
(eg. continuity and change) in their historical
context
• Good explanation/ analysis but overall
judgements may be uneven
• Answer is focused on the issues in the
question set
• Good synthesis and assessment of
developments over most of the period
14-15
28-31
11
Marking Instructions
AO1a
AOs
Level III
AO1b
• Uses relevant evidence but
there may be some inaccuracy
• Answer includes relevant
historical terminology but this
may not be extensive or always
accurately used
• Most of the answer is structured
and coherent; writing is legible
and communication is generally
clear
• Shows a sound understanding of key
concepts, especially continuity and change, in
their historical context
• Most of the answer is focused on the question
set
• Answers may be a mixture of analysis and
explanation but also description and narrative,
but there may also be some uneven overall
judgements; OR answers may provide more
consistent analysis but the quality will be
uneven and its support often general or thin
• Answer assesses relevant factors but
provides only a limited synthesis of
developments over most of the period
12-13
24-27
Level IV
• There is deployment of relevant
knowledge but level/ accuracy will
vary.
• Some unclear and/or
underdeveloped
and/or disorganised
sections
• Mostly satisfactory level of
communication
• Satisfactory understanding of key concepts
(eg. continuity and change) in their
historical context
• Satisfactory focus on the question set
• Answer may be largely descriptive/
narrative of events, and links between this
and analytical comments will typically be
weak or unexplained
• Makes limited synoptic judgements about
developments over only part of the period
10-11
20-23
Level V
• General and basic historical
knowledge but also some irrelevant
and inaccurate material
• Often unclear and disorganised
sections
• Adequate level of communication
but
some weak prose passages
8-9
• General understanding of key concepts
(eg. continuity and change) in their
historical context
• Some understanding of the question but
answers may focus on the topic and not
address the question set OR provides an
answer based on generalisation
• Attempts an explanation but often general
coupled with assertion, description /
narrative
• Very little synthesis or analysis and only
part(s) of the period will be covered
16-19
12
Marking Instructions
AO1a
AOs
Level VI
AO1b
• Use of relevant evidence will be
limited; there will be much
irrelevance
and inaccuracy
• Answers may have little
organisation
or structure
• Weak use of English
• Very little understanding of key concepts
(eg. continuity and change) in their
historical context
• Limited perhaps brief explanation
• Mainly assertion, description / narrative
• Some understanding of the topic but not
the question’s requirements
8-15
4-7
Level VII
• Little relevant or accurate
Knowledge
• Very fragmentary and
disorganised
response
• Very poor use of English and
some
incoherence
• Weak understanding of key concepts
(eg. continuity and change) in their
historical context
• No explanation
• Assertion, description / narrative
predominate
• Weak understanding of the topic or of
the question’s requirements
0-3
0-7
13
F961
Mark Scheme
January 2010
F961 British History Period studies
Option A: Medieval and Early Modern England 1035-1642
From Anglo-Saxon England to Norman England 1035-1087
1
How far was Edward the Confessor’s personality the most important cause of the
problems he faced as king of England?
No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to address the question. Candidates
should consider a range of reasons for the problems and at the top levels evaluate their
relative importance in causing the problems. It might be said that Edward lacked the strong
qualities to make an effective king. His piety and artistic interests were admired but for his
ideals rather than their practical relevance to kingship. Better answers may start by
identifying the problems that Edward faced and this may include issues such as his lack of
knowledge of the country, his upbringing, the power of the Godwin family, the problems
created by his marriage to Edith, his support base and the problem of the lack of an heir. It
is likely that candidates may suggest that the power of the Godwin family played a large
role in causing many of the problems as Edward was heavily dependent on them, some
may use their exile to show the power they had. The power of the Godwins may be linked
to many of the problems and this may be an approach taken by those reaching the higher
levels-for example his upbringing meant that he was even more dependent upon the
support of the Godwin’s and therefore it might be argued that his marriage to Edith was
almost inevitable and that this created further problems and may even have led to the
succession crisis at the end of his reign. There may be some consideration of the
problems that followed from his continuing patronage of Normans. There might be mention
of foreign dangers, especially from Scandinavia. A king’s powers were limited and he
needed to be able to implement whatever authority he possessed.
2
‘Military factors were the most important reason for William of Normandy’s success
at the Battle of Hastings.’ How far do you agree?
No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to address the question. Military
factors is a wide ranging term and might include issues such as tactics, forces and
weaponry available, military leadership and the previous invasion by Harald. If candidates
use the term to encompass all of these they may find it difficult to consider other issues,
however issues such as luck for William or misfortune for Harold may be considered as
candidates might point to the timing of Harald’s invasion and the impact it had on Harold,
particularly following the changing direction of the wind, which allowed William to invade.
Some may consider the mistakes made by Harold as more important, suggesting that if he
had not rushed back from the north and waited until he had rested and had a full force he
might have won, given how close Hastings was, even with such a depleted force. Some
answers might also consider religious factors and argue that it was only with papal
blessing that William was able to gather a large enough force to be able to make the
challenge.
14
F961
3
Mark Scheme
January 2010
To what extent did William I change the government and administration of England?
No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to address the question. There is a
wide range of material available for candidates to consider. Some may consider the issue
of personnel and the fate of the Anglo-Saxon earls and their replacement by Normans.
However, some answers may focus on the nature and methods of government and this
may result in consideration of the use of the feudal system, but it must be linked to
methods of government. There may be some consideration of the nature of the monarchy
and candidates might consider the use made of crown wearing sessions. The personal
rule of the monarchy became more important. Writs were used, a legacy of Anglo-Saxon
government, although they were not usually in English and they were used more frequently
to enforce William’s orders. Sheriffs and shire courts were continued but sheriffs were
evidently more important as royal officials.
15
F961
Mark Scheme
January 2010
Lancastrians, Yorkists and Tudors 1450-1509
4
How successful was Richard III’s government of England?
No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to address the question. Some may
argue that Richard was not successful in his government of England because he lost at
Bosworth, however this point needs to be fully explained if it is to be relevant. Candidates
could point to his failure to win the support of the nobility and that his government was
over-reliant on northern nobility at the expense of the southerners. Answers may also
consider his relationship with parliament and the issue of finances, this may lead to a
discussion of benevolences and candidates might discuss whether his approach was
successful. Some may argue that his government was not successful as he did not
possess a wide enough basis of power because of the nature of his accession and
therefore lacked sufficient patronage. There may be some consideration of the nature of
his accession, but this needs to be linked to the question.
5
How effectively did Henry VII deal with England’s domestic problems?
No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to address the question. It is likely
that better answers will identify the domestic problems that Henry faced and then consider
how well he was able to deal with them. Many answers are likely to focus on the problem
of the Yorkist challenge, particularly Simnel and Warbeck. Candidates may argue that
these were dealt with successfully as both were defeated and some may also argue that
the threat was reduced by his marriage to Elizabeth of York. Candidates may also consider
the problem of the nobility, some may conclude that Henry’s policy was successful as he
prevented the emergence of over mighty subjects and through his policy of bonds and
recognisances was able to reduce their power, but at the same time win loyalty through
such methods as the Order of the Garter. However, others might argue that his last years
were so oppressive that the country was close to civil war. The question of the succession
might also be discussed and some may argue that initially this was successful with Arthur
and Henry, but that Arthur’s death left the succession hanging by a thread. There might be
some consideration of the financial problems and how well they were solved.
6
‘Marriage agreements were the most important achievement of Henry VII’s foreign
policy.’ How far do you agree?
No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to address the question. Candidates
should consider a range of achievements and evaluate their relative importance in order to
access the higher levels. Some may argue that the marriages were important as they
brought him European recognition, which was important because of his weak claim, and
also gave him an ally with the most powerful nation-Spain. It might also be argued that the
marriage of Margaret to James brought at least short term peace with Scotland and also
removed the potential threat of Warbeck, which was important to Henry. However, others
may consider that his most important achievement was achieving security from the Yorkist
threat, although it might be argued that this was only achieved at the end of the period.
There might be some consideration of how successful he was in dealing with the threat
presented by Margaret of Burgundy. Some might argue that financial gain was the most
important achievement given the nature of his finances and use the French pension to
support this and also the development and protection of trade, although the latter issue
can be debated.
16
F961
Mark Scheme
January 2010
Henry VIII to Mary I 1509-1558
7
How successful were Wolsey’s domestic policies?
No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to address the question. There is a
wide range of domestic policies that candidates might consider and it is not expected that
candidates should cover all; it is the quality of analysis that matters. However, candidates
should cover a range of areas and this might include legal, financial, social and economic
aspects and the church. Some candidates might establish criteria against which to judge
success and this could include pleasing Henry so as to remain in power, gaining personal
wealth and prestige or improving the government of the country. It is possible that
candidates will argue that his legal reforms were the most successful and point to the
increase in cases and the availability of justice for all. However, it is possible to argue that
his financial reforms were successful, particularly in the early years and candidates may
use the example of the subsidy to support this and the funding of Henry’s foreign policy,
which won Wolsey support. However, if this line is taken it can be balanced by
consideration of the Amicable Grant. In discussing social and economic policies
candidates might focus on the issue of enclosure and argue that in the short term it
appeared to be successful, but had to be abandoned because of financial needs. The
problem of the church may figure in some essays and although some might point to his
success in dissolving some monasteries others might argue that, given the power he had,
this was a missed opportunity and that he even brought the church into disrepute. There
might be some consideration of the divorce and his failure and the consequences, but this
should not dominate the answer.
8
How far did Tudor government and administration change in the 1530s?
No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to address the question. There is a
wide range of issues that candidates might consider and it should not be expected that all
will be addressed, what matters is the quality of analysis, although examiners should
expect to see a range. There may be consideration of the changing role and regularity of
parliament and its increased competence as it became involved in religious issues and
some might raise the issue of the importance of statute law or point to Henry’s comment
about power in the time of parliament. There might be some consideration of the financial
courts that were established, although it should be noted that most were short-lived.
Candidates might consider the issue of Wales and the Act of Union of 1536, with the
establishment of the county system etc. Some answers might raise the Elton ‘Tudor
Revolution’ debate, but this is not to be expected as historiography is not a requirement at
AS and examiners should also be aware of answers that simply describe the Elton thesis
and do not use it to answer the question.
9
How effectively did the governments of Edward VI and Mary I deal with unrest?
No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to address the question. Candidates
understanding of the idea of unrest may be a determining factor in the quality of the
answer. It is likely that many answers will focus solely on the rebellions of the period:
Western, Kett and Wyatt, although the Lady Jane Grey affair may also receive mention.
Candidates may argue that Mary was more successful as Wyatt was defeated without
battle, whereas the unrest of 1549 was at least a contributory factor in the downfall of
Somerset. However, they may also argue that ultimately both the Western and Kett were
crushed. Some answers may take a broader approach and consider economic and social
issues, such as vagrancy or the problems created by the collapse of the cloth trade and
this is acceptable.
17
F961
Mark Scheme
January 2010
Church and State 1529-1589
10
How important was Thomas Cromwell in influencing religious policy in the 1530s?
No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to address the question. There are a
large number of factors that candidates may consider, but it is not expected that they will
consider all issues, even at the highest level. There should be some consideration of
Cromwell’s role and some may argue that his more radical beliefs were important in
influencing the king to dissolve the monasteries and introduce some more protestant
views. However, this might be balanced against Cromwell’s desire and need to please the
king, arguing that he dissolved the monasteries to make Henry’ the richest man in
Christendom’. It may also be argued that Cromwell’s views were not important as once he
displeased Henry and became too radical he was removed. Candidates might suggest
there were other more important factors and issues such as power, money, the foreign
situation and threat of a Catholic crusade and Henry’s own religious beliefs might be
considered. There might also be some who argue that the condition of the church and the
need to reform in response to popular pressure was important.
11
How much support was there for Protestantism in England in 1558 and 1559?
No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to address the question. The focus of
1558 and 1559 is important and candidates could therefore discuss the problems Elizabeth
faced in the passing of the Elizabethan Settlement in Parliament. Candidates are also
likely to look at the level of support for Catholicism and/or Protestantism at the end of
Mary’s reign. Some may argue that the country was largely Catholic on Mary’s death,
whilst others may argue that the burnings and Marian persecution had turned England
protestant, depending on their argument so they will determine the strength of
Protestantism in England on Elizabeth’s accession. Candidates whose answers range
back into Edward’s reign and either suggest that it was difficult for Edward to turn England
protestant or that he succeeded and therefore Elizabeth had a harder/easier task can
receive credit, but the focus of the essay must be on the situation in 1559.
12
How successfully did Elizabeth I deal with the Catholic challenge from 1559 to 1589?
No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to address the question. Candidates
may identify the nature of the Catholic challenge and consider how it changes over the
period. Answers may look at the threat from home and abroad and suggest that at the start
of the period it was the threat from home that was the strongest, given the strength of
Catholicism. However, they may argue that Elizabeth handled this well; there was no
serious unrest, the moderate nature of the settlement and her avoidance of creating
martyrs. Some answers may also consider how well she handled the Catholic challenge of
the Northern Earls. There may also be consideration of her policy towards seminary priests
and again the avoidance of creating martyrs, but executing for treason. The handling of the
foreign threat might include her ambivalent policy in the early years, although some may
argue that Philip needed her support just as much. There may be some who argue that her
policy towards the end of the period was less successful as she provoked war with Spain
and this could have led to Catholics at home rising.
18
F961
Mark Scheme
January 2010
England under Elizabeth I 1558-1603
13
How important was the Privy Council in the government of England during the reign
of Elizabeth I?
No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to address the question. Candidates
will need to consider the role of the Privy Council in the government of England, but this
should be weighed up against other elements of government in order to reach a judgement
about its relative importance. It is likely that many will write in greater depth about the role
of parliament and some may be sidetracked in to the debate about parliament. Better
answers might also consider local government and the role of JPs etc.
14
‘Inflation was the most serious financial problem facing Elizabeth I and her
government’. How far do you agree?
No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to address the question. There is a
range of financial problems that candidates can consider, but they must give due attention
to the named factor, even if they argue that it was not the most important. Inflation had a
major impact on crown revenue and impacted on the cost of warfare, which would be a
major item of expenditure at the end of the period. Inflation also had an impact on taxation
returns, although some may suggest that it was Elizabeth’s failure to update assessments
that was the bigger problem. Some may consider the problem of crown expenditure and
selling of crown lands, others may look at customs or monopolies as issues.
15
How successful was Elizabeth I in dealing with the issue of the succession during
her reign?
No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to address the question. The issue of
the succession concerned many, but Elizabeth did not want the matter discussed by
parliament and did not want to name a successor. Candidates might argue that parliament
did try to discuss the issue, but were largely unsuccessful in getting any answer from
Elizabeth. Some answers might argue that Elizabeth handled the situation very well, given
the fact she was seen as illegitimate by some. They may point to her handling of the issue
of Mary Queen of Scots, who was the potential heir, but by not naming her it discouraged
attempts to hasten her accession. Elizabeth was also masterful in exploiting her position
as the ‘Virgin Queen’ and candidates might consider the various marriage proposals and
how well they were handled and exploited by her. There might be some consideration of
the last years and the position of James VI.
19
F961
Mark Scheme
January 2010
The Early Stuarts and the Origins of the Civil War 1603-1642
16
Assess the reasons why financial issues caused conflict between James I and his
parliaments.
No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to address the question. There is a
range of issues that candidates can consider and it is not expected that all areas will be
covered, what is important is the quality of analysis. Some answers may identify the
financial problems that James faced, such as the inherited debt and the inadequacy of
royal finances and suggest that it was the scale of the problem that was the major issue.
However, others may suggest that it was James’ extravagance, particularly money spent
at court or on royal favourites that caused conflict. There may be some consideration of
foreign policy and the differing views of James and parliament and this can be linked to
financial clashes. Some answers might argue that parliament used the issue of supply to
try to obtain redress of grievances, whilst others may suggest that there was a lack of trust
between the two, shown in the failure of the Great Contract. Issues such as monopolies
and impositions may also receive consideration.
17
‘Charles I desire for financial independence from parliament was the most important
reason for the establishment of personal rule in 1629’. How far do you agree?
No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to address the question. The focus of
the question should be on the establishment of Personal rule and candidates who write
about the nature of rule should not receive high credit. Candidates will need to focus on
Charles’ aims and problems in the period from 1625 to 1629 to be able to address fully the
demands of the question. Answers may consider the problematic relationship between
Charles and his parliaments in this period and suggest that he wanted political
independence and link this to his belief in Divine Right or even suggest that parliament
was not a permanent part of the constitution. Some answers will look at other areas of
conflict, such as foreign affairs or his relationship with Buckingham and again may argue
that Charles wanted to avoid criticism and prevent parliament from linking supply to
redress of grievance. Charles’ attitude towards parliament and his view of their role is also
an area that might be considered.
18
To what extent was Charles I personal rule the most important cause of the outbreak
of Civil War in England in 1642?
No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to address the question. The question
invites candidates to weigh up a range of factors causing the civil war. Those who focus on
personal rule may consider the impact of the financial and religious policies of Charles and
the growing opposition generated by polices such as Thorough and the fear it created.
However, this may be balanced against the lack of a united opposition or the lack of a
royalist party, suggesting that at this stage there could not be a war. Candidates who
argue that the causes were short term will focus on developments during the period 16402. Some may argue that the war was unlikely in the summer of 1641 as Charles had
compromised, others may suggest that the Grand Remonstrance was the turning point,
others may suggest it was attempted arrest of the Five MP’s, whilst others may suggest it
was either parliament taking control of the army or the Nineteen Propositions. There is a
great deal that candidates could consider and it is not expected that all issues will be
looked at, what matters is the quality of analysis.
20
F961
Mark Scheme
January 2010
Option B: Modern 1783-1994
From Pitt to Peel 1783-1846
1
To what extent was the support of the crown the most important reason for Pitt’s
domination of politics from 1783 to 1793?
No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to address the question. Candidates
will need to write a good paragraph on the named factor if they are to access the higher
levels, even if they conclude that it was not the most important reason. Candidates will
need to assess the role of George III in ensuring the survival of Pitt’s ministry, particularly
in the 1784 election and the Regency Crisis of 1788 and then attempt to evaluate this
against other factors if they are to achieve the higher levels. The king played an important
role through patronage, control of the frequency of elections and his own distaste for the
Whigs, particularly Fox and North. The partnership between Pitt and George should not be
understated. It might also be noted that once the king withdrew support Pitt soon fell. Other
factors for survival could include Pitt’s successful domestic policy in the 1780s, which saw
economic and financial recovery and his use of repression in the 1790s, the division and
weakness of the Whig opposition, made worse by splits over the French Revolution and
Pitt’s mastery of parliamentary business and debate.
2
How far would you agree that the Conservative party was more liberal from 1822 to
1830 than from 1812 to 1822?
No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to address the question. The question
of how liberal the Tories were in the period after 1822 remains an open one, but most are
likely to argue that they were more liberal after 1822 than before. To support the view
candidates could use: the appointment of younger politicians such as Canning, Peel and
Huskinsson after 1822-3, the economic legislation passed by both Robinson and
Huskinsson and the reforms of Peel at the Home Office. However candidates might argue
that there were also some illiberal measures such as the refusal to accept Roman Catholic
Emancipation, the fact that the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts were forced upon
them, and the refusal to entertain the issue of parliamentary reform. These issues should
be contrasted with the measure of the earlier period in order to reach a conclusion.
Candidates are likely to argue that even if the later period was not that liberal, the earlier
period was repressive and point to the Corn Laws, the Suspension of Habeas Corpus, the
Six Acts and Seditious Meetings. However, this might be balanced against the need to
tackle unrest and that the acts were no more repressive than Pitts. There might also be
some consideration of the more liberal reforms of the earlier period.
3
How successful was Peel’s leadership of the Conservative party to 1846?
No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to address the question. Answers
must focus on Peel as the party leader and not simply examine his reforms in the ministry
of 1841-6, although some of these might be used to show he was not a great party leader.
Some may argue that in the early years he was a good party leader as he reorganised the
party after the disasters of the Great Reform Act and with his Tamworth Manifesto adapted
the party to a changed set of electoral conditions. There might also be consideration of the
reforms at the centre with reorganisation, the creation of the Carlton Club and Registration
issues. Peel’s attempts to broaden the appeal of the party might also be discussed and
candidates might be aware that the 1841 election results suggest he failed in this aspect
and was returned to power on traditional Tory votes. There might be some discussion
about the significance of the 100 days and also his support for some Whig measures to
argue that he had shown the party was responsible and fit to govern. It is likely that many
will consider his treatment of backbenchers once he was in power and his belief that it was
his duty to serve the nation and monarch not the party. This might result in some
discussion of his abandonment of key Tory ideas over protection and issues in Ireland.
Many are likely to suggest that his action over the Corn Laws suggests he was a poor
party leader as he split the party and the result was years in the political wilderness. Some
might argue that it was not Peel’s successes that brought the Conservatives back into
power but the mistakes and failings of the Whigs
21
F961
Mark Scheme
January 2010
Liberals and Conservatives 1846-1895
4
How important was the influence of Gladstone in the emergence of the Liberal party
by 1868?
No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to address the question. Candidates
are likely to focus on how Gladstone contributed to the key issues in Liberal development
such as party development, winning elections, party cohesion and winning key electoral
groups. Gladstone was able to identify the party with an attractive financial and economic
package of low taxation and free trade in his budgets. Some may argue that it was
Palmerston who founded the Liberal party in 1859 over the Italian principle and also note
that Gladstone was absent from the Willis Rooms meeting. However, some might argue
that Gladstone was important as he created a liberal press by his repeal of the Paper
Duties; he made contacts with the Trade Unions and forged contacts with the radicals.
These issues will be balanced against other factors, such as the split in the Conservative
party on the role of the Peelites. There might be consideration of the roles of radicals such
as Bright and Cobden, unity over Italy, common support for free trade, trust in the party
over finance and the abandonment of the aristocratic Whiggish image associated with
Grey and Melbourne.
5
‘The loss of working class support was the most important reason for the defeat of
the Liberal party in the 1874 election.’ How far do you agree?
No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to address the question. Candidates
will need to write a good paragraph on the named factor if they are to access the higher
levels, even if they conclude that it was not the most important reason. Candidates will
need to explain how, despite a generally good press for Gladstone’s legislative
achievements, he lost the 1874 election. They must consider the loss of working class
support, even if they conclude it was the not the most important reason. In looking at this
factor they might include artisan and working class disapproval of Trade Union legislation
that was repressive on peaceful picketing and acts in restraint of trade as well as
resentment over the Licensing Act. They may assess the fall out from many of his reforms
– The Whig upper class was unhappy over the Irish reform, particularly land, they also
disliked the Abolition of the Purchase of Commissions in the Army and exams in the Civil
Service. They might consider the importance of the non-conformists, unhappy with
Forster’s Education Act which implicitly sided with the Anglicans. The administrative
reforms and increased efficiency, which the government achieved, would hardly bring
votes. Candidates might also consider the impact of an ‘apparently weak foreign policy’,
Gladstone losing steam and a faltering leadership in 1873/4 and the failure to find a
rallying cry beyond income tax.
22
F961
6
Mark Scheme
January 2010
To what extent did Disraeli’s ministries of 1867 and 1874 - 1880 follow the ideas of
Tory democracy?
No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to address the question. Candidates
will need to show an understanding of the concept of Tory democracy – knitting up the
social divisions between rich and poor by paternalistic social reform, cementing an upper
and working class bond at the expense of the middle classes. In discussing this issue
candidates might consider the Second Reform Act. There might be some mention of the
origins of Tory democracy in his novels and Young England to suggest that he was likely
to follow such a policy, although some may argue these were simply idealistic. In order to
support the argument candidates might make reference to his speeches at Crystal Palace
and Manchester, from the reforms themselves, Artisan Dwellings Act, Trade Union Act,
Public Health Act, Food and Drink, Pollution and Merchant Shipping. In considering these
acts candidates might discuss their intentions and practice to show whether they did
uphold the ideals. Against the argument candidates might suggest that such reforms were
already in the pipeline, that they built on existing practice, they simply followed a liberal
framework, that developments in technology made such developments possible, that their
impact was limited and that Tory Democracy was a later phrase which made little sense
electorally.
23
F961
Mark Scheme
January 2010
Foreign and Imperial Policies 1856-1914
7
To what extent was the maintenance of the balance of power the most important
factor influencing British foreign policy from 1856 to 1902?
No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to address the question. Candidates
will need to write a good paragraph on the named factor if they are to access the higher
levels, even if they conclude that it was not the most important reason. There are a
number of factors that candidates might consider when addressing the question and
examiners should not expect them all to be discussed, what is important is the quality of
analysis. Some might argue that although the balance of power was an important issue the
countries that threatened it changed from Russia to Germany. This issue might also be
linked to trade and the need to preserve trade routes, particularly to India and how this
impacted on relations with Russia. This might also be linked to imperial concerns over
India and therefore the issue of the Mediterranean and the Suez Canal might feature.
Issues of naval supremacy and ‘blue water’ might also be considered and the question of
the two power principle. There might be some consideration of the importance of support
for nationalist movements and Britain’s relationship with Italy, Germany and Poland in this
period might be considered.
8
How far did support for imperialism decline from 1880 to 1902?
No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to address the question. Examiners
need to ensure that candidates focus on ‘how far’ and do not simply assume that it did
decline and assess ‘why’. Some answers might challenge the assumption that it did
decline and point to the positive images of the ultimate victory or the result of the Khaki
election. It is possible to argue that victory in the Boer War in 1902 only reinforced an
image of invincibility and there was no decline and this can be seen in the popular jingoism
of the music hall and added to the ideal that the ‘sun never sets ‘ on the British Empire.
They might also point to the celebrations of Queen Victoria. However, this might be
balanced against the negative reaction to the Boer War and some may suggest that it was
a turning point as a small force had caused such difficulty for the might of the Empire;
mention might also be made of the brutal use of concentration camps that damaged the
reputation of imperialism. This can be supported by reference to the questioning of the
wisdom of Chamberlain’s imperial vision and the social and medical problems highlighted
by the Boer War caused some to argue that Britain should concentrate on domestic
reform.
9
Assess the reasons why Britain’s attitude to major European powers changed from
1902.
No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to address the question. Candidates
might argue that this was due to the resolution of areas of dispute with France, particularly
in colonial issues following the Fashoda incident. They may argue that this led to the
Entente Cordiale and some might develop this and suggest that relations with Germany
changed following the Entente as Germany feared what might have been agreed.
However, some candidates might suggest that it was the growing power and fear of
Germany that caused Britain’s attitude to change; there might be reference to the
development of the German navy, her economic growth or support for the Boers. Some
candidates might explain how these developments, particularly after the Anglo Japanese
alliance of 1902 encouraged an improvement in relations with Russia. There might be
some candidates who argue that Britain’s attitude to European countries did not change
and argue that the Entente did not commit Britain to war, that the agreements made
followed on from the earlier Mediterranean agreements or that Britain still followed a policy
of splendid isolation: this approach is valid and should be credited accordingly. Some
might argue that attitudes did not change and that Britain was just concerned to avoid war
and that it was the means that changed.
24
F961
Mark Scheme
January 2010
Domestic Issues 1918-1951
10
How successful was the Conservative party from 1918 to 1929?
No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to address the question. Some
candidates might argue that the party was very successful and point to the electoral
recovery after 1906. It can be argued that they dominated the period electorally: the
Coupon election and resulted in Conservative dominance, they won in 1922, were still the
largest party in 1924 and won the subsequent election. However, some might balance this
against the importance of Lloyd George in their victory of 1918, the party ‘split’ in 1924 and
the subsequent Second Eleven Cabinet and the success of Labour in 1929. Some might
debate how well the Conservatives handled the major issues such as the General Strike
and social issues or they might consider whether Baldwin was successful in creating a new
Conservatism, which resulted in electoral dominance throughout this period and up to
1945. It might be argued that Baldwin was able to heal the divides in society that had been
created by the General Strike.
11
‘Poor Trade Union leadership was the most important reason for the failure of the
General Strike.’ How far do you agree?
No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to address the question. There are a
number of reasons that candidates might assess in order to decide the most important
reason for failure. Candidates will need to write a good paragraph on the named factor if
they are to access the higher levels, even if they conclude that it was not the most
important reason. They might argue that the Unions were reluctant to embark on a General
Strike and did so in light of their apparent weak actions on Black Friday. They might link
this to the shortness of the General Strike and why the miners were abandoned so quickly.
This might lead them to argue that they were pushed into it by the Coal Unions. On the
other hand some might argue that the government was well prepared for the strike, having
stockpiled coal and were aided by the timing. They might also point to the government’s
ability to win the propaganda war and the role of Churchill and the British Gazette in this.
Some might consider the reaction of a section of the public who were willing to help and
enjoyed the opportunities the strike presented.
12
How successful were the Labour governments’ reforms of 1945-51 in improving
social and economic conditions?
No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to address the question. The
approach to the question might depend on how success is judged; is it seen against the
desires of many committed socialists or against the problems and difficulties they faced. It
might be argued that Attlee’s government accomplished a modest redistribution of wealth
through fiscal policy and therefore improved social conditions, there was also full
employment and improved living standards for the working class this could be contrasted
with the feeling of relative deprivation among the middle class. It might be argued that they
suffered more austerity with food shortages and rationing than during the war. In
considering social conditions it is likely that many will focus on issues such as the NHS
and education opportunities. In considering social conditions candidates might refer to the
National Insurance Act, the industrial Injuries Act and National Assistance Act and Family
Allowance Act. Some historians have argued that these measures were so significant that
they should be seen as achieving a social revolution, suggesting they were a success.
There might also be a discussion as to whether the nationalisation programme was
successful in improving economic conditions. However, this might be balanced against the
economic problems they faced such as debts and argue that even though there was some
recovery it was not enough to meet expectations and link this to the dollar gap and the
defence spending associated with the Cold War. Some may argue that the government
lacked any carefully thought-out plans of social reconstruction.
25
F961
Mark Scheme
January 2010
Foreign and Imperial Policies 1945-1990
13
How far did British foreign policy change from 1945 to 1964?
No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to address the question. There are a
large number of areas and issues that candidates might consider, but it is not expected
that they will deal with all, what matters is the quality of the analysis. Candidates might
choose to approach this by looking at either themes or their relationship with individual
countries or the EEC. If they take the latter approach it is likely that they will focus on
Britain’s relationship with the USA and USSR and this might be linked to the issues of the
Cold War. Some might argue that there was a significant change after the war because of
Britain’s financial position and point to the change seen in Greece. The development of a
close relationship with the USA might be stressed, although some might argue that after
Suez this did see a shift. The desire to remain a great power remained a constant and
answers might mention Britain’s place on the Security Council and the desire for an
independent nuclear deterrent.
14
How far was the decline of the British Empire the most important reason for the
change in British attitudes towards Europe from 1945 to 1973?
No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to address the question. Candidates
are likely to consider a number of reasons, but in order to access the higher levels they
must write at least a good paragraph on the given factor, even if they conclude it was not
the most important. Candidates may consider the perception that Britain had to make a
choice between the Empire and Europe and with ‘the wind of change’ shift to decolonisation altered Conservative views. There might also be consideration of the
perception that Britain had to make a choice between USA and Europe; this might also be
linked to the new direction under Eden and the application to join the EEC in 1963. There
might be some consideration of Heath’s attitudes. Some answers might consider the
economic success of the EEC and compare this with the failure of EFTA. This might be
compared with Britain’s go it alone attitude up to 1960. Many in Britain did not take
European integration seriously until 1960, pointing to Britain’s world status and her desire
to shape Europe rather than be shaped by it. This might be linked to distrust of the
Schumann Plan and EEC.
15
To what extent did Thatcher achieve her aims in foreign policy?
No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to address the question. It is likely
that candidates will identify Thatcher’s aims before assessing how far she achieved them.
There might be some consideration of her desire to reassert Britain’s position as a major
power and this might be linked to the Falklands War, although some might balance this
with the Grenada incident. There is a case that Thatcher wanted to improve relations with
the US and that this was achieved through events such as the Libya bombings. Answers
may discuss her aims regarding the EU, particularly the question of the budget and are
likely to conclude that she achieved her aims, even if some have argued that her stance
damaged Britain’s position in Europe. Thatcher wanted to see the defeat of communism
and it is likely that some will argue that this was achieved and that her role was of some
significance. There might be some consideration of the Rhodesian question where it might
be argued that Thatcher achieved her aim of improving Britain’s position in the
Commonwealth.
26
F961
Mark Scheme
January 2010
Post-War Britain 1951-1994
16
‘Labour weakness was the most important reason for Conservative dominance from
1951 to 1964’. How far do you agree?
No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to address the question. There are a
large number of reasons that candidates might consider, but it is not expected that they will
cover all areas, what matters is the quality of analysis. However, in order to achieve the
higher levels they must consider the named factor even if they conclude it was not the
most important. Candidates will need to identify the weakness of Labour opposition during
the period. The weakness of Labour opposition in this period was focused on the left
versus right wing debate over the future of the party. Modernisers or revisionists under
Gaitskell wished to increase the private sector involvement and remove Clause 4. They
were opposed by traditionalists under Bevan who wished to expand public sector
involvement and oppose nuclear weapons. The divisions did not go down well with the
electorate. However, it is likely that this will be contrasted with the positive elements of
Conservative rule. It might be argued that prosperity made Labour disputes appear petty.
Economic recovery was underway and the Conservatives were able to dismantle the
apparatus of austerity and gain the credit. Politics were devised to manage this by Butler,
Maudling, Powell and MacLeod. A property owning democracy had more appeal than
Bevan’s expanded public sector or Gaitskell’s social democracy. The Conservatives were
able to reduce taxes yet maintain and even increase social expenditure, completing the
promised ‘homes’ programme. Full employment spread the gain more widely and affluence
became more marked. The Conservatives timed elections well to coincide with ‘boom’ and
avoided moments of disaster such as Suez or Profumo.
17
How successful was Heath as leader of the Conservative party?
No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to address the question. Candidates
may argue that Heath was a failure as leader and point to his defeat in 1974, when he
called an election despite a large majority, and subsequent loss of the leadership of the
party to Thatcher. He failed in nearly of all his aims: reducing the price rise, increasing
productivity and reducing unemployment. In particular candidates might discuss his failure
to deal with industrial relations, which led to his eventual downfall. It resulted in conflict
with the miners and his misjudgement in calling an early election resulted in defeat. Some
might argue that he failed to carry through his tough programme of economic and industrial
reform on which the party had won the election and therefore should be judged to have
failed and these were the grounds of criticism from the Thatcherite wing of the party, even
their emergence might be used to argue he failed. There might be consideration of the
number of U turns he made and the weak image that this created among the electorate.
However, some might argue that he should not be judged as failing in his leadership, but
these problems need to be seen in the context of the extraordinary and unstable domestic
and international problems with which he was faced.
27
F961
18
Mark Scheme
January 2010
Assess the reasons why governments were unable to solve the Irish problem in the
period to 1994.
No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to address the question. Answers
may start by identifying the problems faced by the governments and this might include
issues such as the divisions, the growth of terrorism, economic discrimination, the use of
violence, the development of paramilitary groups and perceptions of the police and army.
Although the topic starts in 1951 some answers might place the problems in context of
earlier developments and this can be credited provided the main focus is on the period
from 1951. Candidates might consider the problem of the division between Nationalists
and Loyalists and the emergence of more extreme forms within the period which resorted
to more violent approaches. The sizeable proportion of the population, about 1/3, who felt
resentment against the government made the problems more difficult to resolve.
Candidates might examine the importance of the events of 1968-9 in exacerbating the
problems and they might also argue that the issues had largely been ignored until then and
that this had matters worse. There might be an examination of the issues of discrimination
in policing, social and economic areas and the anti-Catholic nature of the Unionist majority
that added to the difficulties and this might be linked to the problem of a Unionist
dominated government. Answers are likely to consider the role of the IRA and the
emergence of the Provisional IRA following the split in 1969. Attitudes towards the British
army among many Catholics did not make the situation any easier. Policies such as
internment may also have exacerbated the problem and this was added to by events such
as Bloody Sunday. There might be an exploration as to why the Sunningdale Agreement
and power sharing failed and this might include the change in government and a lack of
decisive leadership. There might also be some consideration of international support for
terrorism and reference made to the hunger strikes of the 1980s. Some candidates might
also examine the problem of relationship between Britain and the Irish government,
particularly when Fianna Fail was in power, particularly during the Falklands crisis.
Candidates might also make reference to the political success of Sinn Fein, the divisions
within the Unionist movement and the limited support among both communities for a
lasting peace.
28
F962
Mark Scheme
January 2010
F962 European and World History Period Studies
Option A: Medieval and Early Modern 1095-1609
The Crusades and Crusader States 1095-1192
1
Assess the reasons why people joined the First Crusade.
No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to address the question.
This question seeks to elicit responses which assess the relative significance of the different
motives that people had for joining the First Crusade. There needs to be real assessment for
the top bands. Candidates may discuss religious motivation in some detail and focus in on
the crusade as an ‘armed pilgrimage’ and the plenary indulgence that Pope Urban II
promised crusaders. Such discussion may be balanced against other motives such as those
that can be inferred from the reports of Urban’s sermon at Clermont: revenge for the
atrocities committed against eastern Christians by the Turks; aid to Christians in the East; the
chance of ‘righteous’ warfare; the recovery of the Holy Land (and the focus on Jerusalem
that emerged as a key factor as the crusade recruitment campaign got underway).
Candidates may also suggest more worldly motives: the prospect of a land of milk and
honey, an escape from the hardships of life in western Christendom, the chance to carve out
reputations and lands as a result of victory and conquest. Candidates may discuss
motivation in relation to general groups as well as particular individuals.
2
To what extent was shortage of manpower the main problem facing the Crusader
States in the twelfth century?
No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to address the question.
Candidates must deal with the question of shortage of manpower even if they wish to argue
other problems were more significant. Candidates may discuss the chronic nature of the
manpower problem from which the erratic and sporadic arrival of ‘crusaders’ from Western
Europe at best provided temporary alleviation. Even when there were major crusades, most
crusaders saw their sojourn in the Holy Land as temporary. The appeals for western aid can
be used as evidence of the manpower shortage. The problem of controlling the fragile
crusader states with limited manpower was one which faced every ruler in every state.
Candidates may discuss the role of the military orders, the strategy of establishing defensible
strongpoints manned by relatively small numbers of knights and men, the relatively small
size of the total forces available to the rulers of the states, even when they came together
and so on. Such discussion needs to be balanced against other problems and candidates
may discuss some of the following: the divided natures of the Christian states (even
accepting the nominal sovereignty of the King of Jerusalem); the long and indefensible
frontiers; the hostility (and growing unity) of neighbouring states; the rivalries between states;
the problems associated with governance; the rivalries between different rulers and within
states between different factions; the problems associated with succession crises and so on.
29
F962
3
Mark Scheme
January 2010
To what extent was the rivalry between Richard I of England and Philip II of France
the main reason for the limited success of the Third Crusade?
No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to address the question.
Candidates must deal with the given factor even if they wish to argue other factors were
more significant. In relation to the given factor, candidates may refer to the background to the
tension between the two monarchs, the journey to Acre, the differences that emerged there,
the departure of Philip after the siege and the difficulties with the French contingent
thereafter. Certainly it would be hard to argue that the divisions between the two had no
impact; indeed, candidates may also argue that fears about what Philip might do in Europe
whilst Richard remained in the Holy Land affected the conduct and outcome of the Crusade.
Against this candidates may argue that success at Acre would not have been possible
without some cooperation between the two. In discussing other reasons for the limited
success of the Crusade candidates may refer to the disaster that befell Frederick Barbarossa
and the disintegration of the German contingent, the parlous position in the Holy Land, the
rivalries within the Christian camp at Acre over who should be King of Jerusalem, and the
strengths of the opposition and Saladin in particular.
30
F962
Mark Scheme
January 2010
The Renaissance from c. 1400-c. 1550
4
How important was the fall of Constantinople (1453) in the development of the
Renaissance in Italy?
No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to address the question.
This is a question about the Renaissance generally and not about art specifically.
Candidates must deal with the given factor even if they wish to argue other factors were
more significant. In relation to the given factor, candidates may discuss the argument that
after the fall of Constantinople there was a flood of Greek scholars into Europe who
brought with them manuscripts of the Greek classics that were to inform much of the
development of Renaissance ideas. This may be countered by the suggestion that the
Renaissance pre-dated 1453 and that western scholars had had access to classical
learning before this date. They may argue therefore that at best the effects of the Fall of
Constantinople accelerated a process that had already begun. Candidates need to
address ‘How important?’ and are likely to do this not just by the above but also by setting
the fall of Constantinople in the context of other factors that contributed to the development
of the Renaissance, such as the cultural, economic and political conditions in 15th century
Italy and in particular the significance of wealth, trade, city states (like Florence), patronage
and other influences.
5
‘Renaissance artists and architects did no more than copy classical art and
architecture.’ How far do you agree?
No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to address the question.
Candidates are likely to argue against the contention in the question along the lines that,
although Renaissance artists and architects did draw inspiration from the works of Rome
and Greece, they developed something innovative in their various fields. They may draw
on their knowledge of individual artists and architects to illustrate their argument. They may
point, for example, to Brunelleschi’s marriage of classical features such as Corinthian
columns and a concern with proportion with Romanesque arches and Byzantine inspired
domes. In art they may point to the classical themes and the use of light and atmospheric
colour that inspired much Renaissance art and the revival (by, for example, Donatello) of
free-standing sculpture, but stress the development of perspective, realism and the close
observation of nature that is apparent in the works of artists from Masaccio onwards. They
may also discuss the differences of subject matter in Renaissance art. No specific answer
is looked for but the quality of exemplar material is likely to be a key discriminator.
31
F962
6
Mark Scheme
January 2010
To what extent did the Italian Renaissance influence cultural developments in
northern Europe?
No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to address the question.
Candidates may well argue that whilst the Italian Renaissance did influence developments
in art, architecture and ideas north of the Alps, developments here were essentially
distinct. In developing their ideas candidates may refer to the importance of Rome and
Italy more generally as a place of pilgrimage, art and learning (with its universities) to
which scholars and artists from across Europe came. They may also point to the spreading
of Renaissance ideas and influences via merchants and diplomats. Candidates may also
refer to the Italian influences apparent in the works of painters like Holbein and Dürer.
They may also point to the influence of Renaissance humanism. To balance this,
candidates may discuss the distinctiveness of developments north of the Alps such as the
protestant prejudice against religious art and the development of Christian humanism that
was less inspired by the examination of Greek and Roman classics and more by a concern
to apply humanist ideas in a Christian context. In relation to this they may refer to the
Devotio Moderna and the importance placed on the reading of scripture and the reality of
religion.
32
F962
Mark Scheme
January 2010
Exploration and Discovery c. 1445-c. 1545
7
How important was royal patronage in Portuguese overseas exploration in this
period?
No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to address the question.
Candidates must deal with the role of royal patronage even if they wish to argue that other
factors were more or as significant in explaining Portuguese overseas exploration. In
relation to the given factor, candidates are likely to focus on Henry the Navigator and John
II. In relation to the former, candidates may refer to: his sponsorship of voyages to explore
the African coast, leading to the discovery of the Azores, the Cape Verde Islands and the
coast of West Africa (a slave trading base at Lagos); and, his attracting some leading
cartographers to help map the coast. In relation to the latter, John II sponsored and
planned expeditions to find Prester John and a route to the Asian sources of spices. In this
context, they may refer to the voyages of Bartholomew Diaz and the expedition of Covilha
(overland) to India. Such discussion may be set in the context of other factors that
promoted or helped develop Portuguese exploration, such as Portugal’s geographic
position, its established sea-faring tradition, its relative political stability, the interest of
nobles (not least in a desire to serve their rulers), the role of individuals, such as Diaz,
Cabral and Da Gama, and the incentives to find gold, slaves, and spices and to find
Prester John and spread Christianity.
8
‘No more than a series of trading posts.’ How far do you agree with this view of the
Portuguese Empire?
No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to address the question.
Candidates are likely to argue that to a degree the Portuguese Empire was a series of
trading posts, and that trade was central to all of her empire. However, they are likely to
argue also that to conclude it was ‘nothing more’ is wrong. In relation to the notion that the
Empire was a series of trading posts, candidates are likely to point to the strategy of Henry
the Navigator and those that followed of establishing secure bases for trade and security of
trade routes along the coast of Africa and the estimated 50 forts and trading posts
established between southern Africa and Japan during the 16th century. No attempt was
made to colonise Africa but bases were used to exchange European goods for slaves and
the raison d’être of posts from Goa to Macao was the lucrative spice trade. Against this,
candidates may argue that this is not the whole picture, as in the islands of the coast of
West Africa (Madeira and the Cape Verde Islands) active settlement took place and a
thriving agriculture based on sugar was established. Similarly in Brazil, the east coast was
settled for plantation agriculture supported by the export of slaves from Africa. What is
more the capture of important trading posts like Goa, Malacca and Macao led in time to the
development of colonies as from these the Portuguese could monopolise not only trade
but could also plunder and tax.
33
F962
9
Mark Scheme
January 2010
To what extent was the spread of Christianity Spain’s main aim in the development
of its Empire?
No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to address the question.
Candidates must deal with the given factor even if they wish to argue other factors were
more significant. In relation to the given factor, candidates may discuss the religious
motivation of royal patrons such as Isabella, the injunctions of the Pope (as in his bull of
1493 to Isabella), and the accompaniment of priests with Spanish expeditions to the New
World. It would be hard to argue that religion was not an important motive as Christianity
was spread with conquest. However, candidates are likely to argue that it was not the main
motive and certainly not the only one. Candidates are likely to argue that the main motive
was profit (gold, silver or spices) and discuss the expeditions of Cortes and Pizarro in Latin
America as evidence of this. Other motives that candidates may discuss include the desire
for settlement and farming, the desire for fame and reputation (not least for Cortes).
Candidates should explore a range of aims and draw a reasoned conclusion as to the
relative importance of the spread of Christianity.
34
F962
Mark Scheme
January 2010
Spain 1469-1556
10
How successful were Ferdinand and Isabella’s religious policies?
No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to address the question.
Success may be assessed in a number of ways: against aims; against results; and in the
light of historical context. Candidates will need to identify and analyse Ferdinand and
Isabella’s religious policies. The areas considered may include: the conquest of Granada,
policies towards Muslims in Granada including the expulsion of 1502; policies towards the
Catholic Church (to achieve royal domination of the Church, to access the Church’s
wealth, and to reform the abuses within the Church); and the role of the Inquisition and
policies towards the Jews. Candidates may argue that whilst the conquest of Granada was
successful the policies towards the Muslims there had mixed success (the Morisco
‘problem’ was to remain until the 17th century, for example). They may argue also that
Ferdinand and Isabella enjoyed considerable success in their policy towards the Church,
effectively controlling appointments and winning considerable concessions from the
Papacy in Granada and the New World. However, they may argue that Cisneros’ attempts
to reform the clergy were less successful. Judgement on the work of the Inquisition,
policies towards conversos and the expulsion of the Jews is likely to be one of success.
11
Assess the reasons why Charles I faced so many problems in Spain from 1516 to
1524.
No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to address the question.
Candidates will need to analyse reasons and evaluate their relative significance and/or
links between them. Candidates may well suggest that some problems were inherited from
Ferdinand and Isabella and that others were of his own making or that his actions/inaction
exacerbated the situation. Candidates are likely to discuss some or all of the following: the
Communeros and Germania revolts (the latter not fully resolved until the pardon issued in
1524); the tensions between towns and grandees; the problem of raising money via the
Cortes of Castile, Aragon and other provinces; the privileges of the same; the appointment
of ministers; Charles’ delay in arriving and his subsequent absence; his other ambitions
and commitments (and the use of Spanish resources to pursue them) and so on.
12
Assess the strengths and weaknesses of Spain in 1556.
No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to address the question.
Candidates need to assess both strengths and weaknesses. In discussing strengths and
weaknesses, candidates may address some of the following areas: the Church and
religion; government and administration; Castile and the other provinces; relations with the
nobility; finance; the impact of the New World; the impact of foreign policy; the economy.
They may argue that the pattern of strengths and weaknesses is a mixed one. The failure
of the Reformation to make any headway in Spain may be considered a strength –
religious unity remained strong – although the problem of the moriscos remained; royal
government at a local level was perhaps dependent on the nobility, but worked reasonably
effectively at the centre through its councils and candidates may pay tribute to the work of
Gattinara, los Cobos and the bureaucracy of letrados – the conciliar system, despite
corruption worked well enough in normal circumstances, but proved less effective at times
of crisis. Many may argue that finance was an area of weakness, partly because of noble
exemption from taxation, but mainly because of the demands made on Castile especially
by Charles’ expensive commitments outside Spain. New World bullion became more
significant later in the reign, but debt was a constant feature. Many will argue that the
economy was Charles’ greatest failure: heavy taxation and the failure to use New World
revenues effectively distorted the economy.
35
F962
Mark Scheme
January 2010
Charles V: International Relations and the Holy Roman Empire 1519-59
13
‘Without the protection of princes, Lutheranism would not have survived.’ How far
do you agree?
No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to address the question.
Candidates must deal adequately with the issue raised in the quotation even if they wish to
argue that other factors were as or more significant. However, many are likely to argue a
strong case in favour of the quotation, pointing to the role from early on of Frederick of
Saxony, the difficulties facing Charles V in imposing his will without the support of the
princes, the formation of the Schmalkaldic League and the eventual acceptance of
Lutheranism in the Peace of Augsburg (cuius regio, eius religio). They may also point to
the reluctance of Catholic princes to take up arms against Protestant princes. Such
discussion needs to be balanced against other considerations such as: the power of
Luther’s ideas; their spread (including the role of the printing press and the context of antipapal feeling); the role of the towns, peasants, Imperial Knights; the intermittent attention
Charles V was able to give to the issue given the distractions of Habsburg-Valois rivalry,
his absences, his desire for religious division to be settled by a Church Council, the
Ottoman threat and so on.
14
To what extent was personal rivalry the main reason for the Habsburg-Valois wars?
No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to address the question.
Candidates must deal adequately with the issue of personal rivalry even if they wish to
argue that other factors were as or more significant. In relation to the given factor,
candidates may argue that in an age of personal monarchy, personal rivalry was bound to
play a part. Certainly there was rivalry: Charles defeated Francis I in the bid to become
Holy Roman Emperor and Francis would never accept that Charles was the pre-eminent
ruler in Christendom. Their contrasting characters also helped to shape events. However,
candidates may well argue that conflict between these rivals was more than personal. The
election of Charles as Holy Roman Emperor and his interests in Italy and the Netherlands
meant that strategically France felt surrounded, whilst Charles also wanted to recover his
ancestral Burgundian lands and Francis Navarre. Candidates should support their
arguments by reference to the developments in the struggle (including the reign of Henry
II) and may refer to events in Italy, the Holy Roman Empire, relations with the Turks and
England and so on to illustrate and develop their argument.
15
Assess the reasons why Charles V was unable to remove the Ottoman threat.
No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to address the question.
Candidates must identify and analyse a range of reasons and evaluate their relative
significance and/or linkages. Candidates are likely to discuss the Ottoman threat in relation
both to the Holy Roman Empire and Habsburg lands in Austria, Bohemia and Hungary,
and to the Mediterranean. They may point to the aggressive and expansionist nature of the
Ottoman Empire (and refer to the actions of Barbarossa and Dragut in the Mediterranean
as well as the opening up the Balkans by the Ottoman army’s victory at Belgrade in 1521).
They may also discuss the impact of the different commitments that Charles V’s vast
territories imposed upon him, that meant he could never focus on one issue for long. They
may also argue in relation to that that France was willing to use the Ottoman threat as a
weapon in its wars with Charles. They may also argue that the resources available to
Charles were limited in a number of ways (costs; no effective navy to counter the naval
forces available to the Turks; the refusal of the German army to cross the frontier into
Hungary) and that (as with the Turks) distance also limited what could be achieved.
36
F962
Mark Scheme
January 2010
Philip II, Spain and the Netherlands, 1556-1609
16
‘The most serious problems Philip II faced in ruling Spain were economic and
financial.’ How far do you agree?
No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to address the question.
Candidates must deal with the claim made in the quotation even if they wish to argue that
other problems were as or more serious for Philip. However, many are likely to agree with
the quotation arguing that insufficient finance (itself dependent on the economy)
underpinned and limited his ability to deal with many other serious problems. Candidates
may discuss the general inadequacy of funds and how New World bullion shipments
provided at best short term relief. They may argue that there was a vicious circle of rising
debt as future income was mortgaged and interest rates rose. Increases in taxation
impacted on the Castilian economy and by the 1590s the strain told. Candidates may
argue that financial problems were also a symptom as well as a cause of other problems. It
was the strain of constant warfare that demanded increased taxation and inefficient
administration meant corruption. Candidates may also discuss other problems, such as
faction (Perez affair), relations with the nobility, the problem of the moriscos and
conversos.
17
‘Philip II enjoyed more success in his dealings with the Turks than with England or
France.’ How far do you agree?
No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to address the question.
In assessing success, candidates may take note of aims, results and the historical context.
Candidates may suggest that at best Philip had not dealt with the Turkish menace, but had
contained it and secured a measure of peace by the 1580s. In reaching a judgement they
may discuss the extent of the Ottoman/Corsair threat, the defeat at Djerba in 1560, the
subsequent aggression of the Corsairs (even raiding Granada), the relief of Malta, the
victory at Lepanto, and the armistice of 1580. Candidates may argue that Philip’s chances
of success were limited by the diversion of resources to other problems (such as the
Netherlands) and the different interests of the Papacy and Venice that made cooperation
difficult. In relation to England, candidates may refer to marriage to Mary, attempts to woo
Elizabeth, growing differences, conflict over the New World and the Netherlands and the
failures of his armadas. Candidates may well judge his policy here as a failure (although
England was excluded from the New World). In relation to France, candidates may discuss
early fears of a Guise empire, but are likely to focus on his support for the Catholic League
against Henry of Navarre. They, again, may judge his policy a failure, although in the end
France remained Catholic.
18
How far was Maurice of Nassau’s leadership the main reason for the success of the
northern provinces by 1609?
No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to address the question.
Candidates must deal with the role of Maurice of Nassau even if they wish to argue that
other factors were as or more significant in the success of the northern provinces.
Candidates may argue that Maurice’s key contribution was as a military leader who was
able to deliver a series of victories to the northern provinces that made it clear that the
Spanish, whilst they might retain a hold on the south could not re-take the north.
Candidates may balance such discussion with consideration of other factors such as: the
role of William of Orange and the failures of Spain prior to Maurice’s prominence; the role
of England and France; the diversion of Spanish forces from the Netherlands against
England and France in the 1580s and 90s; the financial difficulties facing Spain and the
mutinies that affected their forces; the skills of Oldenbarnevelt; the divisions within the
government of the southern provinces and so on.
37
F962
Mark Scheme
January 2010
Option B: Modern 1795-2003
Napoleon, France and Europe 1795-1815
1
‘The weaknesses of the Directory were the main reason for Napoleon’s rise to
power.’ How far do you agree?
No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to address the question.
Candidates must deal with the given factor even if they wish to argue other factors were
more significant. In relation to the given factor, candidates may discuss: the nature of the
constitution of the Directory which made it weak and increasingly dependent on the
military; the internal politics of the Five Directors and their rivalries; unrest at home and the
growing desire for change; and the impact of defeat against the Second Coalition.
Candidates may well argue that the weakness of the Directory provided Napoleon with the
opportunity to seize power, but that, on its own, it does not explain his rise. Candidates
may refer to other factors, such as: Napoleon’s rise in the military and the reputation he
gained from Toulon to Egypt; the significant role played by politicians like Barras; aspects
of the Coup of Brumaire such as the role of Napoleon’s brother and the miscalculation of
Sieyes and others who had hoped for a tame general (and here the reluctance of generals
like Moreau to play the role is significant); and, of course, Napoleon’s own ambitions.
2
To what extent was Napoleon responsible for his own downfall?
No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to address the question.
This question focuses on the reasons for Napoleon’s downfall. Candidates must deal with
the given factor even if they wish to argue other factors were more significant. The
arguments for Napoleon’s own responsibility include: whilst he was a great warrior, he was
not a great statesman and failed to seek a permanent settlement for Europe; the Spanish
and Russian campaigns revealed the limitations of Napoleon as a grand strategist; the
view that Napoleon’s abilities declined in his later years; Napoleon became predictable.
Candidates may question some of these points and certainly they should discuss some of
the alternative explanations, such as: the relative decline of the French army; the
determined opposition of Britain, supreme at sea, critical in the Iberian peninsula and
providing finance for those willing to take up arms against Napoleon; the reorganization of
enemy armies in the light of French victories; the impact of Napoleon’s defeat in Russia in
1812; Napoleon’s loss of support in France; the impact of the Continental System; the
drawing up of the Fourth Coalition; the significance of Leipzig and Waterloo, and so on.
38
F962
3
Mark Scheme
January 2010
To what extent did Napoleon export the ideas of the French Revolution to the areas
he conquered?
No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to address the question.
The question focuses on the impact of Napoleon’s hegemony over much of Europe for at
least part of his reign. Candidates are likely to argue that the impact of French ideas varied
from place to place and from time to time. They may argue that much of Napoleonic rule
was pragmatic, and that although French ideas of government, principles of the Revolution
and law were introduced in many areas it is difficult to discern a consistent pattern.
Candidates may argue that much depended on nearness to France, the length of French
influence and control, the attitudes of the local population, the differing status of conquered
or occupied areas (absorbed within ‘France’ or satellite states or allies), and the exigencies
of the particular time. There may be discussion of the impact of the Code Napoleon,
relations with the Church, nobility and middle classes, the requirements of the French
military machine and so forth.
39
F962
Mark Scheme
January 2010
Monarchy, Republic and Empire: France 1814-1870
4
To what extent was Charles X responsible for his own downfall?
No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to address the question.
Candidates must deal with the issue raised in the question even if they wish to argue that
other factors were as or more important in Charles X’ overthrow in 1830. In discussing
Charles X’ degree of responsibility, candidates may argue that as he was king he was
responsible for the ministers he appointed and the policies adopted, his association with
the Ultras and the circumstances of his coronation suggested a reactionary policy from
start. The policies pursued by Villele seemed to confirm this: compensation for émigrés,
return of Jesuits and clerical control of education etc. Candidates may also argue that
crucially Charles appointed the ultra Polignac in 1829 and then in 1830 issued the
Ordinances of St Cloud at a time when the Crown’s best troops were in Algeria. On the
other hand, candidates may point to Charles’ liberalization of the press on his accession,
the existence of liberal opposition and press, the tradition of revolution and the return of
economic crisis as key factors.
5
Assess the reasons why Louis Napoleon came to dominate the Second Republic.
No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to address the question.
Candidates will need to identify and analyse a range of reasons and evaluate their relative
significance and/or linkages. Candidates may argue that there are longer term and shorter
term reasons why Napoleon emerged as the dominant figure between 1848 and 1852.
They may point to the longer term development of Bonapartism, Louis Napoleon’s failed
expeditions of 1836 and 1840, the publication of the Extinction of Pauperism (1844), the
association with Napoleon and the revival of the Napoleonic legend (return of body, and
completion of the Arc de Triomphe) under Louis Philippe. In the shorter term they may
point to the developments after the February Revolution in 1848: the growth of reaction,
Louis Napoleon’s appeal to all classes (peasants, workers, businessmen, monarchists and
ultramontane Catholics), Louis Napoleon’s alliance with conservative forces, problems in
Paris, the election of November 1848, the Bonapartists’ efficient organization. Candidates
may stress that Louis Napoleon’s greatest asset was his name. Some may argue that
Louis Napoleon did not dominate the Second republic and that is why he abolished it.
6
Assess the reasons why Napoleon III’s foreign policies in the 1860s were
unsuccessful.
No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to address the question.
Candidates will need to identify and analyse a range of reasons and evaluate their relative
significance and/or linkages. In developing their answers, candidates are likely to discuss
some of the following aspects of foreign policy: the attempts to secure territory along the
Rhine (aired at Biarritz in 1865); attitude to the Polish Revolt in 1863; the Austro-Prussian
war (1866); the Luxembourg crisis (1867); the Mexican adventure; colonial policy; the
dispute over the Spanish succession and the background to the Franco-Prussian War. In
discussing reasons for failure candidates may refer to: misjudgement, lack of clear aims,
unrealistic ambitions and expectations, increasing isolation, pursuit of foreign aims as a
means of appeasing domestic opinion (eg by keeping troops in Rome); policies which led
to French isolation/loss of potential friends; the arousing of suspicions in Prussia, German
states and Britain over attempts to expand French influence and territory on the Rhine;
misconceived desire to offer support to Polish nationalism led to break-up of his
understanding with the Tsar; the blow to French prestige when attempts to mediate in the
Austro-Prussian war failed; unrealistic unilateral action against Mexico motivated by a
mistaken desire for glory, economic opportunity and a desire to appease catholic opinion;
being out-manoeuvred by Bismarck from 1865 onwards and so on.
40
F962
Mark Scheme
January 2010
The USA in the 19th Century: Westward Expansion and Civil War 1803-c. 1890
7
How important were the policies of Federal governments in opening up the West to
settlement?
No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to address the question.
Candidates will need to deal with the given factor even if they wish to argue that other
factors were as or more important. In assessing the importance of the policies of Federal
governments, candidates may discuss some of the following areas: Federal sponsorship of
exploration and surveying; Federal acquisition of territory; the organization of acquired
lands into territories and states; the role of the Federal army in policing the frontier, the
trails west and dealing with Native Americans; Federal sponsorship of communications
(especially the trans-continental railway); Federal encouragement to settlement through
legislation such as the Homestead Act. To balance such discussion candidates may argue
that Federal policy often followed rather than preceded settlement and the real stimulus
came from the needs of fur traders, cattlemen, farmers and miners as well as those
seeking refuge, like the Mormons, from persecution, and the development of
communications.
8
Assess the reasons why southern states decided to secede from the Union in 1860
and 1861.
No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to address the question.
Candidates need to identify and analyse reasons and evaluate their relative significance
and/or linkages. Candidates may argue that the immediate cause of the first wave of
secession was the election of a sectional president in Lincoln and that the stimulus to the
secession of some Upper South states was the decision for war in the spring of 1861.
Candidates may then go on to explore the short and longer term issues that led to
secession. Central to their arguments is likely to be the issue of slavery and they may
discuss some of the crises of the 1840s and 50s that made the issue of slavery and the
issue of the possible westward expansion of slavery so contentious. In this context,
candidates may refer to the Mexican War, Wilmot Proviso, Calhoun doctrine, the
‘Compromise’ of 1850, fugitive slaves, Dred Scott, ‘Bleeding Kansas’, the development of
the Republican Party, Harper’s Ferry and so on. Candidates may also discuss the issue of
States’ rights, the apparent social, cultural and economic divisions between North and
South and the suspicions of ‘Slave Power conspiracy’ and ‘northern aggression’.
41
F962
9
Mark Scheme
January 2010
‘Grant was a better general than Lee.’ How far do you agree?
No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to address the question.
This question requires candidates to compare the strengths and weaknesses of Grant and
Lee as generals. Candidates may consider a range of issues in drawing their comparison:
personal qualities, reputation, leadership, strategic thinking (eg at different levels – Grand
Strategy, campaign strategy, battlefield command), relationship with political masters, use
of resources, impact on morale, quality of opposition, quality of subordinates and so on. In
making their analysis candidates may draw on their knowledge of specific campaigns and
battles such as: in relation to Lee, Seven Days Campaign, Second Manassas, Antietam,
Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville, Gettysburg, Wilderness Campaign, Petersburg; and in
relation to Grant, Fort Donelson, Shiloh, Vicksburg, Lookout Mountain and Missionary
Ridge, Wilderness Campaign, Petersburg, Atlanta and March through Georgia (Sherman
in command). No specific answer is looked for and candidates can legitimately argue that
both were great generals in their different ways.
42
F962
Mark Scheme
January 2010
Peace and War: International Relations c. 1890-1941
10
To what extent was the alliance system the main cause of the First World War?
No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to address the question.
Candidates will need to deal with the given factor even if they wish to argue that other
factors were as or more important. In relation to the given factor, candidates may discuss
the intentions and nature of the alliances that preceded the First World War. Certainly the
division of Europe into two potentially hostile alliances (Ententes and Dual/Triple Alliances)
could be said to make war a possibility and in the event the war between the Dual Alliance
and the Entente. Candidates may, however, argue that other factors were more important
and discuss the relative merits of other factors such as military and naval arms races,
aggressive German foreign policy, Russia’s hopes and fears in relation to the Balkans,
British and French policy, domestic problems and pressures and so on. They may discuss
the significance of particular crises in contributing to making war more likely, such as the
Bosnian Crisis, the Moroccan Crises and the July Crisis of 1914.
11
Assess the reasons why the First World War was not ‘over by Christmas’ 1914.
No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to address the question.
Candidates will need to identify and analyse a range of reasons and evaluate their relative
significance and/or links between them. Candidates may discuss the relative strengths and
weaknesses of the Schlieffen Plan both conception and as it operated under Moltke. They
may point to the role of the Belgians, the BEF, the ‘Miracle on the Marne’ and the
subsequent ‘race to the sea’. They may also point to the relatively rapid mobilisation of the
Russians and the impact of their offensives in the East. Candidates may also point to the
issues of technology that affected the initial course of the war, pointing to the exposure of
cavalry and infantry in attacking strong positions, the impact of disciplined rifle, machine
gun and artillery fire, the difficulties of supply for a rapidly advancing army, the ‘digging in’
of defending forces and so forth. Candidates may also argue that no side had a decisive
advantage in numbers, tactics or strategy.
43
F962
12
Mark Scheme
January 2010
Assess the reasons why Japan followed an increasingly aggressive foreign policy in
the period from 1931 to 1941.
No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to address the question.
Candidates should discuss a number of reasons and assess their relative significance
and/or the linkages between them. Candidates may well focus on the ambitions of Japan
in China and South East Asia more generally. They may point to the aggressive foreign
policy pursued as a consequence of the Depression, the growth of nationalism and historic
claims on the Chinese mainland. There may be discussion of effects of the successful
invasion of Manchuria, the outbreak of the Sino-Japanese war, the alliance with Germany
and Italy, the Co-prosperity Sphere and the decision to attack Pearl Harbour. Discussion of
Japanese motives needs to be set in the context of the attitudes of the USA, Britain and
France, the weakness and failure of the League of Nations, the distractions of events in
Europe, and the relative weakness of and internal divisions in China. Candidates may
argue therefore that whilst there were compelling internal reasons why Japan wanted to
pursue an expansive foreign policy, she was encouraged to do so by the weaknesses of
her immediate opponents (notably China) and the failure of the major powers (Britain,
France and the USA) to stop Japan because of their own internal problems and the
developing events in Europe.
44
F962
Mark Scheme
January 2010
From Autocracy to Communism: Russia 1894-1941
13
Assess the reasons for opposition and unrest in Russia from 1894 to 1905.
No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to address the question.
Candidates will need to identify and analyse a range of reasons and evaluate their relative
significance and/or linkages. Candidates may discuss the longer term context of opposition
to the Tsars, but are likely to focus on the development of opposition and unrest after
1894. They may point to the economic causes of unrest and point to the economic
downturn that provoked strikes and unrest in the period after 1900 alongside the appalling
conditions for workers in Russia’s growing industries. They may also discuss the problem
of land shortage for the peasants. Such discussion may be linked to the developments in
political opposition through the Zemstva and in the development of Russian social
Democracy, the Socialist Revolutionaries and the Union of Liberation Party. They may also
point to the humiliation of defeat in the Russo-Japanese War, disillusion with Tsarism, the
desire for liberal reforms, the problem of nationalities and the outbreak of the 1905
Revolution.
14
How far was Russia politically stable from 1905 to 1914?
No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to address the question.
Candidates need to assess ‘How far?’. They may contrast the revolutionary crisis of 1905
with the relative quiet of the period of Stolypin’s influence and the development of renewed
unrest in the few years before the First World War. Candidates may discuss the political
repression that followed the October Manifesto and the Fundamental Laws and the
nullifying of the potential of the Dumas as a check on Tsarism. They may point to the
decline in agitation and the collapse in the membership of the RSDLP as evidence of
increased stability. They may also point to Stolypin’s ‘wager on the strong’ as evidence of
a different approach and the celebrations of the Romanov dynasty in 1913 of the Tsar’s
popularity. They may also suggest that whilst there was comparative quiet in the period
after 1906 stability was more apparent than real and that the pressures that brought about
the revolutionary crisis of 1905 were still unresolved.
45
F962
15
Mark Scheme
January 2010
Assess Lenin’s strengths and weaknesses as leader of Russia from 1917 to 1924.
No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to address the question.
Candidates must address both strengths and weaknesses. In discussing Lenin’s strengths
and weaknesses candidates may refer to key decisions and developments in this period:
the determination to ensure Bolshevik rule to the exclusion of other socialist parties
(despite the brief flirtation with the left SRs); the ending of the war with Germany; the Civil
War, reign of terror and war communism; the NEP and political repression. Candidates
may discuss Lenin’s determination, his ruthlessness, his ability to force through unpopular
decisions, his hard work, his ability to change policy when necessary, his commitment to
the Bolshevik Party, his vision of a Communist Russia. What may be seen as strengths
may also been seen as weaknesses – his unwillingness to compromise or work with other
socialists, his pursuit of power (or Communist ideas depending on interpretation) whatever
the cost, his decline after his strokes, and so on.
46
F962
Mark Scheme
January 2010
Democracy and Dictatorship: Italy 1896-1943
16
Assess the reasons for unrest in Italy from 1896 to 1915.
No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to address the question.
Candidates need to identify and analyse a number of reasons and evaluate their relative
significance and/or linkages. Candidates may discuss some of the following areas: national
humiliation after Adowa, famine and economic hardship; the desire for economic
improvements (to working conditions); police violence; the North:South divide; the limited
franchise; the growth of socialism; nationalist agitation and so on. Candidates may argue
that real hardship was certainly an issue in the late 1890s when famine led to food riots.
They may suggest that after 1900 much agitation was still economically based and strikes
and protests aimed at better working conditions. They may suggest that whilst Giolitti’s
economic policies led to economic expansion this only accentuated the divide between the
industrial north and the poverty-stricken agricultural south. Candidates are likely to spend
some time discussing the growth of socialism and the rise in political and economic unrest
in the pre-war years, such as ‘red week’. They may also point to nationalist agitation that
led to the expensive conquest of Libya in 1911-12.
17
To what extent was fear of socialism the main reason for Mussolini’s rise to power
in 1922?
No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to address the question.
Candidates must deal with the given factor adequately even if they wish to argue that other
factors were more important. In relation to the significance of fear of socialism, candidates
may discuss the growth of socialism, its electoral profile and the red week and the fears
aroused amongst the middle and upper classes, the Church and the establishment by the
‘red menace’. They may link such discussion to the impact of unemployment, inflation,
post-war economic restructuring, problems in the countryside and the north-south divide to
illustrate the potential scale of the threat. Mussolini and the Fascists were able to play on
these fears and pose as the men of action - the direct action Mussolini was willing to take
against strikers and communists (albeit after the main crisis had passed). Such a pose
contrasted with the apparent failure of the liberal governments of Nitti and Giolitti to deal
with the problems effectively. Candidates may also discuss the other weaknesses of the
liberal governments (for example, the failure to gain a creditable peace settlement, the
failure of transformismo), the legacy of nationalism, the ability and opportunism of
Mussolini and the fascists, the attitude of the King and the establishment and the fateful
decisions of 1922.
47
F962
18
Mark Scheme
January 2010
‘A dictator in name only.’ How far do you agree with this view of the extent of
Mussolini’s power in Italy after 1922?
No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to address the question.
Candidates should discuss the extent and nature of Mussolini’s dictatorship. Candidates
may refer to some of the following in developing their argument: Mussolini’s consolidation
of power after 1922 (Acerbo Law, Aventine Secession, abolition of the party system, the
restrictions on the power of the monarchy, rule by decree, the fusion of state and party
under the Duce). They may also refer to censorship, propaganda and other aspects of a
police state (such as OVRA). To balance this they may also discuss the extent of
Mussolini’s control of the party, the continued existence of the monarchy, the need to
come to agreement with the Church (Concordat), the inefficiency of the Fascist state.
Candidates could point to the circumstances of his overthrow in 1943 as evidence of his
limitations to his power.
48
F962
Mark Scheme
January 2010
The Rise of China 1911-1990
19
Assess the reasons why it took so long to establish effective government after the
1911 revolution.
No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to address the question.
Candidates will need to discuss and evaluate a range of reasons. In assessing reasons,
candidates may discuss some of the following: the state of China in 1911; ‘sudden’ nature
of the revolution in 1911 and resulting power vacuum; ambitions of Yuan Shikai; the limited
authority of government and local power/rivalries of warlords (the significance of the
warlords may be stressed); the extent and nature of support for Sun Zhongshan (Sun Yatsen) and the Nationalists (party formed only in 1912); the significance of the 4 May
Movement; Sun Zhongshan (Sun Yat-sen) and the reorganization of the Guomindang;
Foundation of CCP. Candidates may argue that whilst the overthrow of the Manchu
dynasty met little resistance, there was no consensus about what next and that there was
no one source of power able to assert its authority in the short term. Not until the 1920s
were the nationalists in a position to establish their authority and this remained patchy.
Some may argue that no really effective government was established until after 1949. No
specific answer is being looked for.
20
Assess the reasons why the Nationalists were unable to crush the Communists in
the period to 1945.
No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to address the question.
Candidates need to identify and analyse a number of reasons and evaluate their relative
significance and/or linkages. In discussing reasons for Nationalist failure, candidates may
refer to the united front with Sun Yat-sen’s nationalists after the 4 May Movement during
which time the party began to grow, the White Terror of 1927, the retreat to the countryside
and the Chungkang Mountains, the development of the Red Army, the Nationalist
campaigns and the resulting Long March of 1934-5, Yenan, the united front against the
Japanese, and the Civil War. Candidates may discuss reasons to do with the communists:
leaders like Mao, the active aid to and support from peasants, the skills of the Red army
and its development of guerrilla tactics, the significance of the Long March and the honing
of ideas in Yenan, the distinguished role in the war against Japan and so on. They may
also discuss the failings of the Nationalists under Jiang: distraction of the warlords,
corruption, failure to win over the workers and peasants (lack of support in the
countryside), the loss of middle class support, poor performance in the war against the
Japanese and so on. They may also discuss the fact that the Nationalists were also forced
to accept communist help in the fight against the Japanese.
49
F962
21
Mark Scheme
January 2010
To what extent were Mao’s domestic policies successful in the 1950s?
No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to address the question.
Candidates need to identify and analyse a range of policies and assess their success; this
can be done against aims, results and/or historical context. Candidates may consider
some of the following policy areas: the establishment of communist rule including military
rule and reunification campaigns, the use of terror, propaganda and the imposition of one
party rule; the ‘three’ and ‘five’ ‘anti-movements’; attacks on the middle classes and
landlords; the first Five Year Plan; the Hundred Flowers Campaign; collectivisation; the
Great Leap Forward. The last may not be considered in terms of success as it lasted into
the 1960s. Candidates may well argue that the CCP managed to establish its authority
effectively and achieved considerable successes but at a cost. The results of the first five
year plan, for example, were impressive, but heavily dependent on Soviet aid and support;
the middle classes were attacked and denounced and maybe a million landlords in the
countryside were killed. They may argue that the Hundred Flowers Campaign backfired
and had to be abandoned.
50
F962
Mark Scheme
January 2010
Democracy and Dictatorship in Germany 1919-1963
22
To what extent did the Weimar Republic in the 1920s overcome the problems it
faced?
No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to address the question.
Candidates need to identify a number of problems facing the Weimar Republic and assess
how far these were overcome during the 1920s. Candidates may discuss some of the
following problems: the economic and social problems arising out of the war; the Treaty of
Versailles and its impact; the problems of political extremism; the problems arising from
the nature of the new Weimar constitution; the difficulties of Germany’s international
position and so on. In relation to economic and social problems candidates may refer to
the unemployment, inflation and economic dislocation after the war and the impact of
reparations, hyperinflation and the invasion of the Ruhr. They may discuss the work of
Stresemann, the Dawes and Young Plans and the rise in foreign investment in relation to
this. They may discuss the threats posed by left and right to the regime and the difficulties
associated with a democratic constitution based on proportional representation and how
(far) these were dealt with. They may discuss German attempts to revise the Treaty of
Versailles and the impact of Stresemann’s foreign policy (Locarno, League of Nations). No
specific answer is looked for.
23
‘Their use of terror was the main reason that the Nazis retained control in Germany
after 1933.’ How far do you agree?
No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to address the question.
Candidates must give adequate treatment to the use of terror even if they wish to argue
that other factors were as or more significant. In relation to terror, candidates are likely to
discuss various aspects of the police state such as the roles of censorship and
propaganda, the nazification of the judicial system, the use of arbitrary imprisonment and
the roles of the SS, Gestapo and concentration camps. They may also point to the stifling
of political opposition with the arrest of communists and social democrats and the ‘law’
banning other political parties. However, candidates may balance their discussion of these
areas with the role of indoctrination, the attempts to control all aspects of people’s lives
and the impact of war (with reference to the German Labour Front, Strength through Joy,
the Hitler Youth etc.). Candidates may also refer to the apparent benefits of Nazi rule: the
end of the communist threat, the restoration of ‘order’, employment and economic
recovery, and foreign policy successes.
51
F962
24
Mark Scheme
January 2010
Assess the reasons why Adenauer kept power for so long after 1949.
No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to address the question.
Candidates need to identify and analyse a number of reasons and evaluate their relative
significance and/or linkages. Answers may discuss the personal role of Adenauer in
maintaining power and weigh this up against other factors This may include factors such
as the political situation in West Germany, economic issues and issues of foreign relations
in developing their argument. In relation to politics, candidates may refer to the strength
and stability of the CDU/CSU coalition and the reliable support this received from the
Liberals until the early 60s; they may also point to the weaknesses of the main opposition
party – the SPD – (internal divisions, unable to adapt to the new prosperous West
Germany). They may also suggest that the strategy of emphasising reconstruction (rather
than recrimination) was a powerful political argument. In relation to foreign policy,
candidates may point to: acceptance of West Germany in Europe; the recognition given to
the FRG after 1955 and the end of the ‘occupation’; Britain’s support for Germany’s entry
to NATO and hence the creation of her own army; West Germany membership of the
OEEC, the ECSC and then the EEC. In relation to the economy candidates are likely to
point to the work of Erhard, the social market economy, the Marshall Plan, cheap labour,
good industrial relations, the survival of much of Germany’s industrial base after the war.
They may point to the fall in unemployment and the average growth rate of 8%, and
improving living standards. Candidates may well point to economic factors as being most
important in explaining Adenauer’s success but no specific answer is looked for.
52
F962
Mark Scheme
January 2010
The Cold War in Europe from 1945 to the 1990s
25
Assess the reasons for the growth of tension between the Allies at the Yalta and
Potsdam Conferences.
No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to address the question.
Candidates need to identify and analyse a range of reasons and to evaluate their relative
significance and/or linkages. Candidates may discuss the longer term context of
ideological differences and tensions that had arisen in the wartime alliance that provided
grounds for mutual suspicion. In relation to Yalta, candidates are likely to focus on
discussion of the Polish issue and the differences this aroused. There may be discussion
of Stalin’s desire for security. In relation to Potsdam, candidates may refer to the change in
personnel and it significance (particularly in relation to Truman), the context of the
successful testing of the atom bomb, the continuing issue of Poland, the question of
governance in liberated states and the issue of reparations in relation to Germany.
Candidates may suggest that underpinning apparent agreements lay real difficulties as
mutual fear and suspicion grew.
26
How serious were the problems facing the Soviet Union in controlling Eastern
Europe in the 1950s and 1960s?
No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to address the question.
Candidates will need to identify and analyse a range of problems and evaluate their
relative seriousness. They may discuss particular developments such as the problems in
East Germany, Poland, Yugoslavia, Albania and Hungary in the 1950s and the Prague
Spring of 1968. However, they may place such discussion in the broader context of the
issue for Soviet leaders in balancing control against local situations and reform, the impact
of the Cold War and the impact of de-Stalinisation. Candidates may discuss individual
crises and the threat they posed to the stability of Soviet controlled Eastern Europe more
generally and here there may be developed treatment of Hungary in 1956, the problem of
refugees and the building of the Berlin Wall and the Dubcek regime in Czechoslovakia.
The seriousness of the problems may be assessed in relation to the reaction of the Soviet
government and the actions it took.
53
F962
27
Mark Scheme
January 2010
Assess the consequences of the end of Communist rule in the Soviet Union.
No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to address the question.
Candidates need to identify and analyses a range of consequences and evaluate their
relative significance and/or linkages. Candidates may place their discussion of the context
of the loosening of Communist Party control within the Soviet Union under Gorbachev’s
policies of glasnost and perestroika and date their treatment of the question from the
formal surrender of Communist power in February 1990. Candidates may point to the
disintegration of the Soviet Union as Baltic States, Georgia and others bid for
independence; the attempted coup against Gorbachev and the rise of Yeltsin (elected
president of the Russian republic); the continued collapse of the economy and food
rationing; the independence of the Ukraine; the creation of the Commonwealth of
Independent States and Gorbachev’s resignation which signalled the formal end of the
Soviet Union; the freedom of the media and political life; Yelstin’s economic ‘shock
programme’ and the economic and social problems of the 1990s. Candidates may
distinguish between political, social and economic consequences and between the
immediate and longer term consequences.
54
F962
Mark Scheme
January 2010
Crisis in the Middle East 1948-2003
28
Assess the consequences of the first Arab-Israeli War (1948-49).
No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to address the question.
Candidates need to identify and analyse a range of consequences and evaluate their
relative significance and/or linkages. Candidates may set their discussion in the context of
the fighting that had already begun between Zionists and the Arab League even before the
British left and the state of Israel was declared. They may refer to immediate
consequences of the fighting such as the casualties, the razing of Arab towns and villages
within Israel, the defeats inflicted on the Arab League forces, the agreement of cease-fires
with Egypt and Syria (but not Iraq). Candidates may point out that there was no formal
peace and that therefore the wars of 1956 and 1967 can be seen as continuations of the
conflict. Candidates may point out that Israel at the end of the war was larger than that
envisaged by the UN partition proposal and that the remnants of the Palestinian state were
effectively taken over by Egypt and Transjordan. There was also the plight of the
approximately 1 million Palestinian refugees that remained a destabilizing element in the
Middle East. Candidates may also point to the consequences for the Arab states that faced
internal instability. Candidates may make links between the war and political developments
in these states.
29
To what extent have the violent actions of some Palestinians been the main obstacle
to the establishment of a Palestinian state?
No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to address the question.
Candidates must deal adequately with the given factor even if they wish to argue that other
factors were as or more significant. In relation to Palestinian violence candidates may
discuss some of the following: the sporadic attacks of fedayeen in the 1950s, the actions of
Yasser Arafat and Fatah, raids in the 1960s, hijacks, Black September, the Munich
Olympics, the PLO in Lebanon, the actions of Hezbollah, the First and Second Intifadas,
the attitude and actions of Hamas, and so on. Candidates may argue that violence was the
Palestinians only effective weapon, that it brought the issue of the Palestinians to world
attention and made possible an eventual two-state solution (proposed by Arafat). However,
candidates may also argue that the impact of violence made settlement with the
Palestinians impossible. Others may argue that there were other obstacles to the
establishment of a Palestinian state, not least the attitude and actions of Israel and the
unwillingness of the USA to force a solution. Candidates may also discuss the policies and
attitude of the PLO, the significance of the Six Day War and Resolution 242. The issue of
the Palestinians was, of course, also bound up with the other causes of distrust and friction
within the Middle East.
55
F962
30
Mark Scheme
January 2010
Assess the reasons for United Nations military action against Iraq in 1991.
No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to address the question.
Candidates need to identify and analyse a range of reasons and evaluate their relative
significance and/or linkages. Candidates may point to growing concerns, especially in
Israel and the US, over the development of Scud missiles with the potential to carry
nuclear warheads, Saddam’s announcement of a new rocket with a range of over 1200
miles and the misspending of agricultural credits. Meanwhile the Soviet Union was
reducing its involvement in Iraq under Gorbachev and relations with Britain deteriorated
(eg over the so-called super-gun and the execution of a British journalist by the ‘butcher of
Baghdad’). However, the main issue was Iraq’s actions over Kuwait. Despite diplomatic
pressure from both the US and the Arab League Saddam did not back off from his threats
to Kuwait and in August 1990 he invaded, annexed the state (and its oil) and held
foreigners as hostages. Candidates may explain how the coalition against Iraq was built up
with the West, most Arab states and Gorbachev (unwilling and unable to intervene).
Candidates may suggest that it was the end of the Cold War that enabled the UN Security
Council to vote for an ultimatum. Candidates may argue that underpinning all the minor
and more obvious reasons to justify UN action was the question of oil supply security.
56
F963
Mark Scheme
January 2010
F963 British History Enquiries
Option A: Medieval and Early Modern 1066-1660
1
The Normans in England 1066-1100
(a)
Study Sources A and C
Compare these Sources as evidence for military campaigns fought by the
Norman Kings of England.
[30]
Both sources show that the kings relied on taking important castles. In both sources the
king of France is appealed to by the enemies of the English and in both peace is made. In
both members of the royal family are pitted against each other.
The sources differ in that in A the Bretons fought hard and defeated William I, a rare event
for the victor of Hastings, whereas in C William Rufus was successful, albeit through
bribery. In A William was even worsted by his son Robert. Similarly in A the intervention of
the French king was successful but in C he was bought off by Rufus. C has more to say
about the attitudes of the nobles some of whom wanted a peace made. Source A mentions
the corollary of war in France, an invasion by the Scots and the results of this.
Both authors are chroniclers who list and describe. They have similar attitudes to the
fighting, but A is more focused on the impact the events in France had on England,
whereas C shows the bad effects of the war in Normandy and the impact of land
ownership on both sides of the Channel. In terms of provenance A is Anglo-Saxon and C
is Anglo-Norman but both approach the campaigns from an English perspective. As an
Englishman, Henry of Huntingdon stresses the danger to England of the threat from the
Scots while the king is Normandy. William of Malmesbury is only referring to the Norman
perspective. Source A might be seen to provide a broader perspective.
(b)
Study all the Sources
Use your own knowledge to assess how far the Sources support the
interpretation that the problems arising from the linking of Normandy and
England were caused mainly by members of William I’s own family.
[70]
Sources A, C and D make it clear that Robert of Normandy was a troublemaker, leading a
rebellion and being cursed by his father in A, appealing to the French king for help against
his brother in C and being castigated as a rebel in D. In D he is also condemned for his
failure to keep order. Source B outlines the effects in England of William’s absence when
his regents, one of whom was his half brother, exploited their position. This evidence
agrees with the statement. But in C Robert lacked courage to resist so his threat may not
have been that serious.
Source C suggests there were other reasons, describing a civil war that lasted a long time
and showing that the nobles took advantage of the situation. But Source C also shows that
the nobles saw their interests were served by peace, In Source A there is intervention from
the French king, taking advantage of the situation and Source C supports this point. Also in
C the Scots were causing problems. Source D shows the problems inherent in the linking
of England and Normandy and the dual loyalties of the barons. There is a hint that Rufus
himself was less effective than his father.
Candidates could argue that despite the assertions in B, William I was a strong ruler in
both England and Normandy as D makes clear. Odo was later overthrown and Lanfranc
was a better regent. Candidates could refer to the role of Ranulf Flambard under Rufus.
The fear of the barons that they might have different overlords in England and Normandy
is backed up in the sources and candidates might argue that the greatest problems arose
in the period 1087-95 when the kingdom and the duchy had different rulers.
57
F963
2
Mark Scheme
January 2010
Mid-Tudor Crises 1536-1569
Royal Advisers 1540-1569
(a)
Study Sources A and E
Compare these Sources as evidence for relations between monarchs and their
advisers.
[30]
Focus: Comparison of two Sources.
No set answer is expected, but candidates need to compare the contents, evaluating such
matters as authorship, dating, utility and reliability, so using the Sources ‘as evidence for
…’. The headings and attributions should aid evaluation and reference to both is expected
in a good answer.
The Sources agree that the advisers of both monarchs were ambitious, ‘seeking their own
profit’ and with ‘projects’ the king wished to stop succeeding in Source A, and ‘if you think
to rule’ in Source E. Both Sources agree that monarchs had to deal firmly with advisers –
‘reproaching’ them in Source A and humbling Dudley in Source E. They also agree that
advisers did serve the monarch well: in Source A Cromwell is referred to as ‘the most
faithful servant’ Henry had had and in Source E Elizabeth has ‘many servants whom she
favours’. In Source A Henry is ‘gloomy’ and mistrusts his advisers, as in Source E
Elizabeth mistrusts Dudley. The Sources also agree that monarchs had the power to make
advisers afraid – Dudley was ‘so alarmed’ in E, perhaps because of examples like the
execution of Cromwell in Source A.
But the Sources disagree concerning the extent of control monarchs exercised over their
advisers. Source A suggests that Henry had been persuaded to execute Cromwell by the
lies of Cromwell’s enemies, whereas in Source E Elizabeth is said to have deliberately
created parties and factions to ‘divide and rule’. In Source E the public reprimand is to
Elizabeth’s favourite, while in Source A, Henry’s reprimand is to the advisers who have
made him remove his minister. Contextual knowledge may be used to show
understanding of the comparison. Perhaps Henry is wishing to salve his conscience. His
annoyance at the Cleves marriage undermined Cromwell’s favour with the king, and the
Bill of Attainder against him was introduced under the king’s prerogative. Dudley was
Elizabeth’s favourite, recently made Earl of Leicester and a rival of Cecil on the Privy
Council, but she had no intention of marrying him, as he hoped, because he was a ‘mere’
subject. Both Sources therefore suggest that factional rivalry played a part in the
relationship between monarchs and their advisers.
The provenance of the Sources may be used to determine which is more useful or reliable
for explaining relations between monarchs and their advisers. Neither Source can be fully
trusted. In Source A this is because of the nationality of the author and the context of the
Habsburg-Valois wars. As ambassador at a time when the Anglo-German alliance had
collapsed, he might be reassuring leading advisers, such as Montmorency, that Henry was
weak. Late in Henry VIII’s reign the conservative and reform factions were influential due
to his poor health and increasing age. Source E is written by a Stuart politician who was a
child at the time of the incident he describes. Source E might seem to be less useful
evidence as the assertion of Elizabeth’s strong control of her advisers has little factual
support except this one incident. In Source A there is more balance between an infirm king
who knows the good servants from the flatterers, and can act forcefully, as with Cromwell,
but can also be manipulated. No set conclusion is expected, but substantiated judgement
should be reached for the top levels of the Mark Scheme.
58
F963
Mark Scheme
(b)
January 2010
Study all the Sources.
Use your own knowledge to assess how far the Sources support the
interpretation that advisers could be trusted to serve royal interests between
1540 and 1569.
[70]
Focus: Judgement in context, based on the set of Sources and own knowledge.
Successful answers will need to make use of all five Sources, testing them against
contextual knowledge and evaluating their strengths and weaknesses, any limitations as
evidence. A range of issues may be addressed in focusing upon the terms of the question
but no set conclusion is expected.
The Sources contain references to both sides of the argument, so they may be grouped by
interpretation. The supporting view is shown predominantly in Source D and to varying
extents in Sources A, B and E, whereas the opposing view predominates in Sources A,
B, and E.
The supporting view is that Tudor royal servants helped establish strong system and
served the monarchy well. Source D suggests that at the start of her reign, as a young
female ruler, Elizabeth I trusts Cecil as hardworking, honest and discreet. Own knowledge
might add that he was an experienced politician and a committed Protestant to help her
implement a Church Settlement. However, at the time of the Source England was
religiously divided, and he had not yet been tested, so these are only Elizabeth’s hopes.
Henry VIII, in Source A, is reflecting on the loyalty of Cromwell, but his execution suggests
that Henry had previously felt he had failed him. In Source C, Renard himself is acting as a
loyal adviser of Mary, keeping Charles V informed should problems require his support for
her and his son Philip. Here the context is less typical, as the Spanish marriage has
caused factions at court to develop a xenophobic flavour unlike those in Sources A, B and
E. Some candidates might point out that factions were part of the normal running of all
governments. Dudley, in Source E, is humbled to be a loyal servant because of the
Queen’s forcefulness. But this may be Naunton’s attempt to make a contrast with the
weaker Stuart kings. In Source B, Somerset claims to be serving Edward VI by
encouraging the common people to rise in support of the Lord Protector, who is taking the
side of the people oppressed by the greedy gentry class, though the authors of the Source
see his action as undermining the monarchy and nation.
So the Sources also support the opposing view. Somerset’s claims are unconvincing as
described in the charges against him in 1549, made by his enemies on the Privy Council,
the authors of Source B. They blame him for political and social instability, though
knowledge of rebellions might be added to suggest other causes. In Source B he is said to
have acted against the King’s interests and for his personal ambition during the royal
minority. Knowledge of provenance might reveal the Privy Council’s own ambition, to oust
Somerset in favour of Northumberland, who might be added, from knowledge, to best
exemplify an adviser seeking power against the interests of the Tudor dynasty by placing
Lady Jane Grey on the throne in 1553. In Source C, Paget and Arundel are revealed to be
scheming against Gardiner, the chancellor. Paget is also out of favour with Mary and
cultivating Philip’s support, leading to factions and disunity in the Council, hence political
instability. The author, Renard, however, is Mary’s close adviser, so may not be objective.
Source A suggests factions had caused instability due to their schemes and personal
ambition, whereas in Source E, individual favourites are suggested as failing to prosper
under Elizabeth, who is fully in control of her advisers using the patronage system. A
supported overall judgement should be reached on the extent to which the Sources
accept the interpretation that advisers could be trusted to serve royal interests. No specific
judgement is expected.
59
F963
Mark Scheme
January 2010
Candidates are likely to consider a range of themes within the Sources: factional rivalry,
disunity, personal ambition, manipulation and loyal service. They are likely to set the
Sources within the context of strong or weak monarchies, perhaps due to age or gender. It
is up to candidates to assess and decide upon relative importance here, there being no set
conclusion.
3
The English Civil War and Interregnum 1637-1660
The Second Civil War and the Trial of King Charles I
(a)
Study Sources A and C
Compare these Sources as evidence for issues involved in the King’s
negotiations during 1647-8.
[30]
Focus: Comparison of two Sources.
No set answer is expected, but candidates need to compare the contents, evaluating such
matters as authorship, dating, utility and reliability, so using the Sources ‘as evidence for
…’. The headings and attributions should aid evaluation and reference to both is expected
in a good answer.
Both Sources are examples of the terms negotiated by the King. The provenance of the
Sources should be integrated into the comparison. There are both similarities and
differences in the terms discussed. In Source A, the King negotiates with the Scots to gain
their military support which he had already had earlier with the Solemn League and
Covenant, whereas in Source C he negotiates with commissioners sent by Parliament,
who are hostile and in a position of strength after his defeat in the Second Civil War.
Source A is signed by Charles I himself so is more reliable than Source C, which is a later
record of hearsay information perhaps justifying a husband’s involvement in the later
execution of the King. The purpose of the King in both sets of negotiations is to restore his
power. In Source A the Scots ‘will restore him to his government, royal rights and full
revenues’ and Source C refers to ‘terms they agreed for his restoration’.
Source A includes terms concerning religion: the King wishes ‘to preserve and establish
religion’ and Source C agrees ‘He would not give up the bishops, but only lease out their
revenues’. However, in Source A ‘Separatists and Independents will be suppressed’ and
the King will set up ‘a Presbyterian system for three years’, whereas Source C takes an
opposite view on bishops. Hutchinson is giving her husband’s view, that such terms
‘betrayed their whole cause’. Context might be used to explain the divisions which
Hutchinson shows, between those Presbyterians who wished to continue negotiations and
the Army officers who now took a hard line attitude towards the King as ‘that man of blood’,
complicating the process of negotiation in 1648. Source A records the treaty with the Scots
which began the Second Civil War, the basis of the charge that the King had caused
bloodshed by waging war against his people, and this charge seems to have been put to
him in Source C, which states that the King ‘acknowledged himself guilty of the blood spilt
in the late war’. His untrustworthiness is shown in Source C, by his request that this
concession ‘should not be used against him’. In Source A, he accepts Presbyterianism,
though himself a crypto-Catholic, and concedes valuable fortresses to the Scots, showing
his untrustworthiness.
Both Sources suggest that the King tried to use bribery to buy his restoration to power. In
Source A, he offers the Scots fortresses, ‘arrears of £200,000 and all the expenses of their
army in this future war’. In Source C he offers ‘great honours and offices’. But whereas in
Source C, Colonel Hutchinson’s view is that acceptance of the terms is ‘inconsistent with
the liberty of the people’, in Source A, Charles is claiming that his Engagement with the
Scots is to ‘defend the privileges of Parliament and the liberties of the subject’. Context
might be used to discuss this claim in the light of national and religious hostility between
60
F963
Mark Scheme
January 2010
the Scottish Presbyterians and the Independents in the Army and Parliament, who would
lose their liberty by the terms of the Engagement.
So the Sources are very different in provenance: authorship, date and context, but many
of the issues involved remain the same. In relation to the attempt to gain a settlement with
the King, Source C is better evidence, despite its unreliability. No set conclusion is
expected, but substantiated judgement should be reached for the top levels of the Mark
Scheme.
(b)
Study all the Sources
Use your own knowledge to assess how far the Sources support the
interpretation that the King was brought to trial because after 1647 he could no
longer be trusted.
[70]
Focus: Judgement in context, based on the set of Sources and own knowledge.
Successful answers will need to make use of all five Sources, testing them against
contextual knowledge and evaluating their strengths and weaknesses, any limitations as
evidence. A range of issues may be addressed in focusing upon the terms of the question
but no set conclusion is expected.
The untrustworthiness of the King was also a reason for his trial. Negotiations failed partly
because Parliament and the Army did not trust him to keep his promises. He also is said,
in Source C, to have tried to bribe the commissioners to get the treaty signed by
Parliament. This certainly supports his view in Source E that he was leaving behind a
‘corruptible crown’. His claim, in Source E, that he did not rule by the power of the sword
might be evaluated by cross-reference with Source A. By laying the foundations of the ‘cult
of King Charles the Martyr’ with his propaganda in Source E, he is trying to overcome the
view in the title.
There are two main charges against the King in his trial in Source D: firstly that ‘He
traitorously and maliciously levied war against Parliament’; and was ‘the author and
continuer of the unnatural, cruel and bloody wars’, ‘guilty of the treasons, murders,
burnings and damages to this nation caused by these wars’. Secondly, that he tried ‘to
erect an unlimited and tyrannical power’ and ‘overthrow the people’s liberties’. In Source E
the King protests his innocence saying that he did not ‘rule in an arbitrary way, to have all
laws changed according to the power of the sword’. Thus he refutes the second charge of
trying to create an unlimited and tyrannous power. He claims to have tried to protect ‘the
people’s liberty’ and ‘their life and goods’.
He denies that he acted in an arbitrary way. Cross reference might be made with Source
A, where he invites a Scottish army into England to restore him, but here too he claims to
be protecting the ‘liberties of the subject’. This claim might be evaluated in the light of
English views of the Scots and his promise to establish Presbyterianism for three years.
There is evidence in Source A that the King caused the Second Civil War by signing the
Engagement with the Scots, so the charge, which is repeated in Sources B and C, may
have some foundation.
But, on the other hand, the introduction to Source D shows that the High Court set up to try
Charles was created by a Rump of the Commons after Pride’s Purge in December 1648.
John Bradshaw represents this, and the King did not recognise the court. Thus the power
of the Army lay behind the trial of the King.
The king had escaped from Army control when he called in the Scots with the
Engagement, so Army power might be seen to lie behind this desperate move. However,
there were still those parliamentarians who wished to continue to negotiate with the King,
as revealed in Source C, and there was considerable debate in Parliament about the
61
F963
Mark Scheme
January 2010
acceptance of the terms negotiated by the Parliamentary commissioners in the autumn of
1648. The provenance of this Source is unreliable, as there may be a purpose of justifying
Lucy Hutchinson’s husband, and showing that the parliamentary cause would be lost if a
treaty with the King were signed. However, if it is taken at face value, pressure from the
Army played an important part in the decision to end negotiations.
As for the decision to bring the king to trial, Source B suggests that some parts of the Army
had prejudged his guilt. Source B reveals that some elements of the Army viewed the King
as ‘that man of blood’ as early as the Windsor prayer meeting in April 1648. The
‘reopened’ negotiations mentioned in Source C was unpopular with them, as it came after
the defeat of the King in the Second Civil War ‘after his defeat and capture’, and the repeal
of the ‘Vote of No Addresses’ which had originally been passed under pressure of the
Army in January 1648. Therefore the power of the Army had played a part in the ending of
negotiations, trying the king and finding him guilty. However, the author of Source B is an
agitator, writing long after the event, emphasising the danger of the Second Civil War. The
context of Source B is widespread revolts against the Army throughout 1648, so that may
suggest the Army was not so powerful at that time. Certainly this context hardened their
views of the king’s role in events.
A supported overall judgement should be reached on the extent to which the Sources
accept the interpretation that the King was brought to trial because after 1647 he could no
longer be trusted. No specific judgement is expected.
Candidates are likely to consider a range of themes within the Sources, such as the King’s
part in the outbreak of the Second Civil War, his untrustworthiness, the extent of his
defence of the law, the nature of his rule and the part played by the Army and the Scots.
They are likely to set the Sources within the context of events, such as the Vote of No
Addresses and Pride’s Purge. It is up to candidates to assess and decide upon relative
importance here, there being no set conclusion.
62
F963
Mark Scheme
January 2010
Option B: Modern 1915-1945
1
The Condition of England 1815-1853
(a)
Study Sources A and E
Compare these sources as evidence for attitudes towards improving the
condition of factory workers.
[30]
No set answer is expected, but candidates need to compare the contents, evaluating such
matters as authorship, dating, utility and reliability, so using the sources ‘as evidence
for…’. The headings and attributions should aid evaluation and reference to both is
expected in a good answer.
Both sources agree on the need for improvement, emphasising the need for some sort of
education, although E is vaguer (the 3 ‘R’s in A, an ‘increase of intelligence’ in E). They
also agree that the way forward is for factory workers to become ‘industrious’ (A) or to
work in E. However they differ on how best to do it. There is disagreement on what holds
workers back. The stress in A is on poor living and working conditions whilst in E it is
government restrictions on both trade and labour. For Bright trade barriers, monopolies
and factory reforms all deny workers the opportunity to find work. Similarly they disagree
on labour. Owen in A has ended child labour under 8 and although Bright in E doesn’t refer
to this he is adamant that all be given the opportunity or ‘liberty’ to work. The way forward
for Owen (A) is for employers to take responsibility, providing education from 5 to 10,
better streets and housing, restricting alcohol and ending the Truck System by effective
bulk buying and then selling at low rates. For Bright in E it is the free market which allows
both employers and workers to make individual choices (workers voluntarily deciding to
limit their work). Owen stresses the employer as the key, Bright both the individual worker
and employer operating in a free market.
These differences are explained by the provenance. Both are employers and mill owners
and perhaps significantly neither mentions better wages as the way forward, although
Owen does refer to the need to lower the price of necessities. Both are radicals and not
necessarily typical of their class, although Bright will speak for most of his type. There the
similarities end. Owen was a radical paternalist and early socialist who believed in
cooperation rather than competition as the basis for the new industrial society. In contrast
Bright was an MP and spokesman of the northern millowners who campaigned for Free
Trade and a society based on the principles of laissez faire, hence his stress on achieving
a free market as the means of improvement (‘markets of the world’, ‘liberty to work’).
Owen’s comments are based on social experimentation at New Lanark and he is keen to
use the experience to ‘prove’ his case – that cooperation will lead to workers who are
‘industrious, faithful and kind’. This may have led to some exaggeration of the beneficence
of his changes given that he is arguing a case in his book ‘New View of Society’. In
contrast Bright is talking of the economy in general. He assumes that improvement will
come not from employer paternalism but from individual effort, if only government would
‘give them the power’. Both are optimistic. There is also a difference in the dates. Owen is
talking of an earlier experiment, before the first proper Factory Act in 1833, whilst Bright is
opposing Graham’s Factory Act, the 3rd main instalment of workplace change, in a
parliamentary speech that is strong on rhetoric. Both are useful pieces of evidence on how
best to improve the industrial working class. Although there were other examples of
paternal millowners Owen may be less typical than Bright, although many employers may
not have taken Bright’s more theoretical view, preferring to stress profit.
63
F963
Mark Scheme
(b)
January 2010
Study all the Sources
Use your own knowledge to assess how far the Sources support the
interpretation that factories in the period 1831 to 1844 were places of
exploitation for all workers.
[70]
Successful answers will need to make use of all five Sources, testing them against
contextual knowledge and evaluating their strengths and weaknesses, including any
limitations as evidence. A range of issues may be addressed in focusing upon the terms of
the question but no set conclusion is expected.
The sources may be used in a variety of ways to assess the interpretation that factories
were places of exploitation for all. It is likely that candidates will see Sources B and D as
more supportive of this view whilst A, C and E are critical of it, pointing to Factories as
more positive places, the ‘best schools’ in the words of McCulloch in C. Evaluatively C and
E may be considered less credible given their abstract and theoretical nature (both are
referring to the economy). McCulloch in C is an economist who may well have less
experience than Bright and Owen (A and E) in the running of factories. However they too
have interests that lie elsewhere (Bright’s middle class radical campaign against
aristocratic government and the Corn Laws and his position as an MP; Owen’s trade union
and written work). B and D may be considered more useful given Horner’s hands-on
evidence as the key Factory Inspector a decade into his work, and the report of the Leeds
newspaper with a slightly better off readership in Yorkshire, yet whose tone appears
sympathetic to the cause of reform (‘aptly named little victims’, an acceptance of the case
that exploitation was prevalent).
The case against factories is mainly to be found in B and D. The Manchester
demonstration in B, organised by the Short Time Committees, was designed to stress the
cruelty of the system for children and thus implicitly for men as well. It deftly demonstrates
the experience of radicalism, the phrasing linking to an Anti Slavery movement that was
about to triumph in 1833 (candidates may refer to Oastler’s Yorkshire Slavery article) –
‘Am I not a brother and a man’. Children sing of the 12 hours they work and emotively
carry whips and straps. However this is obviously propaganda, milking a Manchester
audience for support and clearly succeeding. It is the sort of ‘exaggeration’ that McCulloch
in C complains of. Nonetheless the response and scale might suggest deeply felt
grievances with workers yet to learn to love the factory. Horner in D may be considered
better evidence given the provenance. It is based on much visiting and inspection and
although the true picture may have been hidden on occasions his comments command
authority and he was listened to by governments. However Horner does not comment on
children, confining his comments to adult labour. He does not necessarily accept the
argument that conditions and hours for men needed interference, but he is concerned that
the rise of female labour is based on abuse (their alleged physical incapacity and the
‘deterioration of their health’) and that this has an impact on adult men (neglected domestic
duties). He believes that women, as unfree agents, have been exploited as cheap labour.
Whilst not a supporter of 10 hours, he does consider 12 exploitative. Candidates could
also use Owen in A. Given that he refers only to his own experiment at New Lanark, one
can infer exploitation was common elsewhere (‘the practice of employing children…’; a
truck system that needed challenging, via his Cooperative movement, to prevent
employers controlling their workforce as consumers). Own knowledge could extend the
discussion here, pointing to findings in the reports of 1831 and 1832 and to the legislative
struggle before and beyond 1833. Candidates could also note that McCulloch admits there
is some foundation to these shocking reports and that ‘abuse’ is ‘certain’ in some factories
(and own knowledge may point to the older, smaller and more water powered ones by the
1830s and 1840s). Bright in E could be interpreted as a theoretical justification of worker
exploitation, given that no mention is made of wages and that labour shortages were
increasingly a thing of the past.
64
F963
Mark Scheme
January 2010
The case that hours and conditions were not necessarily exploitative for all can
mainly be found in A, C and E. Yet Owen in A is not referring to a typical factory and
candidates might discuss whether there were other model factories. He is certainly keen to
include children and adults in his improving measures. C and E carry the main weight of
the pro factory argument, as to be expected from wealthy men and employers who
invested their time and careers in advancing the cause of a factory based society
governed by the free market and self made men, offering the blessings and opportunities
of hard work. Clearly they are concerned to resist any attempt by government to interfere
via factory acts. However McCulloch was right to challenge some of the stories of
exploitation emanating from the factory reformers – professional cripples and the coaching
of witnesses by reformers was a tactic used in the early 1830s. Non factory labour
(workshops and agriculture) may well have been just as exploitative, and with worse
conditions for all, than the factories, the owners of which often felt unduly focused on.
McCulloch refers to ‘other classes’ and comments on the alternatives – beggary in the
streets and crime. He is convinced that the Factories especially have disciplined, ordered
and protected children. Bright in E shares this view although candidates could question the
reality behind his rhetoric.
He is short on evidence, long on claims (‘speedily make them independent’?). Could
workers look forward to the sort of means which would enable them to choose more
‘recreation and enjoyment’? Horner in D will not accept less hours for adult men whilst B
could be dismissed as unreliable anti factory propaganda.
The Sources provide mixed messages and much will depend on an evaluation of their
respective worth and the relative conditions prevailing in the variety of workplaces at the
time. There is much special pleading in all the sources.
65
F963
2
Mark Scheme
January 2010
The Age of Gladstone and Disraeli 1865 -1886
(a)
Study Sources B and D
Compare these Sources as evidence for the attitudes towards Forster’s 1870
Education Act.
[30]
No set answer is expected, but candidates need to compare the contents, evaluating such
matters as authorship, dating, utility and reliability, so using the sources ‘as evidence
for…’. The headings and attributions should aid evaluation and reference to both is
expected in a good answer.
The sources agree on the importance both of education and the 1870 Act, as to be
expected from two such advocates, but both have reservations. These are religious. Bright
in B is convinced that the Act was designed to enhance the role of the Church of England
and to continue a system of religious voluntary schools that favoured Anglicans. As such
the Nonconformists had long given up a demand for equity and instead put their trust in a
nondenominational system that would strip the Church of its pre-eminence in elementary
education, hence Bright’s hope that Board schools would be established everywhere and
voluntary schools induced to come under their control. This explains Bright’s frustration
that in many areas, especially rural ones, nondenominational Board Schools would not be
established and thus a choice not forthcoming for nonconformists. Barry in D partly
agrees but on different grounds, stressing those more respectable workers will want to
send their children to largely Anglican voluntary schools, possibly on grounds of snobbery
and class. He thus agrees with Bright that the Act in part advantages denominational
Anglican education but he considers this to be the fault of Nonconformists like Bright. His
argument is that by strongly objecting to fee payments for the poor to attend Voluntary
schools they confine them in effect to what is perceived to be a second class Board School
education. Where Barry in D disagrees is his view that the Act has dealt a huge blow to
the religious voluntary system, financially (no building grants and a failure to plug into the
local rates as an assured means of securing income) and religiously (the Cowper Temple
conscience clause allowing withdrawal and an enforced nondenominational religion to be
taught in Board schools).
These differences are explained by provenance. Bright, as a key nonconformist MP, is
denouncing the Act in a speech, possibly to a nonconformist audience. He represents
militant nonconformity, anxious to achieve religious equity with established Anglicanism
and his tone is evidence of this. In contrast Barry is more the educational expert and
Headmaster and, although he approaches it from an Anglican viewpoint, he is concerned
to make more thoughtful points about its impact. In part a little distance in date helps him.
In 1873 Bright, who resigned as President of the Board of Trade, is still the outraged
leader of thwarted Nonconformity whilst in 1874 Barry is more impressed with its secular,
nondenominational drift. He can see, as Bright cannot, that the Anglican Voluntary schools
will benefit from class distinctions (whether he approves is another matter) as better off
workers seek to segregate their children from the urban poor, destined for the Board
schools. On these grounds it may be the better evidence for more informed and balanced
attitudes 4 years into its operation and on the eve of an election that saw Bright’s
Nonconformists contribute to Gladstone’s downfall.
(b)
Study all the Sources
Use your own knowledge to assess how far the Sources support the
interpretation that the reforms of 1868-74 were designed to satisfy interest
groups which supported the Liberal Party.
[70]
Successful answers will need to make use of all five Sources, testing them against
contextual knowledge and evaluating their strengths and weaknesses, including any
limitations as evidence. A range of issues may be addressed in focusing upon the terms of
the question but no set conclusion is expected.
66
F963
Mark Scheme
January 2010
Sources A and in part B and E suggest that the reforms were intended to satisfy
liberal interest groups and that those groups played an important part both in their
occurrence and their drafting. These sources may be considered effective in their
contribution, coming as they do from a variety of liberal or moderate and reformist views
(Arnold from the vantage point of reason and justice, Bright from militant middle class
nonconformity and Matthews from a modern historian’s view with a close understanding of
Gladstone’s thinking). In contrast Sources C, D and in part B and E would suggest
otherwise – that the reforms were designed to attack vested interest wherever it might
be. They too come from a variety of liberal angles and provide a balanced view, Matthews
in E being a case in point. He provides a balanced account of the Trade Union reforms.
The satisfying of Liberal interests is seen in Arnold (A) who strongly suggests that the
key interest group to be appeased were the nonconformists, citing their influence on Irish
Disestablishment in 1869. Arnold would clearly have preferred a redistribution of property
rather than disendowment and cites liberal concepts of equity and justice. Knowledge
might support this. Gladstone, it has been argued, used Irish Church reform to unite a
divided Liberal party in the wake of the debacle over the 2nd Reform Act and to win the
1868 election. Not just nonconformists were pleased by Disestablishment. Radicals and
Whigs also united around it. However whether Arnold’s ideas were realistic is another
matter. Clearly Forster in 1870 tried to satisfy the nonconformists and the Birmingham
based National Education League over education but Bright in B and the League would
settle for nothing less than an ending of grants to the voluntary schools and a compulsory,
free, state, non denominational elementary educational system. They looked to his Board
Schools to do it and there is evidence that he thought he had done enough to satisfy them.
In E Bruce is clearly acting to address Lib/Lab concerns over Union legal status and funds,
thinking it achieved by the two acts of 1871. Matthews makes it clear that the Liberal
reforms intended to allow moderate peaceful picketing and negotiation, only to be
frustrated by conservative and restrictive rulings in the Courts. Knowledge might also be
used to demonstrate Whig interests (government posts and a more moderate Irish Land
Act) being satisfied. Other Liberal and nonconformist concerns were addressed over
alcohol, the aristocratic and patronage ridden army and over the principle of merit in
Universities, Civil Service and the Army.
The alternative view is provided in C, D and in parts of B and E – that far from
pandering to interest groups, Liberal or otherwise, the reforms took on vested interest and
indeed alienated key Liberal groups, notably the nonconformists, the Drink Trade and the
Lib/Labs of the respectable artisan upper working class with their newly formed TUC.
Bright in B is outraged by the apparent Anglican victory and candidates could point to
clause 25 and other loopholes that allowed rate subsidy for Voluntary schools via poor
pupils and became the later focus for nonconformist hostility. Far from satisfying those the
reforms seemed to ride roughshod over this particular ‘interest’. The Economist in C is
staggered at the Licensing Act’s treatment of both the brewers and the working class. It
stresses how bold it was to take on such a vital electoral interest. Gladstone blamed his
own second place in the Greenwich election in 1874 on this act – the torrent of gin and
beer! Barry in D can be interpreted either way – that the Liberals achieved a balance
between Anglican and nonconformist interests or that it was too concerned at economising
by not building Board schools throughout and therefore did advantage Anglicans whilst
simultaneously undermining their catechism. Matthews in E points to the lack of interest
Gladstone and the Cabinet (or was it lack of agreement) had over addressing worker
concerns over the Criminal Law Amendment Act. It would appear that the reforms were not
that interested in pandering to specific Liberal interest groups. They were prepared to live
with Union anger, something Disraeli was easily able to capitalise upon in 1875.
Sources A to D are all varieties of Liberal thinking and provide a mixed message as to the
focus of the reforms. Only A suggests out and out pandering to sectional interest and
Arnold stood somewhat aloof from mainstream Liberalism. The rest, including the historian
of Gladstone, Matthews, suggest a more mixed set of motives and, indeed, the
antagonism of some liberal groups, whether Nonconformist, TUC, Brewer or Whig Irish
landowner, to achieve retrenchment, reform, civic equality and justice.
67
F963
3
Mark Scheme
January 2010
The Fortunes of the Conservative Party 1900-1914
(a)
Study Sources C and D
Compare these Sources as evidence for attitudes towards Tariff Reform.
[30]
Focus: Comparison of two Sources
No set answer is expected, but candidates need to compare the contents, evaluating such
matters as authorship, dating, utility and reliability, so using the Sources ‘as evidence
for...’. The headings and attributions should aid evaluation, and reference to both is
expected in a good answer.
Content: Both Sources refer to Conservative opinion. But while Source C supports Tariff
Reform and the necessity of Food Taxes, Source D is opposed to both. Source C is
confident that Tariff Reform is the right policy, and claims that it is most successful when
discussed openly and vigorously. The emphasis is on Tariff Reform protecting British jobs.
But this argument does not play well with the Lancashire county association (Source D).
The Source claims that ‘Lancashire hates Tariff Reform’, and candidates might pick up on
the point that generally the cotton industry supported both free trade and low food prices.
According to Lord Derby, Tariff Reform has been a divisive issue in the party, especially
since the crushing electoral defeat of 1906, and now further failure in the two elections of
1910.
Provenance: Source C. The background is the General Election of January 1910, when
the Conservatives narrowly failed to defeat the Liberal Government. Austen Chamberlain
had taken over leadership of the Tariff Reform movement from his father Joseph
Chamberlain. Here, he encourages Balfour to continue with the controversial policy. As
this election was fought against the background of the crisis over the People’s Budget and
the House of Lords, one might wonder if Chamberlain is exaggerating the importance of
Tariff Reform in the minds of the electorate. However, at this stage, it remains true that the
supporters of Tariff Reform (‘whole-hoggers’) are still an influential group in the
Conservative Party. Source D. Nearly three years later, Balfour has gone, having initially
promised a referendum on Tariff Reform. Bonar Law has now withdrawn this offer. Hence
the anger in Lancashire. The source reference is local, but the dangers of a split in the
party are wider. Walter Long was a moderate supporter of Tariff Reform. But Derby hopes
he will respond to the danger. Soon after this, Bonar Law (always a ‘whole-hogger’) is
forced to abandon Tariff Reform. A good answer may not require all of this information.
The essential point is the potential split in Conservative leadership (and support) arising
from these differing attitudes to Tariff Reform. The dates are important in bringing this out.
(b)
Study all the Sources
Use your own knowledge to assess how far the Sources support the
interpretation that the issue of cheap food was the main reason for fluctuating
working class support for the Conservative Party between 1900 and 1914. [70]
Successful answers will need to make use of all five Sources, testing them against
contextual knowledge, and evaluating their strengths and weaknesses and any limitations
as evidence. A range of issues may be addressed in focusing upon the terms of the
question, but no set conclusion is expected.
Fluctuating working class support for the Conservative Party is much in evidence during
this period. After victory in the Khaki Election of 1900, the Conservatives faced many
difficulties in an era of increasing working class political influence. These problems
included: The unpopular policies of the Balfour Government 1900-1905. Electoral defeat in
1906. The domination of the Liberal Party 1906-1914. The rise of the Labour Party. The
House of Lords Crisis. Continuing splits over Tariff Reform (the issue of cheap food). The
68
F963
Mark Scheme
January 2010
problems of Ulster and Home Rule. And failure to oust the Liberals in the two elections of
1910.
And yet, as the modern historian suggests in Source E, the Conservatives continued to
enjoy an underlying electoral strength as the natural party of government. Despite the
Liberal reforms, and Labour’s rise, there was still strong support for the Conservatives,
even among the working classes. Certainly, the issue of cheap food weakened the
Conservatives because their policy of Tariff Reform was associated with dearer food, and
because not all Conservatives supported the policy. Nevertheless, for sound reasons, it
remained a Conservative policy for almost a decade. Besides, there were many other
factors for fluctuations in working class support.
Most of the Sources can be used on either side of the debate, although a likely grouping is
A, B and E questioning the centrality of ‘cheap food’ as the key factor in working class
political allegiance, C and D asserting its primacy. Source A clearly explains electoral
defeat in 1906 by reference to unpopular policies which alienated the working class (and
others). It points to the Conservatives being seen generally as the party of the rich and
selfish. However, ‘taxing the food of the poor’ is only one of the reasons given for loss of
working class support. Chinese Slavery (selfish imperialism) and Taff Vale (attacks on
trade unionism) are seen as equally important. In addition, candidates might suggest that
the Quarterly Review (a Liberal magazine) is presenting a one-sided case. It could be
argued that Joseph Chamberlain’s Tariff Reform campaign was a serious effort to deal
with the problems of Empire, trade and national efficiency. Furthermore, own knowledge
could provide examples of useful Conservative legislation appealing to working class
support. For example: the Education Act; Wyndham’s Land Act; and the Unemployed
Workmen Act. Balfour’s Government also introduced a commission to investigate the poor
law. However, there is no doubt that the Liberals won a landslide in 1906.
In Source C, Austen Chamberlain, who has taken over his father’s campaign, urges the
uncertain Balfour to stick with Tariff Reform, despite recent defeat in the January Election
of 1910. Its main thrust is to praise Tariff Reform, and to suggest that electoral defeats
have occurred when the party members were insufficiently bold and open about the policy.
Chamberlain’s optimistic view is that the working class could be converted to Tariff Reform
by an emphasis on the threat of unemployment rather than on the price of food. However,
he admits that Food Taxes may well have contributed to the party’s unpopularity with
workers: ‘dear food, black bread and horse flesh’. Candidates might point out that the main
issue in January 1910 was the House of Lords rejecting the People’s Budget rather than
the food issue.
In Source D, it is clear that ‘Lancashire hates Tariff Reform’ because of ‘Food Taxes’.
Derby, as leader of the county association, would be well aware of working class
discontent in Lancashire. However, as a member of the ‘shadow cabinet’, he has wider
concerns for his party. The Source concentrates on divisions in the party resulting from the
policy of Food Taxes, which are the main problem of continuing to support Tariff Reform.
The Source also implies problems of Conservative leadership following Bonar Law
replacing Balfour. Bonar Law stuck with Tariff Reform as long as possible. Balfour had
been more diffident, and had offered a referendum on the question.
Source B provides the clearest evidence against the assertion in the question. In the
Source, Sir Edward Stanley plays down the impact of Tariff Reform as an explanation for
Conservative electoral defeat in 1906. In particular, Stanley sees the rise of the Labour
Party (Lib-Lab Pact implied?), the strengthening trade unions, and the growth of working
class independence as the main factors in his own defeat in Lancashire. However
candidates might point out that Stanley (the Lord Derby of Source D) will change his
opinion by 1912, accepting the damage done to the party by the issue of cheap food.
Credit answers that make an effective provenance point here – B, as a private
conversation, may more accurately reflect Derby’s position than the letter to Long in D.
In Source E, the modern historian explains the broadening popular appeal of the party
despite all the difficulties of the period. The Source ignores the damaging issue of cheap
food. Instead, it explains the revival of working class support by references to Irish Home
Rule, Empire and Employment. The Conservatives were seen as patriotic; and this created
69
F963
Mark Scheme
January 2010
jobs, an important contrast in some areas to Lancashire’s cotton industry. They supported
the Empire against Little Englanders and Socialists. They backed Ulster. Candidates might
also point out that, in the second election of 1910, the Conservatives received more votes
than the Liberal Party, which now had to rely on Labour and Irish support to stay in power.
4
(a)
Study Sources A and B.
Compare these Sources as evidence for views about self-government for India
as expressed in 1931.
[30]
Focus: Comparison of two Sources
No set answer is expected, but candidates need to compare the contents, evaluating such
matters as authorship, dating, utility and reliability, so using the Sources ‘as evidence’
for….The headings and attributions should aid evaluation and reference to both is
expected in a good answer.
Content: A offers a view of a moderate and popular Indian policy in contrast to the view in
B. Churchill in B speaks of surrender, while A speaks of all parties cooperating to bring a
new constitution. There is no mention in A of the loss of trade which Churchill fears. In B
India is being abandoned to upper caste Hindus, but in A Muslims and Hindus are in
agreement and there is no reference to dominant caste politics. A sees the government
acting to meet the political hopes of India, but B sees ignominious surrender to Gandhi and
the ‘Brahmins’. Political liberties for all Indians are guaranteed in A, but the Untouchables
are being consigned to tyranny in B. A sees peaceful conditions, but by implication that is
far from the case in B’s view. B talks in terms of high emotion – ‘shame’ and ‘guilt’ but A is
the language of agreement and consensus. The tone is very different.
Provenance: A is a statement made in the calm of the House of Commons, pondered and
governmental. B is a rousing rhetorical speech in a large hall before committed Imperialist
opponents of self government for India. It appeals to emotion and self-interest in a way that
B deliberated avoids. A is from a government minister wanting to show progress for
moderation; B is from a political maverick, whose stance has alienated him from the
Conservative establishment and who rejects moderation and cross-party agreement. The
aim of A is to build agreement; the aim of B is to use extra parliamentary pressure to
wreck agreement. A is typical of moderate opinion on India, hoping to end the Congress
agitation and build on previous acts to share power. B is not very typical of Conservative
opinion, but entirely typical of Churchill’s willingness to take on establishments and pursue
anti-appeasement policies. A is useful for showing the calm tone of Macdonald’s
approach; B is useful for seeing how India led Churchill to the rhetorical excesses which
kept him in the political wilderness.
Some may judge A to be more useful for establishing the cross-party view of India
because B is so unrepresentative of all but a minority. Others may see B as more useful
for understanding the disagreements and for seeing that the tone of the opposition to
reform in India was not likely to be generally acceptable.
(b)
Study all the Sources
Use your own knowledge to assess how far the Sources support the
interpretation that Churchill’s policies towards India showed serious
misjudgement on his part.
[70]
Focus: Judgement in context, based on the set of Sources and own knowledge.
Successful answers will need to make use of all five Sources, testing them against
contextual knowledge and evaluating their strengths and weaknesses, any limitations as
evidence. A range of issues may be addressed in focusing upon the terms of the question
but no set conclusion is expected.
The debate here is whether Churchill was blinkered by his early experiences in India and
his determination to hold India at all costs and whether this led him to serious
70
F963
Mark Scheme
January 2010
miscalculation. There have also been suggestions that Churchill was blinded by racial
prejudice about India. So he has been seen as an out-of-touch imperialist who ruined his
career in campaigning against India reform and turned moderate Conservative opinion
against him, a misjudgement which made his criticisms of appeasement less effective
when applied to Germany. There is a view that Churchill was wiser in practice than in
making speeches, but he came in for a great deal of criticism for the governing of India
during the war – by Amery, the Colonial secretary and Wavell, the Viceroy and Source D
condemns him for the policy adopted over the Bengal famine. Source E attempts some
justification and Source C shows that as Prime Minister he softened the approach he took
to India.
The most critical Sources are A, C and D. Source A by implication shows that the press
and public opinion, and both Hindus and Muslims within India were prepared to come
together for moderate reform. ‘Some quarters’ – presumably Churchill and his die hard
allies – the extremists referred to in C cannot accept the consensus. However, a minister
in Benn’s position would want to stress the degree of unity about this issue. The tone of B
rather tells against Churchill here and the Imperial expert, Wrench, even at a time when
Churchill’s reputation stood very high in the early 50s finds the 1931 position that Churchill
took hard to understand. However this is a speech in a large hall to an audience likely to
support the reactionary views of the organizers and Churchill’s public and private views
were not always expressed in the same terms. Churchill after all had wide ministerial
experience and had been sympathetic to national causes in South Africa, Ireland and
Belgium, but he aligned himself with imperial extremists. The most damning criticism
comes from an Indian source (D) looking back on the Bengal Famine. However, this is
based on one family and the evidence is not given for British neglect. 1942 was a very
difficult year for Britain and there were some hard choices. This is a journalistic rather than
a historical account. It is also bound to be limited as it is essentially based on family
experiences. However, other sources do confirm widespread resentment about British
inaction. C has eye witness accounts of meetings with Gandhi and the Cripps mission of
1942; but whether Gandhi would actually in the end have been satisfied with dominion
status may be questioned – certainly on the basis of the limited evidence given here. India
and the Empire were causes of dissent between Churchill and the Americans and there is
some doubt about whether a post-war Conservative government would have given up
India.
Candidates may be aware of Churchill’s continuing commitment to an imperial role right up
to the end of the war. However Wrench (C) does offer some modification to the harsher
view. Churchill himself defends his policy in 1931 on humanitarian grounds, though the
sincerity and factual basis of this may be questioned. He was convinced that Congress
would oppress lower castes and, indeed, Muslims. This was actually the case in Congress
administrations after 1935 – at least in terms of Muslims. However, Churchill’s concerns
were probably more about preserving the Victorian empire and a belief in the importance
of trade links. Source E offers a justification in terms of eventual outcome, but this may be
questioned. By the 1930s there was a consensus for change as Source A shows, and a
gradual constitutional reform was seen as inevitable and more likely to prevent extremism
and communalism. In 1931 Churchill was something of a failed politician and may well
have played the Indian card with some irresponsibility. If subsequent events proved some
of his concerns to have some justification, then that does not entirely justify his position in
1931. In terms of both assessing the needs of India and of his reputation within his own
party and with the influential political leaders of his day, it could well be argued that
Churchill had misjudged and candidates are free to assess how serious this was.
71
F964
Mark Scheme
January 2010
F964 European and World History Enquiries
Option A: Medieval and Early Modern 1073-1555
The First Crusade and the Crusader States 1073-1130
1
The People’s Crusade
(a)
Study Sources A and B
Compare these Sources as evidence for the popular response raised by the
preaching of the Crusade.
[30]
Focus: Comparison of two Sources
No set answer is expected, but candidates need to compare the contents, evaluating such
matters as authorship, dating, utility and reliability, so using the Sources ‘as evidence
for...’. The headings and attributions should aid evaluation and reference to both is
expected in a good answer. A makes much of the divine nature of Peter’s appeal (‘little
short of divine’), in the context of his audience and of the enthusiasm generated; B echoes
elements of this but also points up the sense of a lack of control, an over-confidence, a
belief in success, all features, arguably, of excessive popular enthusiasm. Both focus on
the role of Peter; both imply receptive audiences, audiences waiting for a message. B
refers to soldiers as well as unarmed men, women and children, adding to the sense of the
range of appeal. The reference to palms and wearing crosses is of note. The tone and
language of both Sources can be engaged here. So, too, the provenances, and, given the
apparent hostility of the Byzantine rulers towards the People’s Crusade, the authorship of
B may be significant. Source B mentions Peter ‘inspired people’, the wide range of those
affected. The Source makes much of ‘palms and wearing crosses’ (links here to Palm
Sunday) and of the mass response. There is a strong sense of popular involvement.
Source A mentions ‘gifts’, ‘holiness’, ‘godlike’. Both point to a sense of the charismatic
popular preacher as well as to a mass longing for such a leadership with purpose. A
mentions ‘the common people’, ‘crowds of people’, while B mentions ‘unruly, difficult,
restless’ supporters.
Comments on the provenances will aid evaluation. Authorship is important. Both assess
from hindsight, Anna from a highly privileged Byzantine perspective which expresses
horror at the disorderly aspects of the Peoples’ Crusade and may well exaggerate this.
The gap in dates may be viewed as important. A comes from a reliable source and offers
insight while B, though later, comes from a source usually seen as critical of the crusaders
yet here having some positive comments to make. Sympathy and empathy in A, a more
cautious, possibly semi-critical viewpoint in B, can be assessed as well and the
provenances linked to the contents and their nature.
(b)
Study all the Sources
Use your knowledge to assess how far the Sources support the interpretation
that Peter the Hermit was an ineffective leader.
[70]
Focus: Judgement in context, based on the set of Sources and own knowledge
Successful answers will need to make use of all five Sources, testing them against
contextual knowledge and evaluating their strengths and weaknesses, any limitations as
evidence. A range of issues may be addressed in focusing upon the terms of the question
but no set conclusion is expected. The interpretation finds support in Sources C, some of
D and some of E, while Sources A, B, some of D and E point to other possible factors; D
says that the Emperor did send help in the end having neglected the crusade beforehand.
Source E presents an overview and sees some merit in Peter’s leadership and mentions
72
F964
Mark Scheme
January 2010
the nature, size and scale of the enterprise (linked to A and B) as well as sense of the loss
of control by Peter (as in C). Peter is seen as having an impact as a preacher and a leader
(A, B, E) but also as lacking the necessary qualities as a military and political leader
(especially in C and E). His role was important but there were other factors involved (E is
useful here), some related to his leadership, others less so (for example, the sheer military
power and ferocity of the Turks his force encountered). Apart from the issues of the
attitude of Alexius I, the Byzantine Emperor, and the nature of Peter’s leadership, military
factors are raised in C and D, and suggested in E. A and B point to the intensity of
responses to the call for a crusade. Source B does include the warning from the Byzantine
Emperor. Source C mentions Peter’s visit to Constantinople, and the Turks ‘full of glee’,
ready to attack. Source D also mentions Constantinople and conveys a sense of followers
abandoned to the Turks. The popular element of this Crusade was large but the force was
ill-equipped and ill-trained. Contextual knowledge can supply some details of the Crusade
and its fate as well as of the role of the Byzantine Emperor; this Crusade had flaws in
leadership, organisation, weaponry (Source A points to the advantages that princes and
nobles had in preparations, resources); there is a wider issue of the Byzantine response to
the presence of this Crusade, indeed of the Crusade as a whole. Source E gives a
succinct survey of some of the key ‘requirements for success’ and these can be
exemplified by reference to the problems encountered by the People’s Crusade. Peter was
a charismatic preacher, but he was no military leader. The peasant-based force he
gathered was transported into Asia Minor by Alexius I and, it could be argued, abandoned
there. The lack of control by Peter, evident early on, may be viewed as significant; so, too,
the very nature of this Crusade, as evidenced by references to its make-up in B and E.
Both B and D point to the attitude of the Emperor; the reference to ‘permission’ in D is of
note. The provenances of the Sources can add to analysis here; so, too, the tone, not least
of C (the Emperor rejoiced, survivors were disarmed). Candidates who make valid
comments on provenance should be rewarded. References to the Emperor in C and D
could be used to qualify the reliability of Anna in B who writes from a generally proByzantine stance. The author of C, as an ex-Crusader, might be deemed to have greater
knowledge of conditions those of A and B, whose eye-witness accounts may not have
been fully reliable. The time lag in B and D is also significant in assessing reliability. Topic
knowledge will add in points about (for example) the general attitude of the Emperor to the
Crusaders and about the military problems facing all crusaders as well as the Turkish
advantages in battle against unprepared, undisciplined opponents.
73
F964
Mark Scheme
January 2010
The German Reformation 1517-1555
2
Reactions to Luther and his Ideas 1519-21
(a)
Study Sources A and C
Compare these Sources as evidence for Catholic reactions to Luther’s
teachings.
[30]
Focus: Comparison of two Sources.
No set answer is expected, but candidates need to compare the contents, evaluating such
matters as authorship, dating, utility and reliability, so using the Sources ‘as evidence
for…’. The headings and attributions should aid evaluation and reference to both is
expected in a good answer.
The provenance of the Sources is a good starting point for a comparative analysis here.
The author of Source A is an internationally respected and influential humanist, thought by
some to have ‘helped him write his books’, though he seems to be trying to distance
himself from the association. On the other hand, the author of Source C is Pope Leo X, the
target of much of Luther’s criticism. Their authority is very different. Erasmus has
intellectual and theological authority but no official religious authority within Germany. The
audience of Source A is Albrecht of Mainz, who had aided the Pope in the sale of
indulgences, and a corrupt churchman himself whereas the audience of Source C is
Frederick the Wise of Saxony, Luther’s prince, whom the Pope hopes may be able to
suppress Luther’s heresy even though he lies in saying that Frederick has never favoured
Luther, opening the way for Frederick to distance himself from supporting Luther. This
would avoid further confrontation before the Bull ‘Exsurge Domine’ becomes final and
perhaps limit the damage to the Church: hence his purpose in writing to Frederick.
Erasmus, on the other hand, has the purpose of trying to save his own reputation from
being dragged down by Luther’s heresy from which he wishes to distance himself.
The Sources are similar, in that Source A says ‘All they can say is ‘heresies’, and Source
C shows the Pope, having declared Luther a heretic, complaining that he ‘ignores the
punishment of heretics, papal decrees and church councils’. Source A states that
‘churchmen publicly ridicule him with their crazed howling’, and the Pope, in Source C,
calls Luther ‘that son of iniquity’, ‘mad’ and ‘a scabby sheep who infects the flock’. Source
A suggests that his enemies wish only to catch and crush Luther, and similarly, in Source
C, the Pope suggests Frederick takes him captive to suppress his views. Erasmus, in
Source A mentions ‘the vicious venomous lies’ with which his enemies tear Luther apart,
and in Source C the Pope is claiming Luther believes only his own opinion, whereas in
Source A Erasmus states that Luther’s ideas are based on St Augustine, so the Pope
would seem to be unreliable.
The Sources therefore also differ. In Source A, Erasmus is suggesting Luther should not
be crushed, whereas in Source C the Pope is trying to suppress his views. Whereas
Erasmus sees Luther’s teachings as showing ‘brilliant sparks of Gospel learning’, the
Pope, in Source C, says Luther ‘perverts the faith’, a claim which Source A refutes as ‘they
are considered orthodox, even godly’ in St Augustine. Source A suggests Luther’s critics
are unlearned, and ‘have never read a word Luther has written’ whereas Source C is
written by the Pope, the fount of canon law and Roman Catholic doctrine, who has
selected particular errors by which Luther has ‘seduced the simple’. But whereas Erasmus,
in Source A, says that Luther’s enemies would prefer him to be a ‘dead man rather than a
good man’, Pope Leo, in Source C, is offering Luther clemency if he ‘returns to his sanity’.
74
F964
Mark Scheme
January 2010
Brief comments on context must be credited only in so far as they aid the comparison.
The recent publication of the Bull ‘Exsurge Domine’ urging Luther to recant within sixty
days has made it more urgent to make one final attempt to put pressure on Luther by
targeting his princely patron.
A supported judgement should be reached on their relative value as evidence. Source C is
a last attempt at persuasion by the highest authority in the Roman Catholic Church,
whereas Source A is a request for support from a leading German churchman in holding
back the tide of the attack on Luther and justifying him, to prevent Erasmus getting
tarnished by his previous association with Luther. They therefore represent the divided
reactions within Germany at this time. Both are useful as evidence for ‘behind the scenes’
views, but Source C shows more of the official face of the Roman Catholic Church,
asserting papal authority but also trying one last attempt at persuasion. No set conclusion
is expected, but substantiated judgement should be reached for the top levels of the Mark
Scheme.
(b)
Study all the Sources
Use your own knowledge to assess how far the Sources support the
interpretation that the main reason the authorities failed to suppress Luther’s
heresy was because he had influential supporters.
[70]
Focus: Judgement in context, based on the set of Sources and own knowledge.
Successful answers will need to make use of all five Sources, testing them against
contextual knowledge and evaluating their strengths and weaknesses, any limitations as
evidence. A range of issues may be addressed in focusing upon the terms of the question
but no set conclusion is expected.
The Sources contain references to different interpretations, so they may be grouped
according to their view. The supporting view is shown predominantly in Sources A, C, D
and implicitly E, whereas the opposing view features in Source B and explicitly in C, D
and E, though the reference in C is false and misleading in E.
The supporting view of influential religious patronage is in Source A, while political
patronage features in Sources C, D and implicitly E. Source C is an appeal to Elector
Frederick of Saxony who had not pressured Luther to recant and supported him.
Knowledge might be used to explain that the Pope’s attempt to bring Luther to Rome to
face trial had failed due to Frederick’s support for Luther’s trial within Germany, where he
had popular support. Frederick’s military influence is hinted at In Source D, by the
reference to defending Luther with a ‘military bodyguard’. ‘Support with their resources’
also implies Frederick, but in Source C, the Pope denies that Frederick has supported him
rather than accuse Frederick openly, due to his power in the Empire. The hint lies in the
‘lofty and dazzling dignity’ mentioned. The Pope had sent Frederick the coveted ‘Golden
Rose’ to try and gain his support for the papal candidate in the Imperial election in 1519.
Other princes are also said to have left Worms, in the introduction to Source E, before
Charles V feels able to issue the Edict of Worms, suggesting Luther had influential princely
support.
The Sources also support the opposing view. Source E shows that the most influential
patron in Germany, Charles V, did not support Luther and was attempting to suppress his
heresy. Knowledge might be used to explain the Emperor’s role as the political arm of the
papacy, but also to assess the extent of his influence over the princes of the Holy Roman
Empire. But though the Emperor is asserting that Luther is hated by all God-fearing
persons, he contradicts this by implying that Luther has been protected and supported, not
only by influential patrons but by the wider German public, who have published, bought,
read and sold his books. Knowledge of the part played by the printing press might aid
evaluation. However, Charles’ audience is the more compliant group of princes remaining
75
F964
Mark Scheme
January 2010
at Worms after Frederick and Luther’s other princely supporters have left. Charles’ hope to
ban or capture Luther remains in vain as long as his patrons and the German public
continue to support him, as perhaps shown by using knowledge of Frederick’s secret
‘kidnap’ of Luther for his own protection, his lodging in the Wartburg and safe return to
Wittenberg.
Further limitations of his support are suggested in Sources B and D. The author of Source
B is not a patron, but a Luther supporter, with pupils he may influence. He shows this by
his comment about ’wise, learned men’, suggesting that Luther may have some
theologians on his side, such as Erasmus in Source A, but he has not gained majority
support among the audience of his disputation with Eck. Erasmus at face value is
attempting to gain Luther the patronage of Albrecht of Mainz, but knowledge of his part in
the sale of Indulgences and his purchase of his office would suggest this is unlikely to
happen. Rather Erasmus may be trying to gain himself an influential patron to protect him
from association with Luther. Source C reveals that the simple folk, who are among
Luther’s main supporters, may be influential, though not patrons, and are a large group
who have been ‘seduced by him’. These are perhaps among the ‘god-fearing persons’, the
‘faithful subjects’ to whom Charles is appealing in Source E. Fear of civil war is always in
the background.
The provenance of the Sources should be integrated into the discussion. The authorship,
tone, audience and purpose of the Sources are particularly revealing, as shown above.
Supported overall judgement should be reached on the extent to which the Sources
accept the interpretation that influential patrons were the main reason why the authorities
failed to suppress Luther’s heresy. No specific judgement is expected.
Candidates are likely to consider a range of reasons within the Sources: the influence of
patrons, support from theologians, hesitation by the authorities to condemn Luther,
outbursts and lies which attracted support for Luther, the printing press, the weakness of
the Emperor and public adulation. They are likely to set the Sources within the context of
Luther’s condemnation for heresy. It is up to candidates to assess and decide upon
relative importance here, there being no set conclusion.
76
F964
Mark Scheme
January 2010
Option B: Modern 1774-1975
1
(a)
Study Sources A and D.
Compare these Sources as evidence for opinions about Robespierre.
[30]
Focus: Comparison of two Sources
No set answer is expected, but candidates need to compare the contents, evaluating such
matters as authorship, dating, utility and reliability, so using the Source ‘ as evidence
for…..’ The Headings and attributions should aid evaluation and reference to both is
expected in a good answer.
Content: Source A sees Robespierre as eloquent and a famous man whose speeches will
be read in the future. Source D sees him as puffed up with pride and not revered but the
butt of sarcastic comments by his fellows and of contempt by at least one member of ‘the
people’. Robespierre is not being ‘elevated to the sky’ by mercy in D, but rather by
eccentric delight in a pseudo-religious cult. The writer of A has affection for Robespierre as
an old friend, D writes in a hostile and ironic way (With what joyful pride! Which contrasts
with A’s ‘My dear Robespierre’). There is no suggestion in A that Robespierre has
theocratic ambition and D does not suggest that he has been excessively bloodthirsty and
severe in the way that A does. Robespierre’s popularity is directly mentioned in D and
rather more indirectly in A in which his writings are thought to be likely to be read by
posterity. A is a warning; D is a judgement. They both reflect criticisms of Robespierre
among the political elite – Source A by its nature of a warning and Source D by the
reporting of Robespierre’s mocking colleagues.
Provenance: Source A is a public article intended to be a clear warning against violence
and immoderation, a warning that cost Desmoulins his life, despite his friendship with
Robespierre. Source D is a public document, but not one that was so bravely written, as
Robespierre had fallen and was dead by the time it was disseminated. It reflects on his fall
while, in contrast, A is trying to prevent it. Both men were deeply involved in the politics of
their day– therefore these are political ‘insiders’. Note the dates – A is written before the
massive increase in terror which it failed to prevent; D after the terror which helped (see C)
to bring about Robespierre’s fall. A is still full of the revolutionary idealism typical of this
author, whereas D seems much more cynical in tone – with Robespierre’s idealism being
mocked and his popularity creating envy – however, note the rapturous crowds. In terms of
making a judgement about their utility, A could be seen as more useful from someone who
knew Robespierre or B could be seen as more useful as revealing more about
Robespierre’s actual rule. Neither is an objective source, but it could be argued that A is
more balanced. No set answer is expected.
(b)
Study all the Sources.
Use your own knowledge to assess how far the Sources support the
interpretation that the main reason for the fall of Robespierre in 1794 was
because his rule was dominated by the policy of Terror.
[70]
Focus: Judgement in context, based on a set of Sources and own knowledge.
Successful answers will need to make use of all five Sources, testing them against
contextual evidence and evaluating their strengths and weaknesses, any limitations as
evidence. A range of issues may be addressed in focusing upon the terms of the question
but no set conclusion is expected.
The debate here is whether the Terror brought the end of Robespierre, or whether it was
Robespierre’s potential to be a dictator based on his popularity with the populace together
with his increasing eccentricities and religious views. Did the easing of the external threat
make his extremism less necessary or was the key the split in the convention and the
77
F964
Mark Scheme
January 2010
committee about the irrational desire for Reason and the alienation of the propertied
classes?
A and C stress concerns about terror – one before it reached its height by a personal
friend and associate; C a private letter which does recognize the positive achievements –
so neither by a necessarily unsympathetic or counter-revolutionary source, but both
expressing concerns about violence. Neither may be typical – both are Paris-based and
both supporters of revolution. Provincial opinion may have been more strongly against
Robespierre and many may have found the Terror obliterated any good opinions about the
Committee of Public Safety. Candidates may use own knowledge of the terror to good
effect here. D and, by implication, B do not refer to violence but are evidence of unease
about the eccentricity and pseudo religious views of Robespierre. B seems quite
ridiculous with all manner of elements being celebrated on holy days. As a Decree its
authenticity cannot be questioned, but the extent to which it reflected opinion in both
government and country might be considered and how far it reflected aspiration rather than
reality. This might be linked to other manifestations of extreme change and perhaps too to
the association of Revolution with impiety and anticlericalism that fuelled provincial unrest.
The scepticism, therefore, shown in D may be typical and candidates might know the relief
in the Thermidor period when the fatuous processions, emblems and rhetoric stopped –
and of course the violence. What D stresses is the splits in the revolutionary elite by
1794 and candidates may know the background of the receding threat from invasion and
the reaction against the political murder of Robespierre’s previous opponents – Roland,
Danton etc. ‘Liberty what crimes are committed in thy name’ etc. E tries to balance but the
negativity of Robespierre’s political vision comes out strongly and this can be assessed in
the light of knowledge of the terror and the political in-fighting. The fanatical self-belief is
supported by D and the repression by C. The reliance on Robespierre on sans culotte
support in C may be picked up and linked to own knowledge of his rise and appeal and
also cross referenced to the envy shown in D.
2
(a)
Study Sources B and D
Compare these Sources as evidence for Cavour’s influence in Piedmontese
politics in the period 1851-57.
[30]
Focus: Comparison of two Sources
No set answer is expected, but candidates need to compare the contents, evaluating such
matters as authorship, dating, utility and reliability, so using the Sources ‘as evidence for
…’. The headings and attributions should aid evaluation and reference to both is expected
in a good answer.
Candidates are likely to highlight some of the following factors which may be described as
similarities or differences according to the emphases adopted by candidates. Both
sources refer to the limited popularity of Cavour and the impact this had on his political
actions. In Source B the suggestion is that Cavour adopted ‘fine liberal sentiments’ as a
way of reinforcing ‘public faith in his liberalism’ and in Source D his reluctance to reform
the press laws is explained by his ‘fear of lowering his own popularity’. The challenge
Cavour faced from the Right is stressed in both sources with Source B implying it was
increasingly confident to act independently of the government and Source D refers to a
swing to the Right in the elections of November 1856. The connubio is identified as a key
factor in Piedmontese politics with Source B explaining how Cavour created it and Source
D confirming Cavour’s continued reliance on it. The way French affairs impacted on
Cavour is referred to in Source B explaining how Napoleon III’s coup weakened the Left in
Piedmont, to Cavour’s advantage, and Source D explicitly demonstrates the influence the
French tried to exert and the support they enjoyed from the King which, by implication,
weakened Cavour’s position. Most are likely to agree that an obvious difference is the
position of Cavour for in Source B he is described as ‘in complete control’ but in Source D
his position is ‘seriously weakened’.
78
F964
Mark Scheme
January 2010
Candidates may claim the sources are reliable as they are both reports intended to be a
matter of record. On the other hand each comment contains an element of subjective
opinion. Candidates will consider the author of Source B to be either supportive or critical
of Cavour depending on their interpretation of the references to Cavour’s speeches and
the views expressed about the conduct of cabinet business. Either way the author was a
member of the Cabinet with direct knowledge of the politics of the time. The accuracy of
the comments of the author of Source D may be considered questionable as the views of
one observer only and those of an outsider. The utility of the sources may be considered.
Both provide an insight into the political manoeuvrings of the time and some may be able
to substantiate with reference to the division between d’Azeglio and Cavour in 1852 and
the rise of the Right in 1856 based on the anti-clerical policies of the previous years. Some
may identify the comments in Source D about attacks on the Emperor with disappointment
in Piedmont that France appeared reluctant to promote the Italian cause following the
expectations of the peace of Paris in 1856.
(b)
Study all the Sources
Use your own knowledge to assess how far the Sources support the
interpretation that Piedmont developed into a liberal state in the 1850s.
[70]
Focus: Judgement in context, based on the set of Sources and own knowledge.
Successful answers will need to make use of all four Sources, testing them against
contextual knowledge and evaluating their strengths and weaknesses, any limitations as
evidence. A range of issues may be addressed in focusing upon the terms of the question
but no set conclusion is expected.
How candidates define ‘a liberal state’ will determine the shape and direction of their
response. Many are likely to group the sources into those that suggest Piedmont
developed into a liberal state (Sources A, B and D) and others that suggest the opposite
(Sources C and E) although there is room for debate within most of these sources. Some
might adopt a thematic approach and consider the economic, political and religious
constituents of the liberal state. If so they may treat Source A as indicative of a liberal
trade policy. Sources B, C, D and E reflect the nature of political issues and Sources C
and E religious matters. There is scope for differences of emphasis in the interpretation of
these sources and the evaluation of their provenance
Tariff reform in pursuit of free trade, championed in Source A, was a basic element of the
liberal state of the period. Candidates should add details about the trade treaties agreed
with foreign states and the increased competition opened up in Piedmont. They could also
expand on the reference to ‘economic progress’ and explain how industry, agriculture and
transport were modernised in the 1850s. However, the fawning tone of Cavour’s remarks,
intended to win Cobden’s support for the engineer despatched to England, exaggerates
the strength of the free trade lobby in Piedmont especially as the argument for free trade
was not as secure as Cavour implies.
Candidates might argue that Sources B, C and D confirm parliamentary government – a
key feature of a liberal state – functioned in Piedmont. Further, the dominant politician of
the period, Cavour, is portrayed as committed to liberalism (Sources B and D) and
Source D makes it clear that a free press existed. Knowledge of the powers of Parliament,
the political manoeuvrings described in Sources B and D and the type of criticism directed
against the French Emperor referred to in Source D could be considered in support of
these points. On the other hand, some will detect traces of authoritarianism in all three
sources. Source B implies that cabinet government was undermined by Cavour’s actions
and dominance. In Source D the freedom of the press is considered of little worth in terms
of its influence. In Sources C and D the King appears to be conservative in his attitude to
Church reform and press freedom. Candidates may comment on the opportunism of
Cavour as a politician or the limitations of the Statuto such as the considerable powers of
79
F964
Mark Scheme
January 2010
the King which was why the proposed marriage laws referred to in Source B were
dropped. In December 1851 d’Azeglio was prepared to restrict the powers of the press to
appease the political right. In Source E Acton argues that the pursuit of ‘the greatness of
the State’ was more important to Cavour than ‘the liberty of the people’: candidates could
refer to the events of 1859-61. The charge that freedom was alien to Piedmont could be
explored by comparisons with England, even America. The specific interests of the authors
of Sources B, C and D might be considered.
Sources C and E illustrate the move to a more liberal secular State. ‘The law on religious
orders’ mentioned in Source C refers to the closure of some monasteries. The King’s
opposition to the law is implicit in the source which was consistent with his religious
convictions, demonstrated in his hostility to the earlier marriage bill referred to in Source
C. Some may stress the Pope’s threat to excommunicate anyone supporting the reform to
explain the fawning tone of the King’s letter. Candidates might highlight the public anger
against the Pope’s intervention as an indication of the strength of liberal opinion in
Piedmont although loyalty to the Church, emphasised in the final lines, highlights the depth
of conservatism. At face value Source E views Piedmont as an illiberal state and there is
evidence to support certain accusations. D’Azeglio did introduce ecclesiastical reforms
without consulting the Church, most notably the Siccardi Laws of 1850. That ‘her
governments were profoundly hostile to the Church’ was true in so far as both d’Azeglio
and Cavour were resolutely anti-clerical. However, the author was a Catholic whose loyalty
to the Church could explain his opposition to the religious reforms of the period. Further,
Acton ignores Cavour’s pledge to allow a ‘free Church in a free State’. Despite this Lord
Acton was committed to liberty in the broadest sense so his views are not entirely
prejudiced.
80
F964
3
Mark Scheme
(a)
January 2010
Study Sources A and B
Compare these Sources as evidence for the right of South Carolina to nullify
the Tariff Law.
[30]
Focus: Comparison of two Sources.
No set answer is expected, but candidates need to compare the contents, evaluating such
matters as authorship, dating, utility and reliability, so using the Sources ‘as evidence for
…’. The headings and attributions should aid evaluation and reference to both is expected
in a good answer.
The sources disagree in every respect. Calhoun (A) considers nullification to be legal,
describing the exercise of the veto as ‘legitimate’ whereas Webster (B) states clearly that
nullification is ‘unlawful’. The justification offered for these positions differ too. Calhoun
argues that the Constitution was formed by the will of the States which is denied by
Webster who claims ‘the people erected it’. In similar vein Calhoun asserts ‘that no
authority is higher than theirs’ (the States) in contrast to Webster who states ‘the laws of
the United States are supreme’. To emphasise this further it is stated that intervention by
the General Government would mean ‘violating the Constitution’. In contrast, Webster
argues that resistance to ‘a law is treason which the US could not ignore’ implying that
interference in the internal affairs of a State is justified. Calhoun implies nullification is
vindicated to ensure liberty (first line) whereas Webster argues liberty is dependent on the
Union, hence his reference to ‘Liberty and Union’.
The evaluation of the differences should consider the debate about States Rights and the
impact of the Tariff. Calhoun was invoking some of the notions raised earlier by Jefferson
and Madison in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions respectively which were interpreted
by some as justifying nullification. The State of Massachusetts had consistently argued
against any concession to States Rights so Webster’s views are unsurprising. The Tariff
was resented in South Carolina because it was perceived to damage agricultural interests
and, by implication, was a threat to the peculiar institution of slavery. Candidates should
pick up on the vehemence of Calhoun’s hostility to the Tariff as ‘obnoxious’ and something
that ‘impoverishes us’: it was called ‘The Tariff of Abominations’ in South Carolina. By
contrast Webster considers the Tariff as ‘beneficent’ which can be explained because of
the protection it offered northern manufacturers. Calhoun appears to favour
accommodation with the General Government whereas Webster does not betray any
doubt about his position. This was in part because Calhoun was the newly elected VicePresident with an obligation to uphold the integrity of the Union (which explains his desire
for anonymity). Furthermore, Source A was written two years earlier when positions were
less entrenched than when Webster was debating. Calhoun was trying to explain a theory
whilst Webster was defending the status quo to an audience that was largely conservative
on matters of the Constitution.
(b)
Study all the Sources
Use your own knowledge to assess how far the Sources support the
interpretation that the Nullification Crisis threatened the existence of the
United States.
[70]
Focus: Judgement in context, based on the set of Sources and own knowledge.
Successful answers will need to make use of all four Sources, testing them against
contextual knowledge and evaluating their strengths and weaknesses, any limitations as
evidence. A range of issues may be addressed in focusing upon the terms of the question
but no set conclusion is expected.
81
F964
Mark Scheme
January 2010
Most candidates are likely to group Sources B, C and D as supportive of the interpretation
with Sources A and E providing the counter-argument. Sources C and D consider
nullification will result in the separation of South Carolina from the Union. Source C is
effectively an ultimatum and provides a deadline after which the State will form its own
government. Source D claims South Carolina is intent on secession. The reliability of both
sources might be queried as they are public statements intended to stake positions
unequivocally and to indicate the commitment of both parties to fulfil their duty; in the case
of the Convention to articulate popular sentiment in the State and in the case of the
President to show his determination to discharge his responsibility to uphold the Union. To
some extent both may be seen as bluffs as both challenge the other side to make the first
move: Jackson also appeals to the people of South Carolina by questioning the wisdom of
those leading them. The fact that Jackson was a slave-owning Southerner, with
sympathies for the South, might be assessed. However, candidates might argue that the
threat to use force, made in both sources, is convincing. Following the revision of the Tariff
in 1832 anger in South Carolina was widespread and radicals like McDuffie and Rhett in
the Convention were sincere in the position expressed in Source C. Similarly, Jackson
had just secured re-election for a second term so he was confident of a mandate to uphold
the Union and, as an army general with a reputation for firmness, there is little doubt that
he was sincere in his views. South Carolina was raising an army, as Jackson claims, if
only in anticipation of having to defend itself. Candidates may cross refer to Source B
which expresses similar concerns about the future of the Union even if they are less
explicit. This may be because in 1830 there was still room for manoeuvre on nullification.
At least Webster’s anticipation of a ‘broken union’ leading to ‘civil feuds’ suggests that he
regarded the nullification issue to be a threat to the existence of the United States. Some
may know that Webster retained an uncompromising stance on the issue till the very end
arguing strongly against Clay in the debates of February 1833 so allowing some cross
reference to Source E.
Sources A and E appear to refute the interpretation that nullification threatened the United
States if for very different reasons. It is clear that Source A does not see any contradiction
between nullification and the continuance of the Union. Calhoun clearly hopes for a
peaceful solution to the problem of the Tariff and only as a last resort does he envisage
applying a veto. Indeed, he is optimistic that the new President will address the concerns
of South Carolina if only, perhaps, because as the new Vice-President, he believed he
could represent the interests of the State directly in the White House. He does not refer to
the separation of the State from the Union. At this stage the notion of nullification was only
being defined as the introductory comments make clear so positions were more fluid and
open-ended than was to be the case later. Source E explicitly rejects the idea that South
Carolina ‘ever desired to become a separate State’ and as such refutes the interpretation
that the nullification crisis threatened the existence of the United States. Clay bases his
view on the impracticality of the State surviving out of the Union. Candidates might
consider the financial, economic, political and military difficulties independence would
create. In addition, Clay identifies a key weakness of South Carolina in that she lacked
support ‘across the continent’. Candidates should know that no other State, even those in
the South, supported her: indeed, many like Louisiana and Alabama publicly disowned her.
Furthermore, the hostility of public opinion, alluded to by Clay, might be substantiated by
the formation of so-called ‘Washington Societies’ of volunteers prepared to take action
against South Carolina. Clay’s pitch may be seen for what it was: an attempt to win
support for a compromise Tariff from both South Carolinians and nationalists, of which he
was one, by his appeal to history. As such, some may argue he was glossing over the
seriousness of the situation at a time when the Force Bill was being debated too.
82
F964
4
Mark Scheme
(a)
January 2010
Study Sources D and E
Compare these Sources as evidence for the effectiveness of the Nazi regime’s
attack on the Churches.
[30]
Focus: Comparison of two Sources.
No set answer is expected, but candidates need to compare the contents, evaluating such
matters as authorship, dating, utility and reliability, so using the Sources ‘as evidence for
…’. The headings and attributions should aid evaluation and reference to both is expected
in a good answer.
Content:
Similarities: Both sources are complaining of lack of success. Both refer to church
attendance and both refer to restrictions put in the way of religious education. Both refer to
the general absences from church services among young people. Both refer, albeit
obliquely in D, to the influence of the Church on opinion.
Differences: The obvious difference is that D is lamenting the continuing decline in church
attendances among the population as a whole, especially among the young whereas E is
lamenting the fact that, during war time, attendances are rising, again, apart from among
the young. D implies that the Protestant church is effectively stifled or paralysed by
rigorous Nazi activity whereas E is stating effectively the opposite, that the Church has
more manpower at its disposal and is able to exert its influence over opinion, which it is
unable to do in D. However, perceptive candidates might point out that in E the report
suggests that the Catholic rather than the Protestant Church is exerting more influence. D
refers exclusively to the Protestant Church whereas E refers to both Catholic and
Protestant churches.
Provenance:
There are obvious differences in the provenance and dates. D comes from a confidential
report from Protestants in peacetime after five years of the consolidation of Nazi power. It
comes from Bavaria where the Protestant Church was historically weaker, the Catholic
stronger. Bavaria was also more supportive of the Nazis. E is a summary of reports from
Nazi gauleiters in wartime where the effectiveness is questioned, especially amongst
adults. Both are confidential summaries of reports, not aimed at the public and therefore
inclined to be reliable, especially as both report negatively upon themselves. Both are of
equal value.
In terms of ‘evidence for’, candidates should highlight the differences between peacetime
and war time. The date of D is 1938, a time when the regime’s attacks on the Protestant
Church have had mixed success; The ‘German Christian’ movement has largely failed,
but, as pointed out in D, the regime has largely managed to woo youth away from Church
influence and hinder religious teaching. The whole tone and content of D implies
effectiveness.
In E, clearly the war time situation is fundamental. The date, mid 1943 is important. By this
time, the tide has turned and the war is going badly. As more and more Germans read
between the lines and realise this, naturally they turn more to the churches for spiritual
comfort in the wake of huge losses at Stalingrad. Clearly then, by this time, the regime’s
attacks on the Churches has largely ceased to be effective, particularly given the strain on
manpower that the Churches would not be subject to.
83
F964
Mark Scheme
(b)
January 2010
Study all the Sources.
Use your own knowledge to assess how far the Sources support the
interpretation that the Churches were willing collaborators with the Nazi
regime.
[70]
Focus: Judgement in context, based on the set of Sources and own knowledge.
Successful answers will need to make use of all four Sources, testing them against
contextual knowledge and evaluating their strengths and weaknesses, any limitations as
evidence. A range of issues may be addressed in focusing upon the terms of the question
but no set conclusion is expected.
In terms of grouping: A clearly suggests willing collaboration B suggests collaboration but
for different reasons; necessity rather than willingness. The content of C is rather
ambiguous, but collaboration of a kind particularly over the need to stamp out Communists
is implied. In opposition to this view D strongly suggests weakness in the face of the
regime, but not collaboration. E suggests clearly that not only have the churches survived,
but are not collaborating. The supporting argument therefore is supplied by A and C, and
the counter argument supplied by D and E Source B can be used to demonstrate that
there was collaboration, but not ‘willing’ in all areas.
There is much in the five sources to construct an argument around. Candidates should use
their contextual knowledge to evaluate the sources. The key element is to establish the
existence of ‘collaboration’ and the extent to which this was ‘willing’.
A shows clear collaboration, not in order for the Catholic Church to survive but because
the Nazis were welcomed as a violently anti-bolshevik force. However, this was right at the
beginning of the regime when the horrors were not yet apparent. It also comes from
Catholic schoolteachers rather then the Church per se. Moreover, the churches were not
alone in welcoming Hitler and fearing communists. Candidates can evaluate using
contextual knowledge. There was much common ground between the Catholic Church and
Nazi ideology over the issues of communism, anti-modernism in culture and the arts, antifeminism, and, to an extent, anti-semitism. Much can be made of B. The context of course
is the Catholic centre Party’s collaboration with Hitler in voting for the Enabling Law,
thereby effectively destroying democracy. Candidates may pick up on the word
‘collaboration’ in the source which the author suggests (ironically) would not be possible in
the future without the Party siding with Hitler in the vote. A clear sense of helplessness is
evident here. However, good candidates will question whether this ‘collaboration’ was
‘willing’, or whether it was done out of necessity. C Implies a form of collaboration. There is
continuing support for Hitler with protestations of loyalty, a misguided belief that he means
to keep his promise made in 1933 not to interfere with the Church and is being ignored by
the ‘little Hitlers’ There is the reference to ‘communists’ and ‘Marxists’ which can be crossreferenced with A. The source can be taken as a counter-argument against ‘willing
collaboration’. Contextual knowledge can be used to point out that the Catholic Church did
stand up and protest [Archbishop Galen, removal of crucifixes from schools etc] but only
did so when its own interests were threatened. D Strongly implies helplessness, and can
be cross-referenced with B, but not collaboration. Candidates should use own knowledge
to evaluate here .The traditional mainstream of the Lutheran Church succeeded in
breaking away from the German Christian Movement, and therefore did not collaborate..
However, this was at great cost as the content and tone of the source indicates. Though
there is no implication of collaboration here, let alone ‘willing’, there is evidence of passive
acceptance. E Clearly states neither ‘willingness’ nor ‘collaboration’. In fact, quite the
opposite. However this is after nearly four years of war when discerning Germans are
seeing through the propaganda and beginning to realise that the war might soon be lost.
Death and destruction post-Stalingrad would account for religious revival. Candidates
should point out the obvious differences between the relations between the regime and the
churches during peacetime and wartime.
84
F964
5
Mark Scheme
January 2010
The USA and the Cold War in Asia 1945-75
American Policies in Asia 1945-1950
(a)
Study Sources C and E
Compare these Sources as evidence for US strategies for the military security
of Asia between 1945 and 1950.
[30]
Focus: a comparison of Sources
No set answer is expected, but candidates need to compare the contents, evaluating such
matters as authorship, dating, utility and reliability, so using the Sources ‘as evidence for
…’. The headings and attributions should aid evaluation and reference to both is expected
in a good answer.
The Sources agree that the main strategy is ‘to rely on the people attacked to resist’ in
Source C, supported by the arming of South Korea to prevent border raids in Source E.
They agree that a defensive perimeter is in place to hold back enemy advance - the
defensive perimeter in Source C, and the thirty-eighth parallel in Source E. In both, the
US strategy is to work with the United Nations in a collective security system to prevent or
stop war. Both Sources agree that there are global considerations: ‘other pressing
problems’ in Source C and threats to independent nations in Source E. Source C says
that the USA cannot guarantee ‘other Asian Areas against military attack’, and this has
been shown to be the case in Source E, where mainland Korea has been invaded. Even
here the US makes no mention of using ground troops, only air and sea cover for the
South Koreans.
But the Sources also disagree. Source C prioritises Japan and the Philippines as part of
the chain of offshore islands of the ‘defensive perimeter strategy’, whereas Source E
refers to the invasion of Korea, on mainland Asia, an area which had received no US
military protection and was excluded from the defensive perimeter. This is shown by the
South Korean forces being armed for ‘internal security’ only and proving unable to resist
attack without US support now being supplied after the event. Source E suggests that the
Communists have moved from subversion to open war, whereas in Source C the enemy is
not identified, but a general global threat is identified.
Contextual knowledge may be used to show understanding of the comparison. Source C
is set in the context of America’s confidence being shaken by the ‘fall’ of China to Mao’s
CCP, creating a powerful communist bloc in Asia and public disquiet at home. McCarthyist
criticism leads Truman into a more active policy towards Asia and he may wish to prove he
has no communists within his administration. Nonetheless Acheson is concerned to put
limits on what the US can do in mainland Asia. By the time of Source E, the Cold War has
intensified and America has lost its nuclear monopoly after the successful Soviet nuclear
test in August 1949. NSC 68 has been secretly proposed in April, suggesting a tripling of
military expenditure and Truman is wishing to gain support in Congress in order to adopt a
more forceful policy.
The provenance of the Sources may be used to determine which is more useful or reliable
for explaining US military strategies. The author of Source C is the Secretary of State,
Dean Acheson, who had established the half-hearted ‘defensive perimeter strategy' and
failed to contain communism in Asia, a strategy he sticks with in C, whereas that of
Source E is the President himself, so Source E carries extra weight. Truman’s purpose is
to pave the way for a massive increase in funding from Congress for a more forward policy
to rescue his and America's reputation.
A supported judgement should be reached on which Source provides better evidence.
Source E is more useful and reliable in that it shows the strategy the President wishes to
adopt rather than the ill-advised exposure of US weakness by his Secretary of State in the
85
F964
Mark Scheme
January 2010
wake of the loss of China. However, Source E explains why the strategy in source C had
to be changed.
(b)
Study all the Sources
Use your own knowledge to assess how far the Sources support the
interpretation that US policy in Asia was weak in the period between 1945 and
1950.
[70]
Focus: Judgement in context, based on the set of Sources and own knowledge.
Successful answers will need to make use of all five Sources, testing them against
contextual knowledge and evaluating their strengths and weaknesses, any limitations as
evidence. A range of issues may be addressed in focusing upon the terms of the question
but no set conclusion is expected.
The Sources contain references to both sides of the argument, so they may be grouped by
interpretation. The view that US policy was weak, in achieving its aim to contain
communism, is based on the key argument that the USA became too reliant on its nuclear
monopoly, prioritised Europe and failed to realise the strength of Asian national
movements. This view is predominantly in Source B and to an extent in Sources C, D
and E, whereas the view that US policy was strong is in Sources A, D and to an extent
E.
The view that US policy was weak is stressed by Source B, that though US policy was
outwardly strong and aggressively imperialist, it was weak because it depended on the
atomic bomb to back the spread of western ideologies. It calls the US atom bomb a 'paper
tiger', the nuclear weapons underpinning defensive perimeter strategy boasted about in
Source A merely alienating local peoples. The view is that the USA would not dare use
atomic weapons again after the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945,
which might be supplied from own knowledge. Source C may be linked to this view,
suggesting ‘it is wrong to become obsessed with military considerations in Asia . . there
are other pressing problems’. Own knowledge might be used in evaluation: the USA had
made military cutbacks, as it had no tradition of taxation for the armed forces in peacetime. It prioritised defence of democracy in Europe. Source A talks of bases from ‘Alaska
to the Azores in the South Atlantic’ and other global commitments, and Source B, ‘to
dominate the world’. This point might be evaluated as 'US overstretch'. Source C suggests
that the USA has prioritised Japan and the Philippines within the Asian defensive
perimeter, omitting Korea. Own knowledge might be used of the policy of ‘model’
democratic states, a weak containment policy, as it depended on corrupt puppet rulers.
Acheson in Source C expects local peoples in Asia to defend themselves, 'we rely on the
people attacked to resist'. Sources B and D agree that 'Asian affairs will be settled by the
Asian peoples themselves'. Knowledge of the fall of China to communism by the time of
Sources C and D reveals the weakness of Truman's administration, especially Acheson's
policy. Source E supports the view in C that the USA felt they could not defend other
areas of Asia, and Source D is an example of American supplies to the Nationalists failing
to be sufficient to prevent the fall of China. Own knowledge might be used to develop this
idea, such as the misuse of aid to the Chinese Nationalists. This links to Source E where
US 'air and sea forces' are to cover and support South Korean troops but there is no
mention of US ground troops being sent except as part of UN forces, showing a weak
policy. Knowledge might be used of the involvement of the UN to shield the US from the
threat of a global nuclear war. Discussion of subjective provenance might mention the
anti-American standpoint of B and D, both members of the Chinese Communist
leadership, while the authors of C and E are Truman and his Secretary of State, much
criticised by Republicans and McCarthyists. Own knowledge of this and of strong Soviet
support for Communist China might be used to develop this view.
86
F964
Mark Scheme
January 2010
US weakness can be contrasted with the confidence and strength of the view in Source A,
which supports the view that US policy was strong. Source A takes a confident line
based on the US nuclear monopoly a few months after they had defeated Japan with the
dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It suggests that off-shore defensive
bases are all the strength needed for defence of Asia and the wider world, although it
assumes a willingness to use them (‘guts’). Own knowledge and provenance might be
used to evaluate this view - the USA had recently emerged as the stronger of the two
superpowers, but the subjective, outspoken tone of Source A reveals this as unreliable, as
the introduction mentions. This was a misplaced confidence based on the delusion it could
be had on the cheap. Source D might also be used for this argument, that US policy was
outwardly strong and aggressively imperialist, killing millions and removing freedoms by
supplying arms and aid to Nationalists in the Chinese civil war, although Chou En-lai is
clearly exaggerating US intent (annexation of China). Knowledge might be used to
develop this point - at the time of Sources C, D and E the USSR had its own nuclear
capability, ending the US monopoly. By 1950 also the USSR had formed an alliance with
Communist China, explaining the more aggressive policy forced on the USA in Korea in
Source E, though under a UN umbrella.
Candidates are likely to consider a range of themes within the Sources: strengths and
weaknesses of defensive perimeter strategy, reliance on the atom bomb and weakness in
cutting back US military forces, prioritising Europe over mainland Asia. They are likely to
set the Sources within the shifting context of the Cold War. It is up to candidates to assess
and decide upon relative importance here, there being no set conclusion.
87
F966
Mark Scheme
January 2010
F966 Historical Themes
Option A: Medieval and Early Modern 1066-1715
English Government and the Church 1066 – 1216
1
Assess the view that reasons for rebellion remained the same in the period from
1066 to 1216.
[60]
Rebellions happened at times across the period. They include those from 1066 to 1070,
1075-6, 1088, 1095, the rebellion against Stephen which ended in civil war, the Great
Rebellion of 1173-4 and rebellion against John from 1215-6. Examiners should not expect
equal treatment of all of these.
Some reasons for rebellion are seen throughout the period and, although they are not all
present in all rebellions, rebellions were multi-causal. Reasons include support for an
alternative ruler. This is seen in 1088 when Odo of Bayeux supported Robert of Normandy
instead of William II, in 1095 when the rebels planned to replace William with his nephew
Stephen, in the civil war in Stephen’s reign when some of the barons supported Matilda’s
claim, and in the 1173-4 rebellion where rebels supported Young Henry. The strength of
royal government was also a cause of rebellion: in 1075-6 Roger of Hereford balked at
William’s sending sheriffs to hear pleas on his marcher lands; in 1095 Robert of Mowbray
resented royal interference in his fief; one of the reasons for the 1173 rebellion was the
tension caused by 20 years of strong government and 40 years later, reaction to the
strength of Angevin rule was an important factor in the rebellion against John. Some
barons rebelled because of the problems caused by the continental possessions,
especially the difficulty of serving two different lords. This is seen in 1088 when barons
were faced with the prospect of serving Robert of Normandy for their lands in Normandy
and William II for their English lands, and from 1144 in Stephen’s reign. Continental
possessions caused other problems too, especially the heavy taxation needed to retain
them, a possible factor in the rebellion against Henry II, or to try to win them back, certainly
a factor in the rebellion against John. Behind much of this, throughout the period, lay
baronial self interest, the belief that barons’ rights were being undermined in some way, as
can be seen from some of the clauses of Magna Carta, and/or that they could win better
personal rewards from another ruler. However, there are also reasons which apply only to
specific rebellions. Those from 1066 to 1070 were reactions to the invader. The 1088
rebellion and that against Stephen were partly the result of disputed succession. The
rebellion against John was prompted partly by military failure abroad. The rebels of 1215
also arguably took up arms not only against Angevin government but because they wished
to enforce some regulation of the king’s rights. The best responses are likely to be
analytical examinations of a range of reasons, looking at both continuity and change, and
evaluating how consistent they were across the period. They will probably point to the
multi-causal nature of all rebellions but might also examine how far there is a change in
emphasis on particular reasons in different rebellions. Most candidates will deal with a
number of rebellions, analysing reasons and reaching a conclusion. Weaker responses will
probably do this sequentially, typically describing rebellions and then deducing reasons.
Least effective responses are likely to deal with only continuity or change and a very
limited range of rebellions.
Examiners must be open to alternative approaches. If in doubt, they should consult their
Team Leader.
88
F966
2
Mark Scheme
January 2010
'They were never fully in control of the English Church.' How far do you agree with
this view of the archbishops of Canterbury in the period from 1066 to 1216?
[60]
Most candidates will probably limit their answers to Lanfranc, Anselm , Becket and
Langton and this is acceptable as these are the only archbishops mentioned in the
specification. However, credit should be given for relevant reference to others such as
Theobald or Hubert Walter.
Candidates are likely to argue that there is plenty of evidence for lack of control over the
Church by archbishops of Canterbury. Absence through exile as in the case of Anselm or
Becket, or inability to enter England in the case of Langton, reduced the amount of control
they could exercise. There was also no unequivocal resolution of the primacy issue. There
was recognition of Lanfranc's personal primacy but as Thurstan of York's refusal to profess
obedience to Canterbury in 1115 demonstrated, this remained a problem. This was usually
resolved by the pope granting legatine authority to Canterbury but this was not automatic,
as when Henry of Blois was made papal legate instead of the archbishop. By the later
twelfth century, Canterbury's primacy did not confer much real power over the Church, and
at times both Canterbury and York were made papal legates in their own provinces.
Archbishops' authority was deliberately undermined by popes who wished to eradicate
primatial control in order to maximise their own authority over the Church and who took
advantage of the prevailing English situation to do so as occurred under Becket and
Langton. Popes also encouraged appeals to Rome (eg in Stephen's reign) which further
reduced archbishops' control. Archbishops sometimes suffered lack of support from their
own bishops. For example, Becket's quarrel with Henry II lost him the support of some of
his bishops such as Foliot. In Stephen's reign the divided government of the English
Church caused problems between Archbishop Theobald and Henry, Bishop of Winchester.
Henry II later took the opportunity to weaken Becket's authority by having York instead of
Canterbury crown Young Henry. Monasteries also created problems for archbishops as
they tried to free themselves from archiepiscopal control eg the Canterbury monks.
Good responses should examine a range of evidence, recognising that Canterbury's lack
of control was not consistent. Most candidates are likely to discuss the degree of control
exercised by Lanfranc, Anselm, Becket and Langton in turn before reaching a judgement.
Weaker answers may be characterised by partial treatment of just a few archbishops.
Examiners must be open to alternative approaches. If in doubt, they should consult their
Team Leader.
89
F966
3
Mark Scheme
January 2010
How far was the impact of the papal reform movement in England from 1066 to 1216
characterised more by change than by continuity?
[60]
The papal reform movement led to increased papal power and it is this which had an
impact in England. There was considerable change in the extent of the impact of the papal
reform movement. It had very little impact under William I and Lanfranc when William
refused to become a papal vassal and Lanfranc refused Gregory’s summons to Rome. By
the thirteenth century, the power of the pope had increased so much as a result of the
papal reform movement that Innocent III was able to impose an archbishop of Canterbury
unacceptable to the king, excommunicate John, place England under an interdict and go
on to suspend Langton, so demonstrating papal power over both the English monarch and
the church. There were also changes in the nature of the impact. In the reigns of William II
and Henry I its main manifestation was through the Investiture Contest which resulted in a
compromise in 1107 in which the king lost investiture with ring and staff. Under Stephen
the growing power of the papacy led to more appeals to Rome. At times the main impact
could be seen as attempts by popes to further their power by undermining primatial
authority, eg by making Henry of Blois papal legate or by supporting York against Becket.
At other times worsening relations between kings and their archbishops could be regarded
as the main impact: for example, relations between Anselm and Henry I deteriorated
because of the Investiture Contest and the quarrel between Becket and Henry II was
prompted partly by the papal reform movement’s encouragement of ideas of separate
ecclesiastical justice. It is likely that most candidates will examine these changes and
possibly conclude that change was more noticeable than continuity. Weaker answers
might tend to deal with the changes chronologically.
However, candidates might also argue that the impact of the papal reform remained
essentially the same throughout most of the period. It was characterised by increased
freedom of the church from royal control starting with Investiture Contest, increased papal
authority over the king, the archbishop and the English church as a whole, and, although
not consistently, at times throughout the period after William I and Lanfranc when it led to
poor relations between kings and their archbishops. Stronger responses will be aware of
both change and continuity and will evaluate the relative strength of each, reaching a
substantiated conclusion. Some might well point out that although there was much
consistency in the nature of the impact the emphasis was on different aspects at different
times.
Examiners must be open to alternative approaches. If in doubt, they should consult their
Team Leader.
4
‘Tudor rebellions were essentially the responses of local communities to local
grievances.’ How far do you agree with this view on the causes of Tudor rebellions?
[60]
It might be useful if candidates define ‘local communities’ and ‘local grievances’ to
distinguish between causes that had their origin in a village or town before spreading more
widely, and causes that were not particularly linked to local factors but owed more to high
politics and personal attitudes. An argument in support of the latter might refer to
dynastically motivated rebellions such as Simnel, Warbeck and Northumberland, or to
rebellions whose leaders had personal grievances, eg Northern earls, Essex, Kildare and
Shane O’Neil. Candidates are likely to suggest that rebellions that were mainly social and
economic in origin usually reflected local issues. Reactions to unfair or excessive taxation
in Yorkshire (1489), Cornwall (1497), Suffolk among several counties (1525), Lincolnshire
(1536) and Devon (1549), complaints about enclosures triggered the Kett and Oxfordshire
disturbances, and responses to biased local JPs and the conduct of county gentry led to
uprisings in Devon and Norfolk in 1549. It may also be argued that religious grievances
manifested themselves locally but were really a response to government policies that
90
F966
Mark Scheme
January 2010
affected the whole country. Disturbances in 1536 in Lincolnshire and Yorkshire, for
example, resulted from national policies and local circumstances; and similar cases can be
made for the Catholic reaction to reforms in Yorkshire and Durham by a reform-minded
bishop in 1569. Some rebellions, such as Wyatt and Tyrone, were actuated by a mixture of
personal and political motives and had their origin in local responses to national issues.
Candidates should demonstrate the interplay between local and national developments
and focus on similarities and differences in the causes of rebellion. Examiners must be
open to alternative approaches. If in doubt, they should consult their Team Leader.
5
‘English rebellions were far more successful than those in Ireland.’ How far do you
agree with this view of the period from 1485 to 1603?
[60]
Candidates should seek to compare the outcome of rebellions in England and Ireland
before reaching a judgement on the extent of success. Good essays will be aware that
while most rebellions failed, there were some successes in both countries – Tyrone O’Neil
in Ireland and the Yorkshire, Amicable Grant and Mary’s defeat of Northumberland in
England. Some answers might include Henry Tudor’s defeat of Richard III as it occurred in
1485. Several English rebellions achieved some of their subsidiary objectives eg taxation
was reduced in 1497, illegal enclosures reversed in 1537 and 1597, the Statute of Uses
repealed in 1540, religious reforms suspended after 1539 and the Council of the North
reconstituted in 1572. Irish rebellions had fewer successes and most failed to achieve their
main objectives. Tyrone recovered his dispossessed lands and received a pardon but lost
his title of ‘The O’Neil’. The other revolts resulted in the leaders’ deaths, military defeat, the
imposition of martial law and confiscated lands. Attempts to oust English settlers in some
of the plantations and preserve the Catholic faith were successful but Kildare, Shane,
Fitzgerald and Tyrone all failed to expel the English administration and garrisons. It could
be argued that the Irish forced English governments to spend a disproportionate amount of
time, money and resources in combating rebellions, which enabled them to frustrate
English aims of colonisation and conquest. Candidates should be rewarded for discussing
areas of similarity and difference and for evaluating successes and failures than for
explaining the reasons for successes and failures, which may be a characteristic of weaker
essays. Examiners must be open to alternative approaches. If in doubt, they should
consult their Team Leader.
6
Assess the role of the nobility in maintaining political stability in Tudor England.
[60]
The nobility was vital to the crown in maintaining political stability in Tudor England.
Candidates are likely to argue that many nobles served as royal councillors both in London
and at a regional capacity, as sheriffs, JPs, lords lieutenants, and as special
commissioners in the counties, and suggest how these officers upheld political stability in
the country. As leading landowners, nobles were also expected to arm their tenants and
servants to suppress disturbances and, when necessary, fight in royal armies. Nobles such
as Surrey, Oxford and Pembroke assisted Henry VII; Norfolk, Suffolk and Shrewsbury
suppressed rebellions in Henry VIII’s reign; Russell, Warwick and Grey led armies against
the Western, Kett and Oxford rebels in 1549; and Pembroke, Clinton and Norfolk dealt with
Wyatt and his rebels. Elizabeth similarly called upon Sussex, Clinton and Hunsdon to
combat the Northern Earls, and the Earl of Nottingham was called upon to arrest Essex in
1601. Better candidates should point out that not all nobles supported the crown and in
1485 several families presented a serious challenge to internal stability. However, the
Percy, Neville and Howard families declined between 1536 and 1572, especially in the
north of England, and only a small minority of nobles remained a problem in Elizabeth’s
reign. It may also be pointed out that the crown increasingly relied not just on the nobility
but the gentry and lesser landowners for keeping law and order in the provinces and
counties. These groups of people dealt with most local grievances and as town officials,
JPs and MPs, took a keen interest in maintaining stability. The clergy, judiciary and
91
F966
Mark Scheme
January 2010
monarchy might also be examined but it is important that candidates focus their answers
principally on the nobility. Examiners must be open to alternative approaches. If in doubt,
they should consult their Team Leader.
7
‘The aims and methods of Tudor foreign policy were characterised more by change
than by continuity.’ How far do you agree with this judgement?
[60]
Some candidates may well focus on either aims or methods but better essays should
examine both elements in terms of continuity and change. Some candidates may assess
Tudor relations with particular countries such as Spain, France, Scotland and Burgundy/
the Netherlands. Some might adopt a chronological approach though this may make
sustaining a synoptic analysis more difficult. The main aims behind Tudor foreign policy
were national security, trade agreements, continental expansion and dynastic alliances.
National security and trade agreements were consistently pursued although, if there was a
conflict of interest, trade yielded to political security. Keeping the Netherlands neutral or
out of enemy hands was also a consistent objective. To this end, France and Burgundy
were seen as England’s main enemies at the start of the period but had been replaced by
Spain at the end. Dynastic and marriage alliances were pursued by Henry VII, Henry VIII
and Mary, but less so by Edward VI and inconclusively by Elizabeth – although the latter
used her unmarried status as a pawn in foreign diplomacy. There were inconsistencies,
however, in the Tudors’ attitude towards war. Henry VII and Elizabeth avoided it if possible
but engaged in continental alliances; Henry VIII and Edward devoted much time and
money to waging war against Scotland and France; Mary was opposed to war but was
drawn into it by Philip. Religious reforms also brought changes in allies and foreign
commitments eg Anglo-Scottish relations. The best candidates are likely to explain the
more prevalent trends and account for changes in aims and methods. Examiners must be
open to alternative approaches. If in doubt, they should consult their Team Leader.
8
Which presented the greater threat to England’s security in the period from 1485 to
1603: Scotland or France? Explain your answer.
[60]
Candidates should focus on and assess both Scotland and France before reaching a
conclusion. Some answers are likely to compare the two countries thematically – perhaps
in respect of military and naval threats in peacetime and at war, the support given to
pretenders, claimants and English rebels, or the impact of making alliances against
England and often together (Auld Alliance). Some essays might assess Scotland and
France separately before reaching a judgement though this approach could restrict
candidates’ ability to demonstrate synoptic skills. The strong military, naval and financial
power of France, its desire to recover land held by England, the long-standing rivalry and
its commitment to the Catholic faith, might suggest that it posed a serious threat, and every
Tudor ruler went to war against France at least once. Better candidates, however, should
point out that there were long periods of peace and stability between the two countries eg
1492-1512, 1527-42, 1564-1603. Scotland though much smaller and less powerful than
France also presented a threat to England: it supported Warbeck, invaded northern
counties at will and had a long-standing arrangement with France of embarrassing English
governments. The deaths of James IV and James V after military conflicts weakened
Scotland but left it open to a French presence and capacity to intrigue against England,
which was not removed until 1560. Thereafter, Scotland did not present a serious threat.
Candidates may well conclude that both countries presented rather different threats, which
changed over time, before deciding in favour of one of them. Examiners must be open to
alternative approaches. If in doubt, they should consult their Team Leader.
92
F966
9
Mark Scheme
January 2010
Assess the ways in which Spain affected English domestic affairs during the period
from 1485 to 1603.
[60]
Candidates are likely to suggest that Spain had a considerable impact on English domestic
affairs but should also be aware that the nature of its influence changed over the period.
One approach that candidates might take is to look at each of the Tudors in turn and
comment on developments that led to continuity and change. Another would be to assess
the impact thematically. The main areas of discussion are likely to be political issues –
Henry VII’s alliance of 1489 against pretenders and the betrothal of Arthur (and later
Henry) to Catherine of Aragon; the influence of the Aragonese faction at court in the 1520s
and 1530s, and Charles V’s pressure not to proceed with a divorce; hostility towards Philip
in England in the 1550s at the court, council and parliament surfaced in Wyatt’s rebellion;
putative Spanish support for Mary Stuart and Catholic plotters. Religious issues –
pressure to remain a Catholic country after the break from Rome. This may have curtailed
Henry VIII’s reform programme, compromised Somerset, supported and aided Mary’s
restoration of the Church, influenced Elizabeth in determining the Settlement of 1559 and
her subsequent treatment of Catholics. Economic issues – trade links since 1489 with
Aragon and Castile, and from 1515 with the Low Countries. The collapse of the Spanish
Netherlands’ woollen trade had a severe impact on England’s economy in the 1550s.
English merchants traded extensively with Iberia until the 1580s and privateers became a
source of friction from the 1560s. The outbreak of the Dutch Revolt had a serious effect
and Elizabeth faced political pressure to intervene. Military issues – war with Spain
against France in 1542 and 1557 and against Spain from 1585 had serious financial,
economic and political consequences. Spain also intervened in Ireland in the 1580 and
1601 rebellions. Examiners must be open to alternative approaches. If in doubt, they
should consult their Team Leader.
10
‘The success of the Catholic Reformation in the period from 1492 to 1610 depended
mainly on secular rulers (emperors, kings and princes).’ How far do you agree with
this view?
[60]
Candidates should evaluate the contribution of a number of secular rulers to the Catholic
Reformation and decide how far any success was due to their efforts and how much to
other factors. Isabella and Ferdinand, Mary Tudor, Philip II, Ferdinand of Styria, Sigismund
of Poland, Rudolph II of Austria, and Albert, William and Maximilian of Bavaria, could be
usefully examined as secular rulers who advanced the Catholic Reformation in their own
lands. Reasons for their success could be attributed to the use of patronage, military
influence and political authority. Candidates might argue that some secular rulers who
were in a position to implement improvements did little to advance the Church’s revival.
Most German princes, Henry VIII, Francis I and the later Valois kings would fall into this
category, and criticism can be made of Charles V and Philip II, who constantly quarrelled
with the papacy. Candidates should compare secular rulers with other influences and
might well reject the title’s premise. For instance, they could argue that the papacy was the
key to the Catholic Reformation’s success, and illustrate the point by the negative and
positive contributions of popes during this period. They might point to the role of individuals
as members of the new orders or to reform-minded clerics, who were not secular rulers but
who had a significant influence upon them eg Canisius in Bavaria, Borromeo in Milan, Pole
in England. The work of institutions like the Council of Trent, the Inquisition and Index,
might be evaluated but better essays will focus on the term ‘mainly’ and might well
conclude that the successful impact of individuals and institutions rested on lay support.
Where secular rulers were weak or opposed to reform, little headway was made.
Examiners must be open to alternative approaches. If in doubt, they should consult their
Team Leader.
93
F966
11
Mark Scheme
January 2010
To what extent was the Catholic Reformation more concerned with continuity than
change in the period from 1492 to 1610?
[60]
Candidates can support or refute the proposition by examining a range of features that
contributed to the Catholic Reformation. It may be helpful to define ‘continuity’ eg retaining
key features, beliefs and institutions of the Catholic Church and faith. The Inquisition and
Index might be assessed to show how they repressed liberal ideas and censored
unacceptable views, such as those of Illuminists, Erasmians, Protestants, conversos and
moriscos. Attempts to reconcile Catholics and Protestants at Regensburg in 1541 resulted
in victory for the reactionaries led by Carafa who was intent on suppressing change. Even
the new orders struggled to gain respect and recognition from traditional monastic orders.
In education, biblical humanism, and its implicit changes to the way the Church interpreted
the Scriptures, was rejected in favour of scholasticism. The management of Trent’s three
sessions by Jesuits and Dominicans demonstrated the desire to defeat Augustinianism,
Lutheranism and Calvinism in order to preserve orthodox ideas, which was underlined by
the Tridentine Decrees. No provision was made for lay administrators and female
reformers and reforms to the Curia were slow to take effect and very conservative. There
are examples, however, of the Catholic Church showing a willingness to change. The
Church learned from Protestantism the value of preaching and the sermon in developing
the spiritual condition of ordinary people, and the benefit of advocating social welfare, the
use of the consistory in keeping discipline, and the role of seminaries in educating the
clergy. Candidates could refer to individual popes to suggest that the papacy was capable
of embracing enlightened ideas. On balance, candidates are likely to argue that the
Church was more conservative than progressive. Examiners must be open to alternative
approaches. If in doubt, they should consult their Team Leader.
12
‘The Inquisition and Index did little to advance the Catholic Reformation in the
period from 1492 to 1610.’ How far do you agree with this view?
[60]
Some candidates will agree and some disagree with the proposition. The focus of the
answer should be on what the Inquisition and Index set out to achieve, how far they
succeeded and assess their contribution to the Catholic Reformation during these years.
Most candidates are likely to assess the Spanish and Roman Inquisitions but the
Portuguese, Dutch and Italian city state inquisitions are all valid lines of argument.
Candidates should be aware that the role of the Index stayed constant from its inception in
the 1540s, when titles of forbidden works were proscribed by universities, to the Roman
and Spanish Indices which listed titles and authors. Revisions occurred periodically and
candidates could usefully discuss the impact of the Index upon Catholic ideas, education
and society in states such as Spain and Italy. Most candidates will probably spend more
time assessing the Inquisition. Under Isabella and Ferdinand, the Spanish Inquisition
tackled moriscos and conversos; under Charles V, Erasmians, Anabaptists and Lutherans
were targeted; under Philip II and Philip III, it focused on immorality, paganism and
moriscos in Spain, conversos in Portugal and Calvinists in the Netherlands. An argument
may be made that the suppression of heresy and strengthening of the Church owed a
great deal to the Inquisition. The Roman Inquisition similarly silenced Protestant
movements, dealt with cases of immorality, and maintained papal authority in several
Italian city states. A counter-view is that the Inquisition and Index were negative influences
and real advances were principally due to other developments, such as the Jesuits,
reform-minded popes, bishops and secular rulers who implemented the Tridentine
Decrees. For Levels I and II, however, there should be a good evaluation of the Inquisition
and Index, especially if the balance of the argument is on other factors. Examiners must be
open to alternative approaches. If in doubt, they should consult their Team Leader.
94
F966
13
Mark Scheme
January 2010
‘The nobility strengthened rather than weakened royal power in France in the period
from 1498 to 1610.’ How far do you agree with this view?
[60]
Candidates are likely to assess the ways in which the nobility contributed to or hindered
the development of the nation state, and the best answers will not stray from this path. The
nobility held key offices in both church and state and not only served the king but also
served themselves in the provinces. They led and raised armies during the Italian wars,
which strengthened the state, but the same troops were turned against the well-being of
the state and monarchy in the wars of religion. Nobles were royal governors, law enforcers
and administrators, and most under a strong ruler such as Francis I served the state very
loyally. A minority flouted the law, lined their pockets and disobeyed the king, at times
demonstrating how much harm they could inflict at all levels of society. Some candidates
may use particular noble families, such as the Montmorencys, Bourbons and Guises, to
illustrate their argument throughout the period or to distinguish between noble groups eg
nobles who were politically ambitious, princes of the blood, and those with strong religious
convictions. Candidates should be aware of the changing relationship between the nobility
and crown, most notably during the reigns of Francis I and Henry IV, when the major
families were subdued, and in the reigns of Francis II, Charles IX and Henry III, when they
exercised considerable political influence over the crown to the detriment of royal authority.
Some answers might include the role of noble women eg as a mistress (Diane de Poitiers),
a regent (Catherine de Medici) or as participants in the wars of religion (Marguerite
d’Angouleme, Louise de Montmorency, Jeanne d’Albret). Examiners must be open to
alternative approaches. If in doubt, they should consult their Team Leader.
14
To what extent did the French government overcome its economic problems in the
period from 1498 to 1610?
[60]
Most candidates are likely to discuss the state of royal finances during this period but
higher responses (Levels I and II) should explain some of the difficulties in industry, trade,
commerce and agriculture as well. In finance the main problems were the inefficient and
unequal tax system, tax farming and insufficient revenue to meet the state’s requirements;
long periods of foreign war and civil wars disrupted administration and increased crown
debts; and inflation was exacerbated by court affluence and patronage. Francis I
implemented reforms that centralised the system but did not tackle issues of corruption
and exemption. Henry IV could only begin to solve the difficulties caused by civil wars by
cancelling debts and gradually initiating reforms after 1598. The nobility and officiers had
the wealth and potential to invest in trade and industry but throughout the period showed
little interest as long as rentes, crown pensions and from 1604 the Paulette were more
profitable. Trade was in the hands of merchants who were heavily taxed and
disadvantaged when competing with foreigners. There were few improvements in
agriculture due to the depressed condition of the peasantry and disinterest among
landowning nobility who preferred to hunt over the crops. There was little investment in
industry and agriculture until Henry IV and Sully began to encourage state subsidies.
Population levels rose to 17 million by 1610 (largest in Europe), which put pressure on
urban employment and food supplies, and increased the likelihood of plague, poverty and
revolts. Local and regional opposition to a more unitary transport system and an
excessive number of tolls impeded the movement of goods. Overall the economy
remained a weakness in the nation state though there were some improvements, notably
under Francis I and Henry IV. Examiners must be open to alternative approaches. If in
doubt, they should consult their Team Leader.
95
F966
15
Mark Scheme
January 2010
‘The Catholic Church held back the development of the French nation state in the
years from 1498 to 1610.’ How far do you agree with this view?
[60]
Candidates need to assess how far the Catholic Church impeded the development of the
nation state. Weaker essays may focus heavily on the Wars of Religion as a prime source
of national disunity. Some candidates may discuss the impact of religious groups upon the
nation state from Francis I’s reign onwards, particularly in dividing the country socially,
politically and religiously, and the response of the Catholic Church to them. Some
candidates may see the Day of the Placards (1534) as a turning point in that thereafter
humanists, Lutherans and Calvinists were under attack and the goal of national unity (one
king, one law, one faith) disappeared. Some candidates will see this question in terms of
the Wars of Religion and may compare the attitudes of Catholics towards Huguenots both
during and after the civil wars. However, better essays will be aware that the Catholic
Church was a source of strength to the crown and to most French people for much of the
period. Of course, some candidates may point out factors other than the Church that
weakened the nation state. Reference to geo-political borders, language, customary and
Roman law, social and political disruption caused by civil wars, developments in
administrative centralisation and fluctuations in the authority of the monarchy, would be
valid areas of discussion in examining the development of the nation state. Examiners
must be open to alternative approaches. If in doubt, they should consult their Team
Leader.
16
‘The development of absolute monarchy in France owed more to Louis XIII than
[60]
Louis XIV.’ How far do you agree with this judgement?
The most successful responses are likely to compare the two rulers’ contribution to the
development of absolute monarchy in France. Candidates might assess them in respect of
their power and authority, their skill as politicians and statesmen, their qualities of
leadership in domestic and foreign affairs, their appointment of ministers and the success
of their reigns. An argument could be made that the extent to which they were absolute
rulers rested heavily upon the competence of their ministers but the question requires
more than a comparative evaluation of royal councillors. Some essays might compare the
absolutism of the two kings, however implicitly, by examining how well they dealt with
France’s problems. Among these, we can expect an assessment of their dealings with the
princes of the blood and nobility, their management of royal finances, councils and policy
making, how far they enhanced royal authority in the face of parlements and provincialism,
their relationship with the Catholic Church and Huguenots, and how well they handled
foreign affairs. Better candidates should be aware that the issues that faced French kings
changed over time (eg rising population and inflation, the decline of Spain, the problem of
the princes of the blood), though some continuity remained (eg financial system,
particularism, strong Catholic Church), and, of course, the personality and ambitions of
Louis XIII and Louis XIV were in sharp contrast. Moreover, Louis XIV was able to build
upon the achievements of Louis XIII and his ministers but just how absolute was the
monarchy in 1715 compared with 1610? Examiners must be open to alternative
approaches. If in doubt, they should consult their Team Leader.
17
Assess which minister contributed most to France becoming a major European
power in the seventeenth century: Richelieu, Mazarin or Colbert.
[60]
A case can be made for each of these ministers and much may depend upon how
candidates define ‘a major European power’. Some candidates may compare Richelieu
and Mazarin in terms of how they dealt with over-powerful nobles, the Estates and
parlements, raised money for war, administered the state and church, strengthened the
monarchy and waged war. They may suggest that Richelieu contributed more because he
solved the Huguenot problem and worked closely with the Catholic Church. He expanded
96
F966
Mark Scheme
January 2010
the army and navy, set up trading companies, reduced the power of the estates, humbled
the aristocracy, expanded the intendants and laid the foundations for victory in war against
Spain. Mazarin’s main contribution lay in negotiating beneficial terms at Westphalia and
the Pyrenees, which gained France lands in Savoy, Alsace, the Netherlands and the
Rhineland (1648) and lands in Luxembourg, the Netherlands, the Pyrenees and acquired a
claim to the Spanish throne (1659). A negative feature was the Fronde, which was partly a
result of his own unpopularity and financial mismanagement. Colbert’s claim lay in his
management of the economy, which provided the basis for France’s military achievements
under Louis XIV and the creation of Versailles. Revenue increased 400%, taxes rose 40%,
corruption was reduced in administration and by 1672, the budget was balanced. Unlike
Richelieu, he built up an effective navy of 300 ships and 4 new dockyards; improved road
and canal transport and revitalised textile industries. He pursued mercantilist policies
aimed at acquiring gold and silver bullion at the expense of the Dutch and English. He
regulated industries, founded trading companies, established colonies in Canada and the
West Indies, expanded the royal navy, maritime fleet and arsenals and naval stores.
However, he failed to reform the fiscal system, his law codes could not be enforced and
attempts to establish trading companies failed. A comparative synthesis is likely to
characterise the better essays. Examiners must be open to alternative approaches. If in
doubt, they should consult their Team Leader.
18
Which social groups in France gained most and which lost most during the period
from 1610 to 1715? Explain your answer.
[60]
Candidates should consider a range of social groups, assess in what ways and to what
extent they were affected by developments across the whole period, and explain why
some benefited more than others. The best responses are likely to organise their
arguments thematically according to either different social groups or to particular events,
and demonstrate a good awareness of continuity and change. The principal groups that
are likely to be examined are the nobility (and better candidates should distinguish
between different categories ie princes of the blood, noblesse d’épée, noblesse de robe,
noblesse de province), the clergy (Catholic and Protestant), merchants (perhaps those
engaged in traditional trades, as well as those in newer companies and industries), town
and rural workers (especially the urban poor, artisans and agricultural peasants).
Explanations for change and continuity in the condition of these groups may be found in
the growth of centralisation and administrative developments, long periods of warfare after
1635, an increase in taxation and size of armies, the growth of Paris and other large cities,
the creation of Versailles, economic developments and religious issues, such as the
Revocation of the Edict of Nantes. Candidates are not required to assess all groups or
every development in the period but they are expected to produce a balanced and
sustained comparison of different social groups before arriving at an overall judgement.
Examiners must be open to alternative approaches. If in doubt, they should consult their
Team Leader.
97
F966
Mark Scheme
January 2010
Option B: Modern 1789-1997
The Challenge of German Nationalism 1789 – 1919
1
Assess the view that the German people were more divided than united during the
period from 1789 to 1919.
[60]
Candidates should focus on the extent to which the German people were more divided
than united in this period. Candidates may argue both for and against this proposition.
Candidates may view the period from 1789 to 1815 as a time when the German people
became more united, geographically and in terms of aims. French domination helped to
modernize and consolidate Germany and sparked the first upsurge of German nationalism.
A popular uprising helped to drive Napoleon out of Germany in 1813. This common fight of
people from different German states against the French enemy gave strong impulses to
nationalism. The number of independent and semi-independent German states had been
around one thousand in 1790 (with between three and four hundred fully independent
units). Twenty-five years later only a little over thirty remained. Candidates may argue that
the German nation was very divided from 1815 as a consequence of decisions taken at the
Congress of Vienna, but could also argue that the German Confederation from 1815 did
loosely bind most Germans into a Confederation with a Diet. Candidates may argue that
the growing emergence of the nationalist movement after 1815 to the development of more
radical nationalism in the late Nineteenth and early Twentieth Centuries demonstrates an
emergence of national unity amongst the German people over this period. Candidates
may understand that there were significant divisions even within those who were
nationalist. Candidates may understand that the Prussian Empire in 1871 represented
Kleindeutschland and an enlarged Prussia. They may argue that it was a Prussian Empire
rather than a German Empire; it certainly did not unite all the German people even
geographically. The exclusion of Austria from the process of German unification may be
dealt with. Divisions within the German nation after 1871 might be illustrated through the
Kulturkampf and the rise of socialism, or the domination of the Reich by the elites.
Candidates may, however, argue that territorial boundaries rarely exactly match where the
people of that nationality live and that divisions within a nation based on class or culture do
not necessarily define the unity or otherwise of that nation. All modern nations have
exhibited such divisions. They could certainly argue that the German Empire from 1871
physically united the majority of Germans. Candidates may argue that the First World War
both united the German nation, at first, but that divisions soon arose and were entrenched
by 1918. Similarly, whilst Versailles divided the nation geographically it united the nation in
condemnation and bitterness.
Examiners must be open to alternative approaches. If in doubt, they should consult their
Team Leader.
2
How far do you agree that the development of German nationalism was mainly
dependent upon economic factors from 1789 to 1919?
[60]
Candidates might focus on the relative importance of economic factors within the
development of German nationalism in this period. Candidates should explain the
importance of economic factors on developments, for example the impact of the Zollverein
after 1834 in developing Prussia’s economic strength and Prussian leadership of
Germany. Candidates should understand how developments in the economy in the 1850s
paved the way for the military victories of 1864, 1866 and 1870 / 71. Military strength
depended upon economic strength however. ‘Coal & Iron’ rather than ‘Blood & Iron’ could
be usefully debated. The development of the railways may be seen as significant. The
impact of the extraordinary developments in the German economy after 1871 should be
discussed. Candidates must however show that they understand that economic factors
were not the sole factors determining the fortunes of German nationalism in this period.
For example, the Great War left Germany broken and half-starved despite the German
98
F966
Mark Scheme
January 2010
economic domination of continental Europe in 1914. Economic factors undeniably
contributed to Prussia’s domination of Germany from 1866, but opportunistic and skilful
leadership, especially by Bismarck, should not be overlooked. Candidates may wish to
place considerable importance on the diplomatic abilities of Bismarck both in terms of the
unification of Germany and his management of German nationalism. The development and
impact of ideas on the emergence and development of intellectual nationalism may also be
usefully explored. Candidates may argue that initially this provided the impetus or
springboard for later developments and that, in the Napoleonic period, it was the common
fight of people from different German states against their French enemy that gave strong
impulses to nationalism
Examiners must be open to alternative approaches. If in doubt, they should consult their
Team Leader.
3
‘Bismarck was much more effective in managing German nationalism than either
Metternich or Kaiser Wilhelm II.’ How far do you agree with this view?
[60]
Candidates should focus on how effectively Metternich, Bismarck and Wilhelm II managed
German nationalism. Candidates will undoubtedly be more successful if they define
‘effective management’ in their answer. Candidates might define the ways in which the
three were (or were not) effective: for example in controlling, harnessing or using
nationalism. Clearly all three had different aims and different circumstances, which could
enable candidates to make convincing cases for all of them. By 1848/49 no leader of the
nationalist movement with mass appeal emerged. From 1815 to 1848 the nationalist
movement was too weak to effectively challenge the Metternich System: arguably this
demonstrates Metternich’s effective control over German nationalists. Equally Metternich
fled Vienna in 1848, though his downfall was hardly dominated by German nationalism.
Many candidates may argue in favour of Bismarck because of his critical role in the 1860s
in the creation of the Second Reich; candidates may argue that he managed German
nationalism by hijacking the nationalist cause for Prussia’s ends. This too could be
considered effective management of German nationalism. Wilhelm II’s search for world
power was undoubtedly populist, mirroring the development of radical nationalism, but it
placed Germany in a vulnerable, dangerous position. The ultimate outcome of his policies
was defeat in the Great War and humiliation at Versailles.
Examiners must be open to alternative approaches. If in doubt, they should consult their
Team Leader.
99
F966
Mark Scheme
January 2010
Theme 2: The Changing Nature of Warfare 1792 – 1945
4
Assess the extent to which conscription enabled armies to succeed in war in the
period from 1792 to 1945.
The impact of conscription on warfare is not limited to the massing of larger numbers of
soldiers but this will probably form the bulk of the answers met. Conscription is applied to
warfare right at the start of the period by the development of ‘a nation in arms’ by France in
the early part of the Revolutionary Wars developing into more regulated conscription in the
later Revolutionary & Napoleonic period. This might be contrasted with the use of long
service professionals and mercenaries by the dynastic armies of France’s enemies. The
reaction of France’s enemies to conscription might include the tentative use of Frei Korps
and Landwehr by Austria or the traditional use of conscripted serfs by Russia’s long
service army. A good topic for discussion would be the development of the Krumper
system in Prussia after 1808. Candidates might note that Britain never embraced
conscription in this period and yet her army was successful. For the period of unification
the different systems used by the combatant powers might be examined. Generally
candidates will point to the superior organisation of manpower by Prussia and the resulting
large size of her army in proportion to her population. This was illustrated by the defeat of
France’s long service army by Prussia’s reservists despite superior French weapons
technology in the ‘Imperial’ phase of the Franco-Prussian War. The expansion of the use
of reservists in the last part of the 19th century is a profitable area for discussion. The First
World War is an obvious example where conscription played a key role in warfare. Note
that Britain used a long service professional army supported by Territorials at the start of
the conflict, replacing this with Kitchener’s army of volunteers and finally conscription.
WWII also saw the use of mass armies of conscripts but with more sophisticated
technologies in the hands of these soldiers with resulting problems in training and use on
the battlefield. The American Civil War falls into the mainstream of the debate, the north
having a preponderance in manpower.
Alternative explanations are possible and examiners must be open to alternative
approaches. If in doubt, consult your Team Leader.
5
How far did developments in command and control of armies determine the
outcome of battles in the period from 1792 to 1945?
No set conclusions are to be expected, but candidates must answer the question and
address the theme over the full period. The question prompts a discussion of the
organisation of war by the combatant powers and the control of armies during the period.
Napoleon was the first to develop a true general staff and this was taken to new levels of
effectiveness by the Prussian general staff of the middle and later part of the period. The
planning of WWI and WWII is an obvious case for discussion. Candidates might point to
ineffective command and control as a basis for argument, a good example of deficiencies
in this era was the armies of Napoleon III and Austrians in 1866 versus Prussia. The failure
of command and control might be a useful way to argue against the premise of the
question. The American Civil War fits easily into the debate. The impact of command and
control on the outcome of warfare can be discussed on many levels from grand strategy to
the tactics. Better candidates may balance these two factors against others, but a
discussion of the command and control of armies must form the core of the essay.
Examples of the outcome of battles being determined by command and control could be
drawn from the individual skills of a given commander in chief or from the use of command
and control systems or both. In the Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars virtually any battle
with Napoleon and the French staff system directing one side will apply, but of especial
interest might be Austerlitz. The allies eventually developed similar methods but examples
will have to come from later in the wars, the 1813 period would be useful but even then
100
F966
Mark Scheme
January 2010
Napoleon tended to win all of his battles. A good example of success using more
antiquated methods of command would be any of the Duke of Wellington’s battles. Of
course the Napoleonic system sometimes was found wanting, for example at Borodino or
Waterloo. For the battles of the mid century candidates should be aware that the size of
actions increased and had an impact on command and control despite developments in
this area, Magenta or Solferino in 1859 were both confused affairs. In 1866 and 1870-1 the
Prussian staff system brought their army to the battlefield with some efficiency but once
again many of the battles themselves demonstrated the difficulty of controlling armies
fighting in long linear formations, Konigsgratz is an example as are many of the battles of
the Franco-Prussian War although Gravelotte-St. Privat is of especial interest. The First
World War has many obvious examples on the Western Front, so too the Second World
War.
Alternative explanations are possible and examiners must be open to alternative
approaches. If in doubt, consult your Team Leader.
6
‘Industrialisation was most successfully applied to warfare in the First World War.’
How far would you agree with this view of the period from 1792 to 1945?
No set conclusions are to be expected, but candidates must answer the question and
address the theme over the whole period. The First World War is an obvious example of
the first conflict where the application of industrialisation to conflict was the key to victory.
This was partially due to the sheer scale of the conflict. Candidates might argue that the
long duration of the war, the size of the armies involved and the geographic spread of the
conflict meant that victory went to the side with the greatest industrial might. Alternatives
might be the Napoleonic Wars where one might argue that Britain as the first industrial
power played a key role in the conflict or that France was successful for much of the period
due to an emerging proto-industrial economy. Another is the Crimean War where the
industrial might of the Allies caused them to emerge victorious over an industrially
backward Russia – a power that played a key role in the final defeat of Napoleonic France.
Another alternative would be the impact of a newly industrialised Prussia on the conflicts of
the mid-nineteenth century. For later conflicts the Second World War might fit the
‘successful application of industrialisation’ in the title better than the First, i.e. that
industrialisation had a much wider impact on this conflict. The American Civil War can be
discussed by candidates, the industrialised North defeating the non-industrialised South
but the successful application of command in the question must be addressed in this
context given that it took time for the Union’s industrial might to overcome the
Confederacy. Candidates need to be aware of how industrialisation had an impact on the
successful waging of war in the period.
Alternative explanations are possible and examiners must be open to alternative
approaches. If in doubt, consult your Team Leader.
101
F966
Mark Scheme
January 2010
Theme 3: Britain and Ireland 1798-1921.
7
‘Revolutionary nationalism in Ireland consistently failed to develop mass support.’
How far would you agree with this view of the period from 1798 to 1921?
No set conclusions are to be expected, but candidates must answer the question and
address the theme over the whole period. Candidates may well agree with the question’s
proposition, citing the low numbers involved in Emmet’s rising (1803), Young Ireland in
1848, the Fenian Outrages in 1867, the Phoenix Park murders of 1882 and in the Easter
Rising of 1916. They could refer to the proscribed nature of Republicanism, their
preference for rebellion, assassination and risings, the secretive nature of their methods
and their violence, which was met with the same. The revolutionary tradition was one of
martyrdom (Tone, Emmet, 1916 etc.). They did not hold mass meetings; their oratory was
that of the scaffold, finance was a problem until they tapped into the Irish American
diaspora, whilst their policy of an independent republic lacked appeal in peasant Ireland,
until the Land League in the late 1870s made the connection with Alien landlords. They
also failed to gain the support of the Catholic Church pending the development of a
conservative and Catholic social policy in the 1910s. However candidates could also
challenge the view of ‘consistent failure’ with reference to the post 1870 period when land
issues were exploited by Davitt, especially the rural support gained during the Land war of
1879-82 (where boycott was preferred to violence). There was also more success after the
1890s in widening the basis of support through the harnessing of cultural nationalism (the
Gaelic Athletics Association was hijacked by the IRB for propaganda and recruitment
purposes). Connolly’s socialism made some headway amongst the Dublin working class
but it lacked a rural base, as did Griffith’s Sinn Fein. It could be argued that considerable
success came in and after 1917 following government mistakes (Conscription, Black and
Tans) and with a popular mandate for Sinn Fein in the 1918 election. Collins’ strategies
(the Anglo Irish War) and a comparison with Wolfe Tone may prove useful here, with the
careful targeting of the police and local authorities.
Alternative explanations are possible and examiners must be open to alternative
approaches. If in doubt consult your Team Leader.
8
[60]
Assess the view that Gladstone’s first Liberal government (1868-1874) was the most
important turning point in Britain’s relationship with Ireland in the period from 1798
to 1921.
No set conclusions are to be expected, but candidates must answer the question and
address the theme over the whole period. Candidates could argue that it did, citing
Gladstone’s unusual statement on hearing the news – ‘My mission is to pacify Ireland’,
followed by a PM focus on solving the issue of an ‘Alien Church’ (Disestablishment of the
Church of Ireland in 1869and its ending of the Protestant Constitution and the religious
ascendancy of the Anglo Irish establishment); the attempt in the 1st Land Act in 1870 to
address the legal issues (the three ‘Fs’) of Land and the encouragement of a more
inclusive ruling class via University reform in 1873. In support of this it could be argued that
Gladstone was under little pressure to introduce an Irish programme after 20 years of
relative indifference and that it inaugurated a focus on the issue that was to last until 1921,
by Gladstone and especially, but not exclusively, by Liberal governments in general.
However, candidates might take a different view, arguing that Gladstone’s 1st government
was entirely consistent with both previous and successive governments who remained
wedded to the Union. Gladstone could be seen as following the tradition of Pitt (who
wanted to stabilise the relationship and extend the economic benefits of Union) and Peel.
The latter’s government had also sought to bring the Catholic Church on board
(Maynooth). Peel’s Land Bill, following the Devon Commission, and the University Bill,
prefigured almost exactly Gladstone’s 1870 Land Act and University Bill. Gladstone in
1868 was therefore not a turning point, unless one stresses Disestablishment, which
102
F966
Mark Scheme
January 2010
neither Pitt nor Peel had wanted to adopt, although both had introduced Catholic
Emancipation, arguably a much greater turning point. It could be argued that Gladstone’s
2nd Land Act in 1881 and the Conservative ones of the 1880s and 1890s were of much
greater significance, whilst much could be made of the First Home Rule Bill in 1886 and its
successors in 1893 and 1912 as marking a much more important turning point in that it
represented a return to the pluralism of Grattan’s parliament in 1798-1800 and had
become the policy of all governments after 1912, to be applied both North and South post
1918. Another route for candidates would be to argue that reform within the Union
remained British policy throughout and as such the turning points lay at the beginning and
end of the periods (1800 Act of Union and the Anglo-Irish Treaty 1921).
Alternative explanations are possible and examiners must be open to alternative
approaches. If in doubt, consult your Team Leader.
9
[60]
How successfully did British governments deal with Irish land issues in the period
from 1798 to 1921?
No set conclusions are to be expected, but candidates must answer the question and
address the theme over the whole period. Candidates will need to grasp the significance of
Irish land issues in the period. Ireland was overwhelmingly peasant and agrarian outside
parts of Ulster and Dublin. One key issue was the legal basis of the land settlement in
Ireland. The British had imposed this in the 17th century, basing it on religious confiscation
and the concept of landlord supremacy in relation to his tenants. This in turn was opposed
by Irish tradition, Ulster tenant right, which effectively gave a form of dual ownership to
landlord and tenant. Such grievances fuelled much of the discontent in Ireland in the late
18th and 19th centuries and were increasingly harnessed by both constitutional and
revolutionary nationalism from the 1870s (the Land League). No British government sought
to deal with this before Peel in the 1840s (the Devon Commission and subsequent Bill),
Pitt seeing economic union and an efficient landlord class as the key to agrarian
prosperity. The Whigs in the 1830s had de-linked the Tithe from tenant payment to
landlord but had increased resentment of the latter that raised rents to compensate. Peel
had failed in the face of parliamentary landlordism, which remained entrenched well into
the 1870s. Gladstone sought to deal with tenant right in the 1870 Land Act but failed given
the loopholes. He had more success when confronted with a Land War in 1881 (the
Second Land Act which effectively granted dual ownership and a final recognition that
Arrears had to be dealt with in an 1882 Act).Until the 1880s it was Tenant Right and
evictions that were the focus. The other key issue was the backwardness of Land and it
could be argued that this was not dealt with until post 1880. Pitt and Peel were frustrated
by the failure of capitalist agriculture to emerge in anything other than moderate and
regional form (East and the Midlands). The West remained backward, overpopulated and
potato dependent, as the famine was to show. British governments dealt more successfully
with this following the agricultural depression of the late 1870s which rendered
Landlordism less powerful and more willing to embrace land sales and purchase schemes
offered by Gladstone, and the Constructive Unionism of Ashbourne, Balfour and
Wyndham. The latter, by providing loans for purchase at rates that were less than rentals,
effectively solved the Land problem in relationship to issues of ownership. Nonetheless
backwardness remained a problem. Both Conservative and Liberal governments in the
1890s and early 1900s poured money into marketing schemes and fisheries, with some
effect. The pattern would seem to be some success from the 1880s onwards.
Alternative explanations are possible and examiners must be open to alternative
approaches. If in doubt, consult your Team Leader.
103
[60]
F966
Mark Scheme
January 2010
Theme 4: Russia and its Rulers 1855 – 1964
10
‘The nature of Russian government was changed more by Stalin than by any other
ruler.’ How far do you agree with this view of the period from 1855 to 1964?
[60]
No set conclusions are to be expected, but candidates must answer the question and
address the theme over the full period. Candidates should focus on the phrase ‘the nature
of Russian government’ in their answers. Candidates may argue either for or against Stalin
as having changed the nature of Russian government most, but must do so comparatively
in the context of other rulers and leaders. Candidates may argue that the highly dictatorial
nature of the Stalinist regime justifies this view and are likely to support this by reference to
events such as the terror and the purges. Others may argue that this represented
continuity with the nature of much previous Russian government, even if the scale was
much greater. Many candidates may show awareness that some historians see great
continuity between Lenin and Stalin whereas others view Stalin as significantly different
from Lenin. This could be very usefully debated. Candidates may argue in favour of
Alexander II because of the emancipation of the serfs and his other reforms such as the
zemstva. Candidates may argue in favour of Alexander III because of ‘the Reaction’
though many will see this as a reversion to traditional autocracy. Candidates may argue
that the end of over 300 years of Romanov rule in February 1917 was the most significant
turning point in the nature of Russian government as it ended the 304 year old Romanov
dynasty, but may argue that ultimately this led to the replacement of ‘Romanov Tsars’ by
‘red Tsars’. Many candidates will undoubtedly argue that October 1917 and the triumph of
Bolshevism significantly changed the nature of Russian government as it crushed all
possibility that a liberal democracy might emerge in Russia. Candidates may argue that
Khrushchev’s secret speech of 1956 and his subsequent de-stalinisation marked a
significant change in the nature of Russian government.
Examiners must be open to alternative approaches. If in doubt, they should consult their
Team Leader.
11
Assess the view that all the rulers of Russia had similar aims in domestic policy in
the period from 1855 to 1964.
[60]
No set conclusions are to be expected, but candidates must answer the question and
address the theme over the full period. Candidates should focus on the phrase ‘similar
aims in domestic policy’ in their answers. Candidates are likely to want to argue both for
and against this assertion. Candidates may well argue that retention of power, whether
autocratic or dictatorial, and the crushing of opposition were priorities for all the rulers even
if some were singularly unsuccessful in achieving those goals. Candidates may well argue
that the modernisation of Russia was an aim for all the rulers, though candidates are likely
to differentiate between rulers such as Alexander III and Stalin in terms of motives and
extent. Candidates may however wish to argue that the communist rulers had very
different core priorities to the Tsars in terms of political ideology and social priorities; others
may contend that this should have been the case but that rulers, especially Stalin (though
some will also indict Lenin). Candidates may argue that the Tsars were not uniform in their
core aims; they are likely to see Alexander II as having different priorities to his
successors, citing emancipation and the other reforms of the 1860s in support. Candidates
may also argue that the communist rulers were not uniform in their core aims either; they
are likely to argue that Khrushchev had very different priorities to Stalin, citing destalinisation as support. Candidates may well understand that whether Lenin and Stalin
had similar aims is subject to historical debate.
Examiners must be open to alternative approaches. If in doubt, they should consult their
Team Leader.
104
F966
12
Mark Scheme
January 2010
Assess the view that the lives of the peasants in Russia did not improve in the
period from 1855 to 1964.
[60]
No set conclusions are to be expected, but candidates must answer the question and
address the theme over the full period. Candidates should focus on the phrases ‘lives of
the peasants’ and ’did not improve’ in their answers. Candidates may well consider how
valid the phrase ’did not improve’ is. Candidates may argue that some rulers, for example
Alexander II and Khrushchev made a sustained attempt to improve the lives of the people.
Some candidates may argue that despite the brutality, Lenin and even Stalin did do some
things that improved the lives of the people. Arguably the communists did much more to
introduce social reform, for example in the sphere of education, than the Tsars.
Candidates may also argue that there was little real improvement in the lives of the people.
For example, peasants were serfs under the Romanovs until 1861, but candidates may
argue that there was little real improvement and / or that collectivization was a ‘second
serfdom’. Before and after 1917 there was harsh treatment of the peasantry by both
regimes; ‘squeezed dry’ to finance industrialization. Famine hit, e.g. 1891, 1921 & 1932,
regardless of regime, although arguably Stalin’s denial of the famine of the 1930s made its
impact worse. Control over their lives, whether exercised through the Mir, the Land
Captains & the Kolkhoz was a common feature, although distinctions may clearly be made.
Candidates may use the systematic Russification of the non-Russian peasants both before
and after 1917 as another clear example of there being no significant change. Candidates
may also wish to argue that there were times when rulers did improve the lives of the
peasants, but that these improvements were most typically temporary rather than
embedded. For example, the peasants were given glimpses of reform, e.g. the Peasants
Land Bank from the 1880s, the Decree on Land in 1917 and the NEP from 1921. All of
these changes led to improvements, albeit temporary, in their living and working
conditions. Both regimes had a temporary Kulak policy under Stolypin from 1906 & under
the NEP from 1921-28 as peasants were encouraged to ‘enrich themselves’.
Examiners must be open to alternative approaches. If in doubt, they should consult their
Team Leader.
105
F966
Mark Scheme
January 2010
Theme 5: Civil Rights in the USA 1865 – 1992
13
To what extent did the aims of the campaigners for African American civil rights
remain the same in the period from 1865 to 1992?
No set conclusions are to be expected, but candidates must answer the question and
address the theme over the whole period. The weaker candidates will concentrate almost
exclusively on the various African American leaders and will probably not go beyond
contrasting the non-violent methods of Booker T Washington and Martin Luther King with
the more radical goals and methods of leaders such as Du Bois, Garvey, Malcolm X, the
Black Power movement and the Black Panthers. Weaker candidates are unlikely to have
much to say about civil rights campaigns after 1965 beyond observing that King was less
successful in his final years. The majority of candidates should be able to contrast the
limited aims of Booker T Washington – offering black co-operation with a white-dominated
society in return for economic gains – with the legal campaigns of the NAACP to secure
their rights under the 14th and 15th amendments and Martin Luther King’s high profile
campaign to abolish the whole Jim Crow system. They should also be able to contrast
these assimilationist goals with the separatism advocated by leaders such as Garvey and
Malcolm X. The best candidates will explain how changed circumstances, especially in the
post-war period enabled campaigners to pursue a more ambitious strategy than previous
leaders. They will also refer to the importance of grass-roots activism when writing, for
example, about the Sit-In campaigns and the Freedom Rides. The better candidates
should also be able to analyse the lack of coherence in the aims of the Black Power
movement and the Black Panthers as well as analysing the problems the civil rights
movement experienced in the 1970s and 1980s with controversy over bussing and
affirmative action and perceptions of continued police discrimination (reference could be
made to the Rodney King incident of 1992). High level answers will make effective
comparisons over the whole period, perhaps referring to the persistence of de facto
discrimination and the existence of a large underclass trapped in a cycle of poverty,
unemployment, poor housing in contrast to a prosperous black middle class which had
taken advantage of the changed attitude to racism and the abolition of de jure
discrimination.
Examiners must be open to alternative approaches. If in doubt, they should consult their
Team Leader.
14
‘The internal divisions within the trade union and labour movement in the USA the
most important obstacle to the progress of labour rights in the period from 1865 to
1992’. How far do you agree?
No set conclusions are to be expected, but candidates must answer the question and
address the theme over the whole period. Weaker candidates will probably refer only in
general terms to the divisions over membership between the Knights of Labor and the AFL
in the late 19th century, and the AFL and the CIO in the 1930s. They might also refer to
ethnic conflict between whites and blacks and between native-born workers and the new
immigrants of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Some weaker candidates may also
discount (or even ignore) the internal divisions within the labour movement and provide a
list of alternative factors without adequately comparing their importance. Many (perhaps
most) candidates, while acknowledging the divisions within the labour movement, will
concentrate their analysis on the other obstacles to the progress of labour rights. These
include the use force of by government authorities to end strikes (for example, President
Cleveland during the Pullman strike in 1894 or Massachusetts Governor Coolidge in
Boston in 1919), the willingness of the courts to issue injunctions against strikers under the
Sherman Anti-Trust Act, specifically anti-labour legislation such as the Taft-Hartley Act of
1947 and the Landrum-Griffin act of 1959, and the employers’ use of both yellow dog
106
F966
Mark Scheme
January 2010
contracts and violent strike-breakers (such as Pinkerton guards in the Homestead strike).
Most candidates should attempt some evaluation of the relative importance of these
factors in relation to divisions among workers.
Better candidates will be able to analyse how far labour divisions were exacerbated by a
climate in the USA hostile to the progress of labour movements and point out that this
climate was, in part, the result of extremist labour movements (such as the Molly Maguires
or the Wobblies) but that it also made it easy for employers and governments to associate
trade unionism with socialism and communism, thereby undermining middle class
sympathy for workers. High level candidates will be aware that the arguments within the
labour movement extended beyond union membership and tactics and were bedevilled by
divisions over race, class, religion and gender. They will provide intelligently selected
examples to illustrate these divisions. High calibre candidates might, as well as analysing
these divisions and the obstacles, point out that the progress of labour rights depended
crucially on the support of the federal government (as in the New Deal and the JFK-LBJ
years). They will also be able to analyse the importance of wider economic conditions,
especially in explaining the decline of trade union power since the 1950s.
Examiners must be open to alternative approaches. If in doubt, they should consult their
Team Leader.
15
‘The Indian Reorganization Act in the New Deal was the most important turning
point in the development of Native American civil rights in the USA in the period
from 1865 to 1992.’ How far do you agree with this view?
No set conclusions are to be expected, but candidates must answer the question and
address the theme over the whole period. Most candidates will agree with this statement
and point out that the Indian New Deal replaced forced assimilation with respect for Indian
culture and customs which, arguably, has persisted to the present. Furthermore, the Indian
Reorganization Act prevented the alienation of more tribal land and granted Indian
communities a measure of governmental and judicial autonomy. Weaker candidates will
probably see this as a stage of “good” policy towards Indians as opposed to the “bad”
periods of forced assimilation from 1887 until 1933 and the termination policy of the 1950s.
As such, they will regard the Indian Reorganization Act as a significant turning point,
although such candidates are unlikely to be able to compare it with other turning points.
Most candidates will offer some alternatives (such as the 1887 Dawes Act at the end of the
Indian Wars, the end of the Indian New Deal in 1945, the end of termination in the 1960s
or the first militant action of Red Power in 1969) but their attempts to compare them with
the Indian Reorganization Act may be unconvincing.
The best candidates will be aware of the limitations of Indian Reorganization Act and the
degree of opposition to it (for different reasons) in Congress and among Native Americans.
They might point out that Collier’s policies were as paternalistic in their way as all other
federal Indian policies, and that the majority of white Americans (and a significant number
of Indians themselves) continued to believe that Indians should assimilate into mainstream
US culture. As such, the Indian Reorganization Act could be seen as an aberration rather
than a turning point. The best candidates might also contrast the importance of federal
policy shifts with the impact of economic and social change in the USA on Native American
lives and attitudes (especially the two world wars, the Cold War and the post-war
expansion of the US economy). Alternatively, the best candidates will make effective
comparisons between the different turning points they analyse and explain fully why one is
more important than the others.
Examiners must be open to alternative approaches. If in doubt, they should consult their
Team Leader.
107
F966
Mark Scheme
January 2010
Theme 6: The Development of Democracy in Britain 1868 – 1997
16
How far did economic factors influence the results of general elections from 1868 to
1997?
No set conclusions are to be expected, but candidates must answer the question and
address the theme over the whole period. Economic change undoubtedly influenced the
outcome of a significant number of elections during the period particularly where it was
linked with a slow down in economic growth and associated rises in unemployment. For
example, the parties that lost elections in 1868, 1880, 1922, 1929 and 1979 were all
linked, and to an extent blamed for, high levels of unemployment, falling real wages and a
lowering of living standards. Some candidates are likely to show that there were also other
economic issues that dominated some election campaigns such as tariff reform (1906,
1923), fiscal policy (1910), changes in the industrial infrastructure (1966), a faltering
balance of payments (1970), and rising fuel prices (1974).
It would, of course, be highly simplistic to argue that elections were always fought over the
issue of economic change. Most candidates should be able to discuss a range of other
factors. These might include: external influences ( e.g. the effects of wars on the 1906,
1918, 1945 and 1983 elections); social changes ( e.g. the impact and debate over the NHS
which influenced the result of the 1951 election; consumerism which prompted Macmillan’s
election winning slogan ‘You’ve never had it so good’ in 1959); internal party divisions (
e.g. the Liberals in the 1880s and1920s, Labour in the mid-1950s) and the coming of class
based politics ( e.g. the rise of the Labour party to push the Liberals into third place, the
rise of general unionism and industrial unrest which affected the outcome of elections in
the 1880s, 1906, 1951 and, most significantly, 1979).
A strong case could be made for economic factors mainly (but not solely) influencing the
results of elections although better responses will probably offer a more balanced analysis
and evaluation. Also, a decent, but not exhaustive, range of elections should be referenced
to illustrate change and/or continuity over the period.
Examiners must be open to alternative approaches. If in doubt, they should consult their
Team Leader.
17
‘There was more continuity than change in the role that Prime Ministers played in
the development of the democratic system from 1868 to 1997.’ How far do you
agree?
No set conclusions are to be expected, but candidates must answer the question and
address the theme over the whole period. Over the period, parliaments were managed
differently, monarchs varied, control of cabinets increased and there was more
responsibility for international affairs (especially wars) and disposal of finance (e.g. the
Secret Fund). It might be argued that prime ministers handled such changes more skilfully
as time went by, whilst having their power ‘checked’ by political institutions such as political
parties, pressure groups, the judiciary and the media. Thus, prime ministers were not
allowed to abuse their power. They were expected to play a responsible role in the
maintenance and enhancement of democracy. Another line of argument might be that the
power of prime ministers was never kept in check enough, especially with respect to the
latter part of the period. Developments worth discussing might include ‘Prime Ministers
Questions’, the appointment system, collective decision making in the Cabinet, control
over Cabinet meetings, the exploitation of new technology (e.g. Baldwin’s use of the radio),
influence on the Budget, the power to call elections, the right to remove ministers (1905
onwards) and decisions to go to war (e.g Chamberlain, Thatcher). There should be a focus
on assessing the extent of continuity and change in the role of prime ministers; there is
little need for candidates to discuss the relative importance of other factors on democracy.
108
F966
Mark Scheme
January 2010
Examiners must be open to alternative approaches. If in doubt, they should consult their
Team Leader.
18
Assess the view that educational reform was the most important influence on the
development of democracy from 1868 to 1997.
It is plausible to argue that there was considerable continuity in the way in which
educational reforms influenced the development of democracy. The education acts of 1870
and 1880 seemed to influence a raft of political reforms that were implemented before the
end of the nineteenth century. Forster’s Act filled the gaps in elementary school provision
especially in the countryside and it was no coincidence that the franchise was extended in
1884 to include £10 householders and lodgers residing in rural areas. The other major
political reform of the time, the Redistribution of Seats Act, 1885, was closely linked to the
Third Reform Act. This pattern of educational reform influencing changes to the democratic
system continued in to the twentieth century. The reforms included the education policies
of the Liberals from 1906 to 1910 which had a bearing on the 1910 constitutional crisis;
Fisher’s Act of 1918 which occurred at the same time as the Representation of the
People’s Act; and the policy initiatives of the inter-war years (Hadow, Spens, Tawney)
which tied in with a further extension to the franchise (1928). Some educational reforms,
such as that of 1870 and 1988, actually allowed direct participation in politics through the
educational system (e.g. election to school boards, governing bodies). Although there were
other influences on changes to the democratic system, the expansion in the number of
people who were educated undoubtedly caused politicians to implement policies that
engendered greater participation in the political process. Also, more generally, educational
reforms resulted in a demand for a change to the way in which people were represented,
hence the rise of the Labour party and Trades Unions.
However, better candidates are likely to point out that some changes to education did not
improve the democratic system. The 1902 act appeared to be an attempt to maintain the
ruling status quo and the 1944 act created a tripartite system that, in the long run, seemed
to reflect a divided society in which many experienced a limited educational and,
subsequently, vocational choice. More contentiously, governments throughout the whole of
the period continued to allow the existence and growth of the private education sector
which could also be viewed as divisive and not characteristic of a truly democratic society.
Finally, some candidates might point out that educational change was more likely to follow
democratic change. This was partly true of the 1870 act (‘we must educate our masters’)
and the creation of the Board of Education in 1899.
Examiners must be open to alternative approaches. If in doubt, they should consult their
Team Leader.
109
Grade Thresholds
Advanced GCE History (H506)
Advanced Subsidiary GCE History (H106)
January 2010 Examination Series
Unit Threshold Marks
Unit
F961/01
F961/02
F962/01
F962/02
F963/01
F963/02
F964/01
F964/02
F965
F966/01
F966/02
Maximum
Mark
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
80
80
120
120
120
120
Raw
UMS
Raw
UMS
Raw
UMS
Raw
UMS
Raw
UMS
Raw
UMS
Raw
UMS
Raw
UMS
Raw
UMS
Raw
UMS
Raw
UMS
A
B
C
D
E
U
73
80
73
80
73
80
73
80
68
80
68
80
67
80
67
80
64
64
85
96
85
96
64
70
64
70
65
70
65
70
60
70
60
70
60
70
60
70
56
56
76
84
76
84
56
60
56
60
57
60
57
60
53
60
53
60
53
60
53
60
48
48
68
72
68
72
48
50
48
50
50
50
50
50
46
50
46
50
46
50
46
50
40
40
60
60
60
60
40
40
40
40
43
40
43
40
39
40
39
40
40
40
40
40
32
32
52
48
52
48
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Specification Aggregation Results
Overall threshold marks in UMS (ie after conversion of raw marks to uniform marks)
H106
Maximum
Mark
200
A
B
C
D
E
U
160
140
120
100
80
0
The cumulative percentage of candidates awarded each grade was as follows:
H106
A
B
C
D
E
U
18.56
46.74
75.61
92.42
99.02
100.00
For a description of how UMS marks are calculated see:
http://www.ocr.org.uk/learners/ums_results.html
Statistics are correct at the time of publication.
110
Total Number of
Candidates
1371
OCR (Oxford Cambridge and RSA Examinations)
1 Hills Road
Cambridge
CB1 2EU
OCR Customer Contact Centre
14 – 19 Qualifications (General)
Telephone: 01223 553998
Facsimile: 01223 552627
Email: [email protected]
www.ocr.org.uk
For staff training purposes and as part of our quality assurance
programme your call may be recorded or monitored
Oxford Cambridge and RSA Examinations
is a Company Limited by Guarantee
Registered in England
Registered Office; 1 Hills Road, Cambridge, CB1 2EU
Registered Company Number: 3484466
OCR is an exempt Charity
OCR (Oxford Cambridge and RSA Examinations)
Head office
Telephone: 01223 552552
Facsimile: 01223 552553
© OCR 2010
GCE
History A
Advanced Subsidiary GCE
Unit F963/02: Option B Modern 1815-1945
Mark Scheme for January 2011
Oxford Cambridge and RSA Examinations
OCR (Oxford Cambridge and RSA) is a leading UK awarding body, providing a wide range of
qualifications to meet the needs of pupils of all ages and abilities. OCR qualifications include
AS/A Levels, Diplomas, GCSEs, OCR Nationals, Functional Skills, Key Skills, Entry
Level qualifications, NVQs and vocational qualifications in areas such as IT, business,
languages, teaching/training, administration and secretarial skills.
It is also responsible for developing new specifications to meet national requirements and the
needs of students and teachers. OCR is a not-for-profit organisation; any surplus made is
invested back into the establishment to help towards the development of qualifications and
support which keep pace with the changing needs of today’s society.
This mark scheme is published as an aid to teachers and students, to indicate the requirements
of the examination. It shows the basis on which marks were awarded by Examiners. It does not
indicate the details of the discussions which took place at an Examiners’ meeting before marking
commenced.
All Examiners are instructed that alternative correct answers and unexpected approaches in
candidates’ scripts must be given marks that fairly reflect the relevant knowledge and skills
demonstrated.
Mark schemes should be read in conjunction with the published question papers and the Report
on the Examination.
OCR will not enter into any discussion or correspondence in connection with this mark scheme.
© OCR 2011
Any enquiries about publications should be addressed to:
OCR Publications
PO Box 5050
Annesley
NOTTINGHAM
NG15 0DL
Telephone:
Facsimile:
E-mail:
0870 770 6622
01223 552610
[email protected]
F963/02
Mark Scheme
January 2011
Question (a) Maximum mark 30
A01a and b
AO2a
1
13-14
15-16
2
11-12
13-14
3
9-10
10-12
4
7-8
8-9
5
5-6
6-7
6
3-4
3-5
7
0-2
0-2
Notes related to Part A:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
Allocate marks to the most appropriate level for each AO
If several marks are available in a box, work from the top mark down until the best fit has
been found
Many answers will not be at the same level for each AO
1
F963/02
Mark Scheme
Marking Grid for Question (a)
A0s
A01a and b
Total for Recall, select and deploy historical
each
knowledge appropriately, and
question communicate knowledge and
=30
understanding of history in a clear and
effective manner.
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Demonstrate understanding of the past
through explanation, analysis and
arriving at substantiated judgements of:
- key concepts such as causation,
consequence, continuity, change and
significance within an historical context;
- the relationships between key features
and characteristics of the periods
studied.
 Consistent and developed
comparison of the key issue with a
balanced and well-supported
judgement. There will be little or no
unevenness.
 Focused use of a range of relevant
historical concepts and context to
address the key issue.
 The answer is clearly structured and
organised. Communicates
coherently, accurately and
effectively.
13-14

Largely comparative evaluation of
the key issue with a balanced and
supported judgement. There may
be a little unevenness in parts.

Focused use of some relevant
historical context with a good
conceptual understanding to
address the key issue.

The answer is well structured and
organised. Communicates clearly.
11-12
 Some comparison linked to the key
issue. Is aware of some similarity
and/or difference. Judgements may
be limited and/or inconsistent with
the analysis made.
 Some use of relevant historical
concepts and contexts but uneven
understanding. Inconsistent focus
on the key issue.
 The answer has some structure and
organisation but there is also some
description. Communication may be
clear but may not be consistent.
9-10
2
January 2011
A02a
As part of an historical enquiry, analyse
and evaluate a range of appropriate
source material with discrimination.






Focused comparative analysis.
Controlled and discriminating
evaluation of content and
provenance, whether integrated or
treated separately.
Evaluates using a range of relevant
provenance points in relation to the
sources and question. There is a
thorough but not necessarily
exhaustive exploration of these.
15-16
Relevant comparative analysis of
content and evaluation of
provenance but there may be some
unevenness in coverage or control.
Source evaluation is reasonably full
and appropriate but lacks
completeness on the issues raised
by the sources in the light of the
question.
13-14
Provides a comparison but there is
unevenness, confining the
comparison to the second half of the
answer or simply to a concluding
paragraph. Either the focus is on
content or provenance, rarely both.
Source evaluation is partial and it is
likely that the provenance itself is not
compared, may be undeveloped or
merely commented on discretely.
10-12
F963/02
A0s
Level 4
Mark Scheme



Level 5



Level 6



Level 7



A01a and b
Some general comparison but
undeveloped with some assertion,
description and/or narrative.
Judgement is unlikely, unconvincing
or asserted.
A general sense of historical
concepts and context but
understanding is partial or limited,
with some tangential and/or
irrelevant evidence.
Structure may be rather
disorganised with some unclear
sections. Communication is
satisfactory but with some
inaccuracy of expression.
7-8
Limited comparison with few links to
the key issue. Imparts generalised
comment and /or a weak
understanding of the key points.
The answer lacks judgement or
makes a basic assertion.
Basic, often inaccurate or irrelevant
historical context and conceptual
understanding.
Structure lacks organisation with
weak or basic communication.
5-6
Comparison is minimal and basic
with very limited links to the key
issue. Mainly paraphrase and
description with very limited
understanding. There is no
judgement.
Irrelevant and inaccurate concepts
and context.
Has little organisation or structure
with very weak communication.
3-4
Fragmentary, descriptive,
incomplete and with few or no links
to the key issue. There is little or no
understanding. Much irrelevance.
Weak or non existent context with
no conceptual understanding.
No structure with extremely weak
communication.
January 2011








A02a
Attempts a comparison but most of
the comment is sequential. Imparts
content or provenance rather than
using it.
Comparative comments are few or
only partially developed, often
asserted and/or ‘stock’ in approach.
8-9
Identifies some comparative points
but is very sequential and perhaps
implicit
Comment on the sources is basic,
general, undeveloped or juxtaposed,
often through poorly understood
quotation.
6-7
Little attempt to compare. Weak
commentary on one or two
undeveloped points, with basic
paraphrase. Sequencing is
characteristic.
Comments on individual sources are
generalised and confused.
3-5
No attempt to compare either
content or provenance with
fragmentary, brief or inaccurate
comment.
Makes no attempt to use any
aspects of the sources.
0-2
0-2
3
F963/02
Mark Scheme
January 2011
Question (b) Maximum mark 70
A01a and b
AO2a and b
1
20-22
42-48
2
17-19
35-41
3
13-16
28-34
4
9-12
21-27
5
6-8
14-20
6
3-5
7-13
7
0-2
0-6
Notes related to Part B:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
Allocate marks to the most appropriate level for each AO
If several marks are available in a box, work from the top mark down until the best fit has
been found
Many answers will not be at the same level for each AO
4
F963/02
AOs
Total
mark for
the
question
= 70
Level 1
Level 2
Mark Scheme
A0Ia and b
Recall, select and deploy historical
knowledge appropriately, and
communicate knowledge and
understanding of history in a clear and
effective manner.
Demonstrate understanding of the past
through explanation, analysis and
arriving at substantiated judgements of:
- key concepts such as causation,
consequence, continuity, change and
significance within an historical context;
- the relationships between key features
and characteristics of the periods
studied.
 Convincing analysis and argument
with developed explanation leading
to careful, supported and persuasive
judgement arising from a
consideration of both content and
provenance. There may be a little
unevenness at the bottom of the
level.
 Sharply focused use and control of a
range of reliable evidence to
confirm, qualify, extend or question
the sources.
 Coherent organised structure.
Accurate and effective
communication.



20-22
Good attempt at focused analysis,
argument and explanation leading to
a supported judgement that is based
on the use of most of the content
and provenance.
A focused use of relevant evidence
to put the sources into context.
Mostly coherent structure and
organisation if uneven in parts.
Good communication.
January 2011
Ao2a and b
As part of an historical enquiry, analyse
and evaluate a range of appropriate
source material with discrimination.
Analyse and evaluate, in relation to the
historical context, how aspects of the
past have been interpreted and
represented in different ways.






A carefully grouped and comparative
evaluation of all the sources with
effective levels of discrimination
sharply focused on the interpretation.
Analyses and evaluates the
strengths, limitations and utility of the
sources in relation to the
interpretation. Uses and cross
references points in individual or
grouped sources to support or refute
an interpretation.
Integrates sources with contextual
knowledge in analysis and
evaluation and is convincing in most
respects. Has synthesis within the
argument through most of the
answer.
42-48
Grouped analysis and use of most
of the sources with good levels of
discrimination and a reasonable
focus on the interpretation.
Analyses and evaluates some of the
strengths and limitations of the
sources in relation to the
interpretation. May focus more on
individual sources within a grouping,
so cross referencing may be less
frequent.
Some, perhaps less balanced,
integration of sources and contextual
knowledge to analyse and evaluate
the interpretation. Synthesis of the
skills may be less developed. The
analysis and evaluation is
reasonably convincing.
35-41
17-19
5
F963/02
AOs
Level 3
Mark Scheme



A0Ia and b
Mainly sound analysis, argument
and explanation, but there may be
some description and unevenness.
Judgement may be incomplete or
inconsistent with the analysis of
content and provenance.
Some relevant evidence but less
effectively used and may not be
extensive.
Reasonably coherent structure and
organisation but uneven.
Reasonable communication.
January 2011



Level 4



Level 5
13-16
Attempts some analysis, argument
and explanation but underdeveloped
and not always linked to the
question. There will be more
assertion, description and narrative.
Judgements are less substantiated
and much less convincing.
Some relevant evidence is
deployed, but evidence will vary in
accuracy, relevance and extent. It
may be generalised or tangential.
Structure is less organised,
communication less clear and some
inaccuracies of expression.
9-12
 Little argument or explanation,
inaccurate understanding of the
issues and concepts. The answer
lacks judgement.
 Limited use of relevant evidence or
context which is largely
inaccurate or irrelevant.
 Structure is disorganised,
communication basic and the
sense not always clear.






Ao2a and b
Some grouping although not
sustained or developed. Sources are
mainly approached discretely with
limited cross reference. Their use is
less developed and may, in parts,
lose focus on the interpretation.
There may be some description of
content and provenance.
Is aware of some of the limitations of
the sources, individually or as a
group, but mostly uses them for
reference and to illustrate an
argument rather than analysing and
evaluating them as evidence. There
is little cross referencing.
There may be unevenness in using
knowledge in relation to the sources.
Synthesis may be patchy or bolted
on. Analysis and evaluation are only
partially convincing.
28-34
Sources are discussed discretely
and largely sequentially, perhaps
within very basic groups. Loses
focus on the interpretation. The
sources are frequently described.
May mention some limitations of
individual sources but largely uses
them for reference and illustration.
Cross referencing is unlikely.
An imbalance and lack of integration
between sources and knowledge
often with discrete sections. There is
little synthesis. Analysis and
explanation may be muddled and
unconvincing in part.
21-27
A limited attempt to use the sources
or discriminate between them. The
approach is very sequential and
referential, with much description.
Points are undeveloped.
There is little attempt to analyse,
explain or use the sources in relation
to the question. Comment may be
general.
There is a marked imbalance with
no synthesis. Analysis and
explanation are rare and comments
are unconvincing.
14-20
5-8
6
F963/02
AOs
Level 6
Mark Scheme



Level 7



A0Ia and b
There is very little explanation or
understanding. Largely assertion,
description and narrative with no
judgement. Extremely limited
relevance to the question.
Evidence is basic, generalised,
patchy, inaccurate or irrelevant.
Little organisation or structure with
poor communication.
3-4
No argument or explanation.
Fragmentary and descriptive with no
relevance to the question.
No understanding underpins what
little use is made of evidence or
context.
Disorganised and partial with weak
communication and expression.
January 2011






Ao2a and b
Very weak and partial use of the
sources for the question. No focus
on interpretation.
A very weak, general and
paraphrased use of source content.
No synthesis or balance. Comments
are entirely unconvincing.
7-13
Little application of the sources to
the question with inaccuracies and
irrelevant comment. Fragmentary
and heavily descriptive.
No attempt to use any aspect of the
sources appropriately.
No contextual knowledge, synthesis
or balance. There is no attempt to
convince.
0-6
0-2
7
F963/02
Mark Scheme
January 2011
The Condition of England 1815-1853
1
(a)
Study Sources C and D.
Compare these sources as evidence for views on the Tolpuddle case of 1834.
[30]
No set answer is expected, but candidates need to compare the contents,
evaluating such matters as authorship, dating, utility and reliability, so using
the sources ‘as evidence for…’. The headings and attributions should aid
evaluation and reference to both is expected in a good answer.
The context was the growing power of larger and more general Unions post 1829
and in particular the emergence of the GNCTU in early 1834. Both sources, from
very different viewpoints, agree that the real issues involved are control of the
workforce and the right to join a Union, the wage issue being secondary. Both focus
on the use of the law to resolve the issue. Frampton in C is convinced rural
labourers are ‘waiting to join the Union as soon’ as the case signals their right to do
so confirmed by Loveless in D who has been instrumental in forming a Friendly
Society and receiving direction from Trade Societies, a clear reference to the
growing labour movement that produced organisations like the GNCTU. The
testimonies of both show them to be the main protagonists in the case, Loveless
labelling Frampton as one of the ‘unjust and cruel’ magistrates. Both agree that the
impact of the case will be to deter trade unionism.
They disagree over the case itself. Frampton (C) comments in a matter of fact tone
that the judge ruled that labourers could not join a Union without punishment and
that the 6 labourers had broken the law, a clear warning to the workforce. In contrast
Loveless (D) considers the verdict to be not just a simple statement of existing law
but a travesty of justice, a trial marked by unjust methods and intimidation – that the
authorities had found an old Act of 1797 (mutiny in the navy) and twisted its meaning
to apply to oaths to join a civil Friendly Society, applied after the event (‘placards
were then displayed’). Frampton implies that those on trial were troublemakers,
whilst Loveless demonstrates how this impression was unfairly implied (idle
drunkards). They also partially disagree. Frampton (C) is convinced that the
judgement will discourage labourers joining a Union and that it was welcomed by the
‘higher classes’. On the other hand Loveless (D), by his catalogue of injustice and
the title of his pamphlet (‘Victims’), is trying to limit this by exposing the methods of
the authorities (candidates may refer to the pardon issued in 1836 following the
campaign against the harsh sentences).
In terms of provenance both are highly slanted sources. Frampton (C) is a local
squire, magistrate and landowner concerned that a stand be taken against rural
unionism and with clear contacts with government (he writes with familiarity to the
Home Secretary, as though reporting on a successful and coordinated campaign
with government involvement –‘looked forward to’). He reveals his role in keeping the
Home Secretary informed as to how the verdict has been received in Dorset,
confirmed by Loveless (D) in his comment on Frampton – ‘a name I shall not forget’.
Loveless writes from the labour and radical perspective. As one of the ‘victims’, his
purpose is to campaign (after his pardon and return from Australia in 1837) to
reverse the verdicts and use the case to advance the radical cause. He wants to link
local and national authorities as jointly responsible for a miscarriage of justice –
‘Victims of Whiggery’. He clearly blames Frampton – the wage reduction seems to
occur after an alleged negotiation was communicated to him. In terms of judgement
candidates could regard both as equally useful. Together they provide a balanced
view. The evidence of Frampton is valuable in providing an informed assessment of
the impact and result of the case (deterring Unionism). It is better evidence for the
attitudes of government and local landowners, whilst Loveless provides the
8
F963/02
Mark Scheme
January 2011
perspective of the radicals and labourers with more detail as to the methods used to
obtain conviction. Candidates may be aware of much harsher penalties than
previously exacted (7 years’ transportation instead of the maximum 6 months hard
labour under the old Combination Laws).
1
(b)
Study all the Sources.
Use your own knowledge to assess how far the Sources support the
interpretation that the workers and their leaders were the main reason for trade
Union weakness in the period from 1824-1844
[70]
Successful answers will need to make use of all five Sources, testing them
against contextual knowledge and evaluating their strengths and weaknesses,
including any limitations as evidence. A range of issues may be addressed in
focusing upon the terms of the question but no set conclusion is expected.
A variety of interpretations on weakness is possible here and all but Place (A)
support a variety of views – alongside the views of workers and their leaders there is
the hostility of employers, the opposition of the authorities, both central and local,
and economic conditions in general. Three of the sources (Place in A, Loveless in
D and Burt in E) are from radical and Union leaders and may be the more revealing
as to admitted weakness (odds stacked against workers) whilst two are from an
establishment view, (Frampton in C and the Cartoon in B) and might be expected
to demonstrate hostility, stressing either worker weakness or government
determination to make a stand.
The case for workers and their leaders themselves undermining unions is clear
in A, B, C and E, although candidates will need to be aware of the exaggerated
nature of the cartoon evidence in B. These sources stress that both industrial and
rural workers were reluctant to act by combining into Unions and lacked an
appreciation of how to proceed, despite the efforts of leaders like Place and Loveless.
Place in A is revealing given his role in working to repeal the Combination Laws in
1824. In an unpublished account, part of his working notes for the MP Hume, he is
quite scathing on the workers he is trying to rehearse to give appropriate evidence to
the Select Committee on Combinations in 1824. He comments on the parochial
nature of their grievances, their stress on isolated issues like machinery and their lack
of politicisation and polish, especially their lack of understanding that outside a union
they were isolated and unequal units in the population/wage situation. This is
confirmed by the stress on wages in D (Loveless). Bread and butter issues and local
conflicts would lead workers to act individually or in local groups, (and here
candidates may use knowledge to confirm this - by the late 1820s and 1830s
Doherty’s National Association on the Protection of Labour of 1829 failed to show
solidarity in the Lancashire Spinners strike in 1831; the GNCTU failed to mobilise
other trades to support the Derbyshire silk weaver’s strike). The anti Trade Union
cartoon (B) demonstrates feeble and corrupt leadership, greedy and drunken (a
charge also evident in D at Tolpuddle). Policy in B would seem to amount to
posturing – a procession will suffice or ‘sommat o’ that sort’. However this evidence is
clearly exaggerated, although there were cases of Treasurers running off with funds
(Doherty’s NAPL). It does highlight the problems of national organisation for large
and radical unions (too large?), such as recruiting able officials and the problem of
funding through subscriptions (few below the craft unions could afford them – the
GNCTU charged 3d and the box in the cartoon is empty). The point about funding is
reinforced by Burt (E) who confirms, from a labour perspective, that unions had no
resources or reserve funds for financing strikes. He suggests, reliably, that there was
no eagerness to strike or even to unionise amongst workers. The GNCTU only
9
F963/02
Mark Scheme
January 2011
managed a membership, briefly, of 16,000 with the craft unions refusing to join
(potters, builders, spinners and clothiers). Poor coordination, worsened by
communication difficulties is referred to in the cartoon (B) when ignorance is shown
about what was occurring in the west. However the existence of leaders like Place,
Owen, Loveless and Doherty would suggest that not all were as the cartoon
suggests, although Owen in particular might be seen as too idealistic. Loveless in D
is clearly aware that rural workers would be put off joining a union given his fate. The
cartoon reflects propertied fears at the burst of Union activity between 1829 and
1834. The sources thus provide a mixed view on the assertion in the question.
The hostility of employers was also an important factor in union weakness (A, C, D
and E). Place in A refers to the ‘will of the masters’ as a barrier to worker
participation whilst Burt in E particularly emphasises this factor and is reliable given
his personal experience in union and reform politics and the vantage of very informed
hindsight. He speaks from personal experience, albeit as a child. He is referring to
one of the most cohesive working communities in the country, a later Union
vanguard, the N.E. miners. Yet in this period they are completely under the control of
employers who could close employer owned shops, evict (mine owned pit cottages)
and sack them, bringing in Welsh miners instead. It is not the workers, their leaders
or the government which defeats them but employers who ‘treat them as though they
do not exist’. This is corroborated in the rural areas by C and D (Frampton and
Loveless), although there may be some disagreement as Loveless argues that some
farmers and landowners were prepared to settle until Frampton galvanised them into
making a stand. Candidates might refer to the ‘Document’, which many employers
post 1825 forced workers to sign, saying they would never join or pay a subscription
to a union.
The hostility of government and local authorities were also important factors in
weakening the unions. Place in A refers to the conduct of magistrates who were also
employers and the context of this source is the illegality of Unionism before 1824 and
the difficulty in obtaining repeal of the Combination Laws. Legal barriers are evident
in the other sources. The cartoon in B has one of the leaders commenting on the
need to be moderate enough ‘to escape being put down by the government’, the
context of the Tolpuddle martyrs case in 1834 which helped kill off the GNCTU. The
law was used in an increasingly restrictive manner, rendering union activity almost
impossible (an illiterate workforce could not read and sign declarations, instead
undergoing entry rituals and oaths, hence Loveless’ tactics, then declared illegal
under an old naval mutiny law). Candidates may know that Melbourne and
government law officers advised Frampton on how to use the 1797 law and Loveless
in D catalogues the pressures applied. Candidates might confirm this with reference
to the Glasgow Spinners Case in 1837 (where the spinners’ leader was deported
after being charged with conspiracy over the murder of a blackleg).
A case could also be made that weakness was due to the nature of the economy
and conditions in general. Loveless in D refers to the very low wages in rural areas,
and the cartoon mentions the non payment of subscriptions. Place in A mentions
the link between population and wages and to technical changes in the economy
(machinery) that deskilled workers. Later (1840s) this is corroborated by Burt in E
when he refers to the abundance of unskilled labour desperate for work, hence low
wages. In the rural areas there was mechanisation and an overstocked labour supply
that disadvantaged Union activity whilst in the urban areas neither artisans nor
factory workers found it easy to control new economic forms in which they had no
ownership and in which the educated consensus was for a freer market and laisser
faire. As Burt in E comments, from the vantage of hindsight, they were ‘not destined
to prevail at that time’.
10
F963/02
Mark Scheme
January 2011
The Age of Gladstone and Disraeli 1865-1886
2
(a)
Study Sources A and B
Compare these Sources as evidence for the views of Disraeli on extending the
right to vote.
[30]
No set answer is expected, but candidates need to compare the contents,
evaluating such matters as authorship, dating, utility and reliability, so using
the sources ‘as evidence for…’. The headings and attributions should aid
evaluation and reference to both is expected in a good answer.
Both sources are speeches to Parliament by Disraeli and both comment on
extending the suffrage. In both there is caution. In 1865 it is only to happen if the
opportunity is favourable and as a matter of necessity. Disraeli implies that he is
merely considering a remote possibility. In 1867 he is again at pains to suggest that
his proposal will extend the vote no more than the Gladstone/Russell Bill of 1866.He
relies on the personal payment of rates to exclude the many that would, as
Householders, otherwise get the vote. He is not pursuing mere numbers, although
he goes on in the same speech to admit that change has created numbers which it is
‘desirable’ to enfranchise. In both proposals he is concerned to set limits.
The differences are that Disraeli is less convinced of suffrage extension in 1865
than in 1867. In 1865 he is cautious and anti democratic, warning against extending
downwards to the working man and skilled artisan. He prefers more votes for the
middle class and stresses the traditional view that voting was a privilege to be
earned rather than a right to be exercised. In 1867, in contrast, he has opted for
household suffrage, restricted only by an insistence on the personal payment of
rates and, if own knowledge is used, by other fancy franchises. This proposal would
reach the skilled working man in a way that his 1865 ideas would not. In 1867 he
goes on to talk grandly about change, population growth, knowledge and progress in
an almost Gladstonian manner.
As regards provenance the dates and changing contexts are crucial. Both are public
speeches to Parliament by Derby’s deputy and are thus likely to be less than candid,
moulded by the rhetoric of the constitution, progress, virtue and the common good in
a world that had been Liberal for over two decades. In both he seeks to avoid over
commitment but has to come up with a concrete proposal in 1867. In 1865 Disraeli is
concerned to scotch a Liberal Bill, appealing in an anti democratic and privileged
way to conservative Liberals worried by the death of Palmerston and the advent of
more reform minded Liberals like Russell and Gladstone. He is also concerned to
reassure members of his own party that any Conservative extension to the franchise
would be in keeping with the traditional constitution. Household suffrage was not a
political possibility in 1865. However, by 1867 it was. The ‘opportunity’ of power has
arrived if not the ‘urgent necessity’ – the Hyde Park riots in 1866 had followed the
rejection of the Liberal Bill. The context was Disraeli considering extending the vote
to appeal to Liberal reformers whilst securing his own right wing and thus Tory unity,
hence the reference to no greater numbers than in 1866. He is at pains, at the end of
the speech, to appeal for the cooperation of all MPs.
Candidates are likely to judge Disraeli’s views as changeable according to
circumstance. He is attempting to leave his options open, approving an extension but
qualifying via generalities and specifics according to the political situation.
11
F963/02
2
(b)
Mark Scheme
January 2011
Study all the Sources
Use your own knowledge to assess how far the Sources support the
interpretation that Disraeli’s approach to parliamentary reform was purely
opportunistic during the period from 1865 to 1867.
[70]
Successful answers will need to make use of all five Sources, testing them
against contextual knowledge and evaluating their strengths and weaknesses,
including any limitations as evidence. A range of issues may be addressed in
focusing upon the terms of the question but no set conclusion is expected.
The sources support three possible interpretations – that he was entirely
opportunistic and pursued party and personal power at the expense of consistency
and principle; that he stuck to the general principle of a moderate extension of the
vote based on household suffrage and had done so since 1859; that he had general
principles but was prepared to be flexible as the only way of securing a
Conservative measure of Parliamentary reform. The question covers the period from
the death of Palmerston, a key opponent of reform, through various proposals, to the
successful Conservative Act of 1867.
The pure opportunist argument is to be found in Sources D and E and, according
to interpretation, Disraeli himself in A, B and C as well. The latter three may be the
more convincing sources as two are public speeches by Disraeli (A and B) and one
a private letter to an influential colleague, Gathorne Hardy, sounding him out by
explaining the reasoning behind the volte face of accepting the abolition of
compounding. There is plenty in the public speeches of A and B to suggest
opportunism. In 1865 (A) Disraeli himself stresses the importance of ‘opportunity’
and the let out clause of ‘urgent necessity’. His only concern is to play on post
Palmerstonian Liberal divisions by opening the door to both liberal opponents of
reform (Robert Lowe and the Adullamites) and moderate radicals whilst reassuring
the aristocratic Conservative right (General Peel and Cranborne), hence the
reference to more middle class voters (fancy franchises). In 1867 Liberal divisions
have led to resignation and Derby heads a minority Conservative government. He
and Disraeli had to consolidate their reform reputation if they were to break Liberal
dominance. The expectations raised in 1866 could not be put back in the bottle
(Hyde Park riots), hence the announcement in B of household suffrage, mitigated by
the personal payment of rates. Disraeli was still hoping to keep the Tory right but
failed to do so when Cranborne resigned. Source C refers to the most obvious
moment of opportunism when Disraeli, exploiting splits in the liberals and putting an
end to Gladstone’s attempts to force him to reintroduce some limit to borough
household suffrage (£5, £6 or £7) by letting the hare of compound abolition run,
accepted compound abolition. He thus admitted the numbers he had been so
concerned previously to prevent (400,000 extra urban voters). The letter to Hardy
admits the motive was to put an end to Gladstone’s dominance of the issue and
silence radical agitation but also tries to gloss the volte face by asserting no retreat
from principle. Candidates might also refer to other measures electorally to
advantage the Conservatives.
Sources D and E are very critical of Disraeli’s tactics and opportunism, one from a
conservative Liberal, Lowe, angered that Disraeli failed to make common cause to
resist reform and the other from Disraeli’s rival from the aristocratic right, Cranborne.
Their view will be coloured by Disraeli’s defeat of their ‘conservative’ views. Lowe
uses the telling metaphors of a shy horse and an overloaded ship to describe
Disraeli’s tactical opportunism but there is a sense of admiration for how he conned
his party into supporting a radical measure. A comparison of C, the letter to Hardy,
with D is telling. In Source C Disraeli argues there is no retreat from a rating
franchise based on residence, yet Lowe is right to suggest duplicity here by pointing
12
F963/02
Mark Scheme
January 2011
out that he must have realised personal rating and compounding were different and
without the former the electorate would double. Lowe’s points, albeit from an
opponent, are convincing. Those of Cranborne in E are more personal and less
convincing. His view is of one dishonest opportunism and intrigue, and he points to
one of Disraeli’s possible motives, personal ambition. That he writes this to a local
party organiser suggests that his anger and sense of betrayal is deep.
The counter interpretation that Disraeli held to general principles is, not
surprisingly, found in his own speeches and correspondence, Sources A, B and C.
From 1859 he had been in favour of some extension and politicians on both sides,
from the 1850s, had moved in favour of change, not least Gladstone. Disraeli’s
progress is marked by careful reference to principle and he never became a
democrat (‘the right to vote’ in A) or shared Bright’s view of universal household
suffrage. He believed that the concession on compounding in C would be ineffective
as they would fail to register. Thus there was no retreat from the rating and
residential principle. In C he refers only to the ‘spirit’ of Hodgkinson’s amendment,
not its actual implementation. This was why so many were entranced by his rhetoric
and parliamentary performances in 1866/7. He still felt, as in A, that the vote would
remain a privilege allowed if ‘virtue, intelligence, industry and integrity’ were in
evidence. Candidates may be aware of the Edinburgh speech in late 1867 where he
was to expound, in grander terms, on a consistent and noble strategy to include the
working man.
A third interpretation is a general belief in extending the vote when
circumstances allowed (Source A) but like any politician in a minority he would
have to be flexible to attract votes. He had to woo liberal, radical and conservative.
To maintain absolute consistency was impossible. Lowe in D recognises Disraeli as
an ‘able tactician’ and the rhetoric in Disraeli’s own speeches could be used to
exemplify this. Cranborne too recognises his ‘mastery over the movements in his
own party’. His ambition was to restore it and to secure the succession to Derby, as
Cranborne bitterly recognised. The three public speeches (A, B and D) all suggest a
belief in suffrage extension and all three provide evidence of Disraeli’s tactical skill
and flexibility. The more private sources (C and E) are divided; Cranborne convinced
of his naked opportunism, Disraeli himself juxtaposing principle and good timing, ‘the
critical moment’ in C.
13
F963/02
3
(a)
Mark Scheme
January 2011
Study Sources A and D
Compare these Sources as evidence for attitudes to State intervention in
dealing with poverty. [30]
No set answer is expected, but candidates need to compare the contents,
evaluating such matters as authorship, dating, utility and reliability, so using
the Sources ‘as evidence for …’. The headings and attributions should aid
evaluation and reference to both is expected in a good answer.
The sources agree on the ideology or principle of State intervention. Source A
argues that ‘laissez-faire’ is ‘not the cure’ and ‘old Liberalism’ is castigated. Source
D emphasises the duty of the State to the working man. Both stress that the State
should only help the poor rather than control their lives. In Source A the key word is
‘assistance’ and Source D says the State should support the ‘able-bodied man’ to
look after himself. Indeed, the inability of individuals to fend for themselves is
highlighted in both. ‘Self-reliance (was) not powerful enough’, according to Source
A, and in Source D ‘haggling in the market’ is considered inadequate. The means
and power of the State is accepted by both: Source A claims the State to be ‘not
incompetent for the work of social reform’ and Source D implies the same in
references to ‘the State to ensure economic conditions’. Further, State intervention is
considered a positive force for the freedom of the individual. Source A argues
intervention ‘may extend the bounds of liberty’ and Source D presses the ‘right to
work’ and ‘the right to a ‘living wage’’. If there is a difference it is that Source A is
more general in terms of conditions and remedies in contrast to Source D which
identifies specific problems of food, housing, clothing and wages. D identifies the
right to work and to a living wage. Both also nod to traditional liberal ideas of selfreliance and hard work.
In evaluating the sources candidates might suggest the similarities are unsurprising
given that both were written by new Liberals. Further commentary on the authorship
is possible. Written by a politician, Source A seems to place emphasis on the
wellbeing of the individual whereas Source D, written by an academic, focuses on
the broader concerns of society as well as the individual. Candidates may consider
this consistent with their personal stance and interests. The dates of publication are
important. Written before the Liberals came to power Source A is concerned to
articulate and clarify the principles of new Liberalism, hence the denunciation of old
Liberalism. Its purpose is more obviously political to convince people of the
soundness of State intervention by reassuring the reader that freedom will not be
lost. Source D has to be seen against the context of five years of Liberal
government and many reforms. It is less concerned with presenting the case for new
Liberalism as highlighting the priorities of the time, notably wages (candidates could
link to the debate on a minimum wage) and the notion of the reciprocal duties of
State and worker (the Insurance Act of 1911 might be mentioned). The reference to
‘the rights of person and property’ might be an allusion to the struggle with the House
of Lords since 1909 culminating in the Parliament Act of 1911.
14
F963/02
3
(b)
Mark Scheme
January 2011
Study all the Sources
Use your own knowledge to assess how far the Sources support the
interpretation that the main reason for tackling poverty was a moral obligation
to help the poor.
[70]
Successful answers will need to make use of all four Sources, testing them against
contextual knowledge and evaluating their strengths and weaknesses, any
limitations as evidence. A range of issues may be addressed in focusing upon the
terms of the question but no set conclusion is expected.
Arguably only Source E is unequivocal in supporting the interpretation although all
sources attest, in varying degrees, to a widely held view that society had a moral obligation
to help the poor. In addition, political, economic, social and ideological motives explain why
it was thought necessary to tackle poverty.
Archbishop Lang articulates the feelings of those who were uncomfortable in a society
racked by gross inequality: ‘poverty in all our cities is appalling’ and he is clear that
inequality ‘ought not to be’. In part this is because of the ‘increasing prosperity’ of the
period, denied the poor, but more likely, because he is stung by the denial of ‘every sign of
the beauty of God’s earth’ to the poor. Candidates will rightly argue this is unsurprising in a
man of the Church with strong religious convictions. Some may suggest he verges on the
sentimental in his comments on the ‘great multitude’ whom he has ‘learnt to revere’. In
both respects any evaluation of the source might conclude that the evidence of Source E
is not entirely reliable. On the other hand the author had first-hand experience of the slums
of three cities and he is described as ‘a strong advocate of ‘enlightened capitalism’’ in the
introduction so it could be argued his remarks carry weight.
Each of the other sources can be used to support Source E in so far as they denounce the
scale and depth of poverty. Perhaps Source C is as forceful as any scorning Elgar’s notion
of a ‘’Land of Hope and Glory’’ and suggesting that the poor were a ‘discredit’. This may be
regarded by candidates as expected from a Commission that had spent 4 years
investigating poverty and compiled 50 volumes of information cataloguing the horrors of
poverty. Source A admits that it is impossible to tolerate poverty any longer. Like Source
C the view expressed in Source A is based on evidence stating that ‘the facts of poverty
are now known’ probably referring to the research of Booth and Rowntree. Source D
seems to accept that poverty should be tackled as a moral obligation in so far as ‘the
rights’ of the workman should be acknowledged and that ‘society owes him the means of
maintaining a civilised standard of life’. This may be regarded as consistent with the whole
tenor of the passage which places stress on the contract between State and individual.
Many may dismiss Source B as not offering anything in support of the interpretation
although some may refer to the prospect of ‘new social systems’ making ‘England a better
place for the poor’. Churchill’s strong support for the reforms of the period might be
mentioned to confirm the sincerity of his moral obligation to the poor.
However, many may set Churchill’s remark against the comment that follows to argue that
his motive in tackling poverty was political hoping that improvements in the lot of the poor
would lead to ‘the country’ giving ‘solid support to the government’. Indeed, elsewhere in
Source B the timing and type of reform is regarded in political terms calculating that ‘the
miseries of this winter’ would secure support from the poor and expenditure on ‘social
systems’ would find favour with the Lords. Churchill’s concerns seem to be as much to do
with matching Germany – for economic and imperial reasons? – as any sense of moral
obligation to the poor. It might be argued that Churchill is alert to the conservative instincts
of Asquith to whom he is writing, at a time when he has just become Prime Minister, and
that he is trying to win the latter’s support by presenting reform of poverty in political terms.
15
F963/02
Mark Scheme
January 2011
Certainly the second sentence can be interpreted as a fawning attempt to flatter Asquith.
Some candidates might link comments on Source B with Source A which, it could be
argued, hints at a political agenda. Comments about the limitations of ‘laissez-faire’ and
the attack on ‘old Liberalism’ might be regarded as an indication of how the issue of
poverty was a political football used by the likes of Samuel to promote new Liberalism.
Some may see Sources C and D as placing emphasis on economic motives for tackling
poverty. After all, in Source C the poor are decried as ‘useless and costly inefficients’ who
have to be transformed into productive members of society. Source D implies, softly
perhaps, the economic imperative in highlighting the importance of ‘useful labour’ and ‘the
duty of working hard for his family’. Both Source C and D seem concerned to address
poverty in the interests of law and order. The former regards the poor as ‘a peril to the
whole community’ and the importance of converting the poor into ‘respectable members of
the community’ is stressed whilst the latter is concerned to create ‘conditions of a good
social order and civic efficiency’. The clinical language of both sources may be explained
as a feature of an official report and an academic appraisal both of which would have been
objective in intention. On the other hand candidates may point out that the Majority report
favoured retaining the Poor Law (in contrast to the Minority report), with the reference to
poverty being ‘possibly from their own failure and faults’ denying, perhaps, any sense of
moral obligation.
Some may regard Sources A and D as concerned to tackle poverty as a matter of
libertarian principle. Source A emphasises that ‘Liberty is of supreme importance’ and that
extending ‘the bounds of liberty’ appears to be a major objective. Equality of rights is
stressed in Source D too. However, in both cases it could be argued that the promotion of
liberty and individual rights is synonymous with a moral obligation to help the poor; if liberty
was a right, tackling poverty, which stifled freedom, was a moral imperative. Candidates
might dismiss the tenor of Sources A and D as the musing of dry theorists but they were,
nonetheless, typical of new liberalism.
16
F963/02
4
(a)
Mark Scheme
January 2011
Study Sources D and E.
Compare these Sources as evidence for views about Churchill’s economic
policy in 1925.
[30]
No set answer is expected, but candidates need to compare the contents,
evaluating such matters as authorship, dating, utility and reliability, so using
the Source ‘as evidence for…..’ The Headings and attributions should aid
evaluation and reference to both is expected in a good answer.
Sources D and E take very different views of the policy of returning the £ to the Gold
Standard in 1925. The £ had been taken ‘off Gold’ during the First World War and
consequently the exchange rate had fallen. The decision to get the £ ‘back to normal’
and to link it to gold reserves had been urged by the financial sector, eager to give
complete confidence to users of sterling world wide and to boost income from
‘invisible exports’ which were of huge importance to the economy. However it did
mean that revaluation brought an increase in the exchange rate of the £ against the
$ and therefore made exports more expensive. One of Britain’s major exports was
coal and the decision is said to have had a major impact on the coal industry and to
have been a cause of the General Strike, unemployment and falling purchasing
power and therefore internal demand.
Content: D argues that it brought about ‘the present troubles’ of British export
industries; E in direct comparison argues that it would be to the advantage of British
industries. For E it is a heroic move which will lessen the cost of living (by making
imports cheaper). For D it is a dangerous and unnecessary decision, rather than
being momentous and heroic and will reduce spending power by reducing
everybody’s wages by 2s (presumably because export industries will sell less and
cut wages), E congratulates Churchill; D sees his policy having a negative effect on
exports.
Provenance: D is from an economic theorist and E is from the professional world of
finance. D has no real vested interest in policy whereas the Bankers’ Association
had everything to gain from greater confidence in sterling even at the cost of higher
prices for the manufacturing sector. Both are contemporary views but whereas E is a
report of the head of an association congratulating the government on a policy they
welcomed; D is a controversial study from someone outside manufacturing and
finance. Some may know that Keynes was famous for his criticisms of Versailles and
for his later advocacy of deficit finance so will be approaching this from a more
radical perspective than the ‘establishment’ opinion of E but knowledge of Keynes
is not to be expected and marks should not be held back if there is not a focus
on this.
Judgement. Some may say that Keynes (D) is far more justified – coal exports did
fall and there was discontent; unemployment stayed high in the 1920s; Gold had to
be abandoned in 1931. However, in 1925 there was a case for E’s view of the
Return – Italy too revalued its currency; there was a strong fear of inflation such as
occurred in Germany in 1923 without a firm gold basis for the currency. There was a
considerable shift in the economy away from the value of manufactured exports to a
more modern economy based on investment, insurance, and financial services
which needed a secure currency. Churchill was at one with most of the experts in
1925 and Keynes was not the ‘miracle worker’ that he became to post-war British
politicians. Do not look for a particular point of view, but reward attempts to assess
the relative value of the Sources.
17
F963/02
4
(b)
Mark Scheme
January 2011
Study all the Sources.
Use your own knowledge to assess how far the Sources support the
interpretation that Churchill’s domestic policies and attitudes in the 1920s
were disastrous for his reputation.
[70]
Successful answers will need to make use of all five Sources, testing them
against contextual evidence and evaluating their strengths and weaknesses,
any limitations as evidence. A range of issues may be addressed in focusing
upon the terms of the question but no set conclusion is expected.
Sources that suggest his policies were disastrous for his reputation in the 1920s are
A , B, C and D. Source E is full of praise and there are elements of A and B which
stress that he retained his reputation due to his qualities of confidence, patriotism,
guts, brilliance and his effectiveness as an opponent of the left.
The debate here is whether Churchill was a discredited politician by the end of the
1920s.
One view might be that his rabid anti-communism had made him a target for the left
and almost a caricature of a Tory ( as suggested by A and B) Some claim that his
tenure of the Exchequer had resulted in unwise economies that had alienated the
armed services (C) and many in the Conservative party. His handling of the General
Strike has come in for considerable criticism, both in terms of his own financial policy
helping to cause it (D) and his misunderstanding of the challenge to the Constitution
being the issue (B). For some he came close to Fascism (A), for others he took a
responsible and statesmanlike path, accepting sound advice (E). Was he out of
office after 1929 because his reputation was already tarnished?
The most critical sources are from the left, B, and from the intellectual centre, D.
These are hardly impartial. Shinwell was a Labour supporter on the left of his party;
Keynes was a radical academic. Both write in quite a partisan way. If Churchill was
a hate figure at Labour conferences, then this could be seen as entirely natural in
politics. Shinwell shows his admiration, nonetheless for Churchill’s brilliance.
However, evidence could be presented to support Labour’s dislike, for instance by
Churchill’s over reaction to the General Strike and his branding all labour movements
as Communist. Contrarily, Churchill’s attempts at conciliation and his concern for
social conditions at home might be presented to counter this. Some cross reference
might be made with A which sees Churchill as being close to Fascism. He did admire
elements of Fascist Italy and there are certainly elements of his hostility to the left
that could be seen as being unbalanced and detrimental to his reputation. Low as a
cartoonist was a close observer of the political scene; but a cartoonist is by nature
critical. Note that both he and Shinwell offer some balance in their views. D does not
- for Keynes Churchill is pursuing a disastrous economic policy which will, by
implication, harm his reputation as export industries, purchasing power and exports
suffer. However, critics might point out that Keynes was not actually describing
effects but predicting them. British export industries had been in long term decline
and faced foreign competition.
The Return to Gold was not the cause of the problem and Churchill had to balance
making exports dearer with the supposed benefit to the more thriving sectors of the
economy. This is quite an opinionated view and needs to be considered as an
economic opinion. C too is opinionated, written by someone with as much of a
special interest as E. Beatty might have expected special treatment given Churchill’s
previous work with the admiralty, but Churchill was his own man. Should the cuts
actually be admired? Would millions of pounds spent on 1920s battleships have
actually been of much use after 1939? (especially given the rise of air power) . Why
did Beatty want big naval expenditure? The letter expresses a candid view but it is a
18
F963/02
Mark Scheme
January 2011
‘heat of the moment’ response. Candidates may well agree with him and point to the
damaging effects of the 10 Year Rule and military cuts. E is more admiring, but the
bankers have got just what they wanted. The origin of the source could be discussed
– this is from a particular sector of the economy. Manufacturing industry might have
taken a different view. However, Churchill’s financial policies as a whole have not
been overly criticised by historians, and though without expertise when appointed, he
did hold his position and showed some flair as Chancellor. Keynes seems to have
won the argument about Gold so many candidates will take issue with E and see it
as selfish and overpaid bankers getting their own way.
19
OCR (Oxford Cambridge and RSA Examinations)
1 Hills Road
Cambridge
CB1 2EU
OCR Customer Contact Centre
14 – 19 Qualifications (General)
Telephone: 01223 553998
Facsimile: 01223 552627
Email: [email protected]
www.ocr.org.uk
For staff training purposes and as part of our quality assurance
programme your call may be recorded or monitored
Oxford Cambridge and RSA Examinations
is a Company Limited by Guarantee
Registered in England
Registered Office; 1 Hills Road, Cambridge, CB1 2EU
Registered Company Number: 3484466
OCR is an exempt Charity
OCR (Oxford Cambridge and RSA Examinations)
Head office
Telephone: 01223 552552
Facsimile: 01223 552553
© OCR 2011
GCE
History A
Advanced Subsidiary GCE
Unit F963/02: Option B Modern 1815-1945
Mark Scheme for January 2013
Oxford Cambridge and RSA Examinations
OCR (Oxford Cambridge and RSA) is a leading UK awarding body, providing a wide range of
qualifications to meet the needs of candidates of all ages and abilities. OCR qualifications
include AS/A Levels, Diplomas, GCSEs, Cambridge Nationals, Cambridge Technicals,
Functional Skills, Key Skills, Entry Level qualifications, NVQs and vocational qualifications in
areas such as IT, business, languages, teaching/training, administration and secretarial skills.
It is also responsible for developing new specifications to meet national requirements and the
needs of students and teachers. OCR is a not-for-profit organisation; any surplus made is
invested back into the establishment to help towards the development of qualifications and
support, which keep pace with the changing needs of today’s society.
This mark scheme is published as an aid to teachers and students, to indicate the requirements
of the examination. It shows the basis on which marks were awarded by examiners. It does not
indicate the details of the discussions which took place at an examiners’ meeting before marking
commenced.
All examiners are instructed that alternative correct answers and unexpected approaches in
candidates’ scripts must be given marks that fairly reflect the relevant knowledge and skills
demonstrated.
Mark schemes should be read in conjunction with the published question papers and the report
on the examination.
OCR will not enter into any discussion or correspondence in connection with this mark scheme.
© OCR 2013
F963/02
Mark Scheme
Subject-specific Marking Instructions
Question (a) Maximum mark 30
A01a and b
AO2a
1
13–14
15–16
2
11–12
13–14
3
9–10
10–12
4
7–8
8–9
5
5–6
6–7
6
3–4
3–5
7
0–2
0–2
Notes related to Part A:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
Allocate marks to the most appropriate level for each AO
If several marks are available in a box, work from the top mark down until the best fit has been found
Many answers will not be at the same level for each AO
1
January 2013
F963/02
Mark Scheme
January 2013
Marking Grid for Question (a)
A0s
Total for each
question = 30
Level 1
Level 2
A01a and b
Recall, select and deploy historical knowledge appropriately,
and communicate knowledge and understanding of history in a
clear and effective manner.
Demonstrate understanding of the past through explanation,
analysis and arriving at substantiated judgements of:
key concepts such as causation, consequence,
continuity, change and significance within an historical
context;
the relationships between key features and
characteristics of the periods studied.
·
Consistent and developed comparison of the key issue
with a balanced and well-supported judgement. There
will be little or no unevenness.
·
Focused use of a range of relevant historical concepts
and context to address the key issue.
·
The answer is clearly structured and organised.
Communicates coherently, accurately and effectively.
13–14
·
Largely comparative evaluation of the key issue with a
balanced and supported judgement. There may be a
little unevenness in parts.
·
Focused use of some relevant historical context with a
good conceptual understanding to address the key
issue.
·
The answer is well structured and organised.
Communicates clearly.
11–12
2
A02a
As part of an historical enquiry, analyse and evaluate a range of
appropriate source material with discrimination.
·
·
·
·
Focused comparative analysis. Controlled and
discriminating evaluation of content and provenance,
whether integrated or treated separately.
Evaluates using a range of relevant provenance points in
relation to the sources and question. There is a thorough
but not necessarily exhaustive exploration of these.
15–16
Relevant comparative analysis of content and evaluation of
provenance but there may be some unevenness in
coverage or control.
Source evaluation is reasonably full and appropriate but
lacks completeness on the issues raised by the sources in
the light of the question.
13–14
F963/02
A0s
Level 3
Mark Scheme
·
·
·
Level 4
·
·
·
Level 5
·
·
·
A01a and b
Some comparison linked to the key issue. Is aware of
some similarity and/or difference. Judgements may be
limited and/or inconsistent with the analysis made.
Some use of relevant historical concepts and contexts
but uneven understanding. Inconsistent focus on the key
issue.
The answer has some structure and organisation but
there is also some description. Communication may be
clear but may not be consistent.
9–10
Some general comparison but undeveloped with some
assertion, description and/or narrative. Judgement is
unlikely, unconvincing or asserted.
A general sense of historical concepts and context but
understanding is partial or limited, with some tangential
and/or irrelevant evidence.
Structure may be rather disorganised with some unclear
sections. Communication is satisfactory but with some
inaccuracy of expression.
7–8
Limited comparison with few links to the key issue.
Imparts generalised comment and/or a weak
understanding of the key points. The answer lacks
judgement or makes a basic assertion.
Basic, often inaccurate or irrelevant historical context
and conceptual understanding.
Structure lacks organisation with weak or basic
communication.
5–6
3
January 2013
·
·
·
·
·
·
A02a
Provides a comparison but there is unevenness, confining
the comparison to the second half of the answer or simply
to a concluding paragraph. Either the focus is on content or
provenance, rarely both.
Source evaluation is partial and it is likely that the
provenance itself is not compared, may be undeveloped or
merely commented on discretely.
10–12
Attempts a comparison but most of the comment is
sequential. Imparts content or provenance rather than using
it.
Comparative comments are few or only partially developed,
often asserted and/or ‘stock’ in approach.
8–9
Identifies some comparative points but is very sequential
and perhaps implicit
Comment on the sources is basic, general, undeveloped or
juxtaposed, often through poorly understood quotation.
6–7
F963/02
A0s
Level 6
Mark Scheme
·
·
·
Level 7
·
·
·
A01a and b
Comparison is minimal and basic with very limited links
to the key issue. Mainly paraphrase and description with
very limited understanding. There is no judgement.
Irrelevant and inaccurate concepts and context.
Has little organisation or structure with very weak
communication.
3–4
Fragmentary, descriptive, incomplete and with few or no
links to the key issue. There is little or no understanding.
Much irrelevance.
Weak or non existent context with no conceptual
understanding.
No structure with extremely weak communication.
0–2
January 2013
·
·
·
·
A02a
Little attempt to compare. Weak commentary on one or two
undeveloped points, with basic paraphrase. Sequencing is
characteristic.
Comments on individual sources are generalised and
confused.
3–5
No attempt to compare either content or provenance with
fragmentary, brief or inaccurate comment.
Makes no attempt to use any aspects of the sources.
Question (b) Maximum mark 70
A01a and b
AO2a and b
1
20–22
42–48
2
17–19
35–41
3
13–16
28–34
4
9–12
21–27
5
6–8
14–20
6
3–5
7–13
7
0–2
0–6
Notes related to Part B:
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
Allocate marks to the most appropriate level for each AO
If several marks are available in a box, work from the top mark down until the best fit has been found
Many answers will not be at the same level for each AO
4
0–2
F963/02
AOs
Total
mark for
the
question
= 70
Level 1
Level 2
Mark Scheme
A01a and b
Recall, select and deploy historical knowledge appropriately, and
communicate knowledge and understanding of history in a clear
and effective manner.
Demonstrate understanding of the past through explanation,
analysis and arriving at substantiated judgements of:
key concepts such as causation, consequence, continuity,
change and significance within an historical context;
the relationships between key features and characteristics of
the periods studied.
·
Convincing analysis and argument with developed
explanation leading to careful, supported and persuasive
judgement arising from a consideration of both content and
provenance. There may be a little unevenness at the bottom
of the level.
·
Sharply focused use and control of a range of reliable
evidence to confirm, qualify, extend or question the sources.
·
Coherent organised structure. Accurate and effective
communication.
·
·
·
20–22
Good attempt at focused analysis, argument and
explanation leading to a supported judgement that is based
on the use of most of the content and provenance.
A focused use of relevant evidence to put the sources into
context.
Mostly coherent structure and organisation if uneven in
parts. Good communication.
17–19
5
January 2013
Ao2a and b
As part of an historical enquiry, analyse and evaluate a range of
appropriate source material with discrimination.
Analyse and evaluate, in relation to the historical context, how
aspects of the past have been interpreted and represented in
different ways.
·
·
·
·
·
·
A carefully grouped and comparative evaluation of all the
sources with effective levels of discrimination sharply
focused on the interpretation.
Analyses and evaluates the strengths, limitations and utility
of the sources in relation to the interpretation. Uses and
cross references points in individual or grouped sources to
support or refute an interpretation.
Integrates sources with contextual knowledge in analysis and
evaluation and is convincing in most respects. Has synthesis
within the argument through most of the answer.
42–48
Grouped analysis and use of most of the sources with good
levels of discrimination and a reasonable focus on the
interpretation.
Analyses and evaluates some of the strengths and limitations
of the sources in relation to the interpretation. May focus
more on individual sources within a grouping, so cross
referencing may be less frequent.
Some, perhaps less balanced, integration of sources and
contextual knowledge to analyse and evaluate the
interpretation. Synthesis of the skills may be less developed.
The analysis and evaluation is reasonably convincing.
35–41
F963/02
AOs
Level 3
Mark Scheme
·
·
·
A01a and b
Mainly sound analysis, argument and explanation, but there
may be some description and unevenness. Judgement may
be incomplete or inconsistent with the analysis of content
and provenance.
Some relevant evidence but less effectively used and may
not be extensive.
Reasonably coherent structure and organisation but uneven.
Reasonable communication.
January 2013
·
·
·
Level 4
·
·
·
Level 5
·
·
·
13–16
Attempts some analysis, argument and explanation but
underdeveloped and not always linked to the question.
There will be more assertion, description and narrative.
Judgements are less substantiated and much less
convincing.
Some relevant evidence is deployed, but evidence will vary
in accuracy, relevance and extent. It may be generalised or
tangential.
Structure is less organised, communication less clear and
some inaccuracies of expression.
9–12
Little argument or explanation, inaccurate understanding of
the issues and concepts. The answer lacks judgement.
Limited use of relevant evidence or context which is largely
inaccurate or irrelevant.
Structure is disorganised, communication basic and the
sense not always clear.
5–8
6
·
·
·
·
·
·
Ao2a and b
Some grouping although not sustained or developed.
Sources are mainly approached discretely with limited cross
reference. Their use is less developed and may, in parts,
lose focus on the interpretation. There may be some
description of content and provenance.
Is aware of some of the limitations of the sources, individually
or as a group, but mostly uses them for reference and to
illustrate an argument rather than analysing and evaluating
them as evidence. There is little cross referencing.
There may be unevenness in using knowledge in relation to
the sources. Synthesis may be patchy or bolted on. Analysis
and evaluation are only partially convincing.
28–34
Sources are discussed discretely and largely sequentially,
perhaps within very basic groups. Loses focus on the
interpretation. The sources are frequently described.
May mention some limitations of individual sources but
largely uses them for reference and illustration. Cross
referencing is unlikely.
An imbalance and lack of integration between sources and
knowledge often with discrete sections. There is little
synthesis. Analysis and explanation may be muddled and
unconvincing in part.
21–27
A limited attempt to use the sources or discriminate between
them. The approach is very sequential and referential, with
much description. Points are undeveloped.
There is little attempt to analyse, explain or use the sources
in relation to the question. Comment may be general.
There is a marked imbalance with no synthesis. Analysis and
explanation are rare and comments are unconvincing.
14–20
F963/02
AOs
Level 6
Mark Scheme
·
·
·
Level 7
·
·
·
A01a and b
There is very little explanation or understanding. Largely
assertion, description and narrative with no judgement.
Extremely limited relevance to the question.
Evidence is basic, generalised, patchy, inaccurate or
irrelevant.
Little organisation or structure with poor communication.
3–4
No argument or explanation. Fragmentary and descriptive
with no relevance to the question.
No understanding underpins what little use is made of
evidence or context.
Disorganised and partial with weak communication and
expression.
0–2
7
January 2013
·
·
·
·
·
·
Ao2a and b
Very weak and partial use of the sources for the question. No
focus on interpretation.
A very weak, general and paraphrased use of source
content.
No synthesis or balance. Comments are entirely
unconvincing.
7–13
Little application of the sources to the question with
inaccuracies and irrelevant comment. Fragmentary and
heavily descriptive.
No attempt to use any aspect of the sources appropriately.
No contextual knowledge, synthesis or balance. There is no
attempt to convince.
0–6
F963/02
Question
1
(a)
Mark Scheme
Answer
The context is immediate post war distress, specifically the winter of 1816/17 which saw the
two Spa Fields Meetings, the second of which degenerated into violence and alleged
revolutionary plotting. This brought into focus the issue of radical methods. Both sources
agree that the focus should be parliamentary reform. They are similar in agreeing on
moderate methods – ‘the superiority of mental over physical force’ by Hunt in Source A and
the stress on ‘moderate methods’ by Cobbett in Source B. Both stress petitions as a
primary method and both put great stress on Open Meetings. At these there could be a
‘calling aloud for timely reform’ in Source A, a trust in individual effort and open meetings in
Source B.
However there are important differences. Hunt in Source A argues that physical force
could be resorted to if moderate methods failed. Cobbett does not. Cobbett, unlike Hunt
disapproves of Political Clubs, plots and Corresponding Societies, considering them all
ineffective. They also differ on the use of language. Cobbett in Source B stresses that
language must be moderately used in both petitions and meetings. However Hunt in Source
A indulges in rousing rhetoric that implies the right of rebellion. Thus he hints and warns
about an ultimate recourse to violence and physical force. Candidates may note that his
reference to the ‘fatal day’ was greeted by a ‘hurrah’ from the crowd. He himself will not be
backward in coming forward.
As regards provenance the dates and geography of the sources are important. Hunt is
addressing a radical part of artisan London and he is aware that he must not go too far
whilst using the mass platform to enthuse (‘the fatal day’). The meeting passed off
peacefully. The second Spa Fields meeting on the 2nd December was hijacked by radical
Spenceans and ended in a drunken riot. This led the government to clamp down in the
Gagging Acts of 1817. This provides the different context for Cobbett, who is writing, in
contrast, to a rural area advising more moderate and legal methods, such as petitions and
open meetings. His purpose is to calm things and avoid giving the government any excuse
to further move against the radicals, hence his more moderate tone.
In judgement candidates may well see Hunt’s evidence in Source A as better for explaining
and demonstrating the rhetoric of the mass platform and his particular form of crowd control.
Cobbett in B is better for general tactics following the debacle of the 2nd Spa Fields
Meeting, although his dislike of other radicals like Hunt may also colour his evidence.
8
January 2013
Marks
30
Guidance
Focus: Comparison of two
Sources
No set answer is expected,
but candidates need to
compare the contents,
evaluating such matters as
authorship, dating, utility
and reliability, so using the
Source ‘as evidence for…..’
The Headings and
attributions should aid
evaluation and reference to
both is expected in a good
answer.
F963/02
Question
(b)
Mark Scheme
Answer
Various views on the reasons for radical failure in this period are possible. The suggestion is
that divisions within the radicals, both over personality and policy clashes and disagreement
over tactics, rendered them weak and prone to failure, Sources B and D. The main
alternative is that they were in fact relatively united and strong, both in purpose and in
tactical ingenuity, and it was government strength and repression that ensured failure
(Sources A, B, C and E). All the sources are from radicals, including the cartoon, and
provide a variety of internal perspectives and on the problems that they faced in a society
that restricted and denied them access to the franchise and parliament.
The view that the radicals failed through their own divisions can be found in Sources B
and D. Cobbett in Source B is contemptuous of the failure of Spa Fields and firmly holds to
moderate methods. He dislikes radical Spenceans like Watson, and Thistlewood, whom he
blames for Spa Fields and he would also include Hunt in this. However he also condemns
Cartwright’s Hampden Clubs, in contrast to Bamford in Source E. These were the major
post Spa Fields initiative from the radicals to organise both locally and then move to a
central organisation. Yet Cobbett considers them ineffective. However his evidence is
tainted by his dislike of Hunt and Cartwright and by his own preference for local meetings,
issues and his Political Register. Nonetheless its dislike of other radicals and their methods
is corroborated by Hazlitt in Source D. Writing in 1819 in the context of Peterloo and from a
detached perspective (he was a literary radical who was also a sought after journalist and
writer) he is very explicit in his condemnation of radical divisions. He blames the
personalities and leaders rather than their policies. He argues they all hated each other,
took individual lines and devoted their respective organisations to undermining each other.
Knowledge may bear this out. This was an age of self dependent politicians who found it
difficult to create a central organisation, hence Carlyle’s long contest with authority and
Hunt’s efforts to hog the limelight (as Source A and Peterloo illustrate). Place saw most
other radicals as fools to be manipulated. Bamford became ever more moderate and was
prone to self esteem, hence his grand autobiographical descriptions in ‘Passages in the Life
of a Radical’, (Source E is an example in point). Carlyle despised organisation and
consulting others. As Source D suggests the radicals were prima donnas demanding and
rarely getting respect from each other. They liked slogans and political theatre (the platform
and grand entrances to towns and cities). Whilst this and their demagoguery could rouse
numbers they were not always good leaders. As Hazlitt comments in Source D their parties
and committees were often aimed more at each other than the government and authority. In
Source A Hunt deals with emotion rather than strategy.
9
January 2013
Marks
70
Guidance
Focus: Judgement in
context, based on a set of
Sources and own
knowledge.
Successful answers will
need to make use of all five
Sources, testing them
against contextual evidence
and evaluating their
strengths and weaknesses,
any limitations as evidence.
A range of issues may be
addressed in focusing upon
the terms of the question
but no set conclusion is
expected.
The sources can be
read/analysed in different
ways and as part of their
judgement candidates will
need to appreciate this.
F963/02
Question
Mark Scheme
Answer
The alternative view is that they were strong but failed because of government
strength. This interpretation can be found in Sources A, B, C and E. Hunt in A is clearly a
master of crowd manipulation and, like most of the leaders, good at staying just this side of
the law in his rhetoric. His management of the 1st Spa Fields meeting is effective. Similarly
Cobbett in B is careful not to provoke and provides evidence of considerable activity.
However the main evidence of radical purpose and unity is Bamford in Source E. He
comments on increased membership of the Hampden Clubs, good funding, the use of
chapels for regular meetings and also signs of a national organisation emerging, a national
Meeting or Convention in London. The aims (parliamentary reform) are clear – all over the
age of 18 paying taxes are to vote annually and each block of population is to receive a
representative with no corrupt placemen allowed. There appears to be unity at the base and
in the localities, whatever the divisions at the top. The stalwarts were local trade unionists,
booksellers and local speakers. This would suggest that the Cartoon in Source C is
accurate and that, as Cobbett realised in Source B, the Government is repressive and
proactive. The government should be given no excuse to act. The comment in C comes
from March 1817, after the government clamp down following Spa Fields. The Gagging Acts
had suspended habeas corpus, there were press restrictions and the law was being used to
arrest and imprison radicals. A Committee of secrecy had been set up to collate evidence of
widespread conspiracy and revolution, Lord Eldon’s large sack. Church and patronage were
used to counter the radicals and the use of troops was more frequent (culminating in
Peterloo). Spies were used to infiltrate and incriminate the radicals. The radicals were a
‘weeping’ and marginalised group. Although obviously exaggerated Source C points to
government strength rather than radical weakness.
The sources can be read/analysed in different ways and as part of their judgement
candidates will need to appreciate this. As a set they are all radical, revealing elements both
of strength and division.
10
January 2013
Marks
Guidance
F963/02
Question
2
(a)
Mark Scheme
Answer
The context of both sources are Gladstone’s campaigns in late 1879 and 1880, the first
Midlothian campaign, dating from November/December 1879 when Gladstone accepted the
nomination to be Liberal candidate for the normally solid Conservative constituency of
Midlothian, the second being the result of the General Election that ensued in 1880.
Gladstone’s focus in both was a condemnation of Disraeli’s foreign and imperial policy.
Both sources are similar in agreeing on the power of Gladstone’s mass oratory, using very
similar language to describe its impact. The Times in B refers to a ‘passionate temper’;
Watson in C to the ‘launching upon a sea of passion’. Both have occasion to question
Gladstone’s reasoning, albeit in rather different ways. The Times in B considers that such
oratory lacks a sense of calm judgement and ‘considered argument’; Watson in C, after the
event, comments on a sense of ‘ecstasy beyond reason’.
However they differ on the impact of the campaigns. The Times tends to dismiss it as
temporary and shallow, commanding only brief popular enthusiasm from the electorate, an
electorate which it thinks is still dominated by the cautious and intelligent voter, not yet the
mass democracy of post 1884. The emotion it thinks Gladstone wrongly whips up will
evaporate quickly, having little (probably deleterious) impact on the thoughtful voting classes
it thankfully thinks are still in a majority. The Times is confident that most will not surrender
to Gladstone’s public display of ‘passionate temper’. In contrast Watson in Source C
comments from the vantage point of a voter who did succumb and who appears both
intelligent and perceptive in his comments. The Times in B misses the point that C makes
about Gladstone’s ability to empower people. It considers Gladstone’s impact to be
temporary –‘for a while command’. Watson in C makes the point that Gladstone gave his
audience a sense of power, putting decisions into the hands of people and nation. It was
their ‘verdict’. They would make the decisions. Gladstone, according to Watson, enabled
people to understand complex issues as matters of simple and great principle, ‘moral
commands’. This effect is missed completely by the Times.
As regards provenance the key lies in the respective positions of the two sources. The
Times in B was the major ‘establishment’ newspaper commenting at the beginning of the 1st
Midlothian campaign when the probable result of an ex Liberal leader challenging in a safe
Conservative seat may well have appeared foolish and unlikely to succeed. It clearly
disapproves of Gladstone’s campaigning tactics. Such campaigns were relatively new and, if
Bulgaria was anything to go by, likely to either fizzle out or work against Gladstone when
events changed.
11
January 2013
Marks
30
Guidance
Focus: Comparison of
two Sources.
No set answer is expected,
but candidates need to
compare the contents,
evaluating such matters as
authorship, dating, utility
and reliability, so using the
Sources ‘as evidence for
…’. The headings and
attributions should aid
evaluation and reference to
both is expected in a good
answer.
F963/02
Question
Mark Scheme
Answer
The Times’ audience was a prosperous and educated Upper and Middle Class who followed
politics through the word rather than the traditionally radical mass platform. They would, like
the Times, disapprove of Gladstone’s policies and tactics. In contrast Watson attended the
1880 meeting as part of a later General Election campaign when Gladstone was clearly at
the height of his powers following many such events. His purpose is different – to describe
the personal impact of Gladstone on himself as an audience member and to analyse what
he described as being ‘Gladstonised’. Although largely supportive of Gladstone’s overall
stance, he is careful to assess the precise impact of Gladstone on large crowds. He was
writing in a political magazine and assessing his immediate reactions.
Candidates are likely to judge that both sources are useful in demonstrating how Gladstone
could polarise opinion. Both provide useful evidence for a differing impact. The Times is
effective evidence for establishment distaste of Gladstone’s popular campaigns, but Watson
may be considered the better evidence as his account is from the perspective of
Gladstone’s audience and contains some balance. It is more careful in its analysis of
Gladstone’s play upon emotions and upon the popular reaction he was having. Contrary to
the Times’ opinion, Gladstone won the election of 1880.
12
January 2013
Marks
Guidance
F963/02
Question
(b)
Mark Scheme
Answer
The sources support two possible interpretations of Gladstone’s campaigns. The view in
the question is that he was reluctantly drawn out of retirement by a simple sense of
moral outrage at Disraeli’s irresponsibility over foreign and imperial issues (Bulgaria
and the Eastern Question in 1876; Afghanistan and South Africa in 1879–80). The other
view is that Gladstone as politically ambitious, using the campaigns as an excuse to
stage a political comeback after the debacle of the 1874 election, reasserting his hold over
Liberalism and sweeping aside his successors, the Whig Liberals Granville and Hartington,
and potential future rivals, like the coming Joe Chamberlain.
The sources represent a variety of views – Gladstone himself commenting in public and
private both during and after the event; an intelligent observer of the campaigns themselves;
an establishment view; and a modern historian. All the sources, except possibly E which
suggests politics and ambition, are capable of supporting either interpretation, depending on
how their information and provenance are assessed.
The interpretation in the question, Gladstone returning out of a sense of duty and
moral outrage to conduct a crusade against ‘Beaconsfieldism’, can be found in all the
sources except E. As might be expected Gladstone in sources A and D is at pains, both
privately (A) and publicly (D), to deny political ambition and stress instead his moral duty,
responding to the pressures of both others and events. To Bright in A he cites five very
cogent reasons why he is no longer ambitious. Nor does he think it realistic to challenge for
the leadership. In particular he cites loyalty to Granville and Hartington and to the great
hostility such ambition would produce (confirmed with reference to the views of the Times in
B). Source D most clearly supports the view of a moral crusade. In his Reminiscences he
stresses that he acted out of a moral sense of duty to the subject peoples of the Balkans. It
was an act of public justice. However candidates could question the extent to which, by
1896, Gladstone was weaving a story about his career, one based on a series of moral
missions, that of the 1870s being on Britain’s European and World role. Certainly in D he
argues for a reluctantly adopted mission, saying he was slow to see Disraeli’s unconditional
support for the Ottomans and was content to allow others (Forster) to take the lead in
opposing him. The stress is on compulsion (from Bright?) and he explicitly states that he
had no thought as to leadership. The Times in Source B doubts Gladstone’s political ability,
commenting unfavourably on his campaigns. It is convinced he will not succeed. Its
reference to ‘passionate temper’ would suggest moral outrage on policies abroad rather
than political ambition. Knowledge might suggest that the Liberal leadership was reluctant to
13
January 2013
Marks
70
Guidance
Focus: Judgement in
context, based on the set
of Sources and own
knowledge.
Successful answers will
need to make use of all five
Sources, testing them
against contextual
knowledge and evaluating
their strengths and
weaknesses, any
limitations as evidence. A
range of issues may be
addressed in focusing upon
the terms of the question
but no set conclusion is
expected.
F963/02
Question
Mark Scheme
Answer
support him, not just because he was a threat to them but because his opinions would make
it more difficult to come to a favourable resolution of Britain’s foreign and imperial interests.
Watson in C comments purely in terms of great principles, an appeal to the people, ‘moral
commands’. Shannon in E could be considered unduly cynical in his view, his Gladstone’s
‘game’ quotation applying equally to a moral campaign as a political one.
The alternative argument, for ambition is largely to be found in Sources A (reading
between the lines), C (gaining votes), in part D and especially E. Although Gladstone in
Source A, writing privately to his mentor Bright (who had raised the issue of his resuming
the leadership), denies it, the fact that Bright mentions it meant that the Midlothian campaign
was having a huge political impact. There was pressure from the radical wing for Gladstone
to come out of retirement to challenge the Whig leadership over partial support for Disraeli’s
policies abroad. This is supported in Source E where Chamberlain hopes a return will
discomfit the Whigs. Gladstone had to write to Bright to deny it. As he later commented, in
Source D, of 1876 and Bulgaria, he was less than impressed with the existing leadership’s
reactions to Disraeli’s government. Source C supports the passion that Gladstone aroused
but, despite reservations, Watson votes for him in 1880. That sort of response made it
impossible for the Whig leadership of the Liberals or the Queen, to hold out against his
resumption of the premiership. Candidates may well spot the last sentence of Source A,
where Gladstone changes his modest tack and comments on the ‘wonderful enthusiasm’ in
Scotland. He shares his ‘content’ with Bright on the ‘progress of popular opinion’ and its
response to the Midlothian campaign. One reading of this source is that Gladstone is
rousing opinion in a way that Bright approves, with the leadership in mind, but is careful to
reign in Bright and not appear to be queering Granville and Hartington’s pitch as existing
leaders. Commenting after the event, in Source D, Gladstone arguably continues to be
ingenuous. On the one hand he comments on his re-emergence from 1876 (over the
Eastern Question, Afghanistan and South Africa – the ‘main business of my life’), implying
simply an innocent reaction to events. However candidates might comment on the
penultimate sentence – ‘nevertheless it made me leader again whether I wanted it or not’.
Was Gladstone commenting in a knowing manner, aware that his campaign was meant to
deliver him the leadership, or is this simply a statement of innocent fact? Taken together the
two Gladstonian sources, A and D, certainly show that leadership and ambition could be
seen as the unwritten agenda of the campaigns, although the private/public aspects of both
confirm that Gladstone was always careful on issues of ambition. Own knowledge might
suggest that, at least on Bulgaria, Gladstone was reluctant to come forward. Public opinion
14
January 2013
Marks
Guidance
F963/02
Question
Mark Scheme
Answer
led him rather than the other way around, but by 1879 he had taken charge. Watson in C
and Shannon in E both confirms Gladstone’s ability to arouse emotion, set agendas and
win elections, (in this case 1880). Watson in C, despite some reservations, votes for him
and confesses to be ‘Gladstonised’. He and Gladstone consider the victory of 1880 to be
that of the nation, not the Whig and Tory upper classes, as Gladstone may have intended. If
it is Gladstone who wins, it will inevitably be he who returns to both leadership and
premiership. Candidates could use their knowledge to show how Gladstone overcame even
the Queen’s objections to his resumption of the government. Given the balance of Watson’s
comments he may be considered effective evidence of Gladstone’s political tenacity.
Shannon in E, from a more modern and cynical perspective, quotes Gladstone himself in
1876 as evidence that a ‘game’ was afoot’, a game in which he was backed by formerly
alienated Nonconformists and the rising radical star of Chamberlain. For Shannon the
‘abdication’ of 1875 was both a ‘fiction’ and short-lived (he re-emerged in 1876), Gladstone
feeling only ‘slight embarrassment’ at pushing the Whigs aside in 1880 (in contrast to his
protestations to Bright about the leadership in Source A). However candidates may feel that
this ignores the seriousness of his intentions, his real commitment to retirement and only
temporary re-emergence (?). He could also be quoting Gladstone out of context. The ‘game’
could merely refer to his campaign rather than a wider political agenda. A consideration of
1876–80 might stress Gladstone’s reluctance, at least in 1876–78 to embark on a crusade
and his acceptance of the Midlothian liberal candidacy may have owed more to his desire to
escape from Greenwich, scene of his 1874 humiliation, and to the traditional Rosebery
interest in Midlothian than to a moral crusade that only developed once underway.
In terms of judgement candidates may well consider the evidence for moral issues and
‘reluctance’ to be more compelling, given the framework of reference that all the sources
adopt. However Gladstone’s views in A and D are, as always, politically careful and the
consequence of both Bulgaria and Midlothian was to move Gladstone centre stage, enable
him to take the credit for Liberal victory in 1880 and resume government and leadership
without the qualms his comments to Bright in Source A suggest.
15
January 2013
Marks
Guidance
F963/02
Question
3
(a)
Mark Scheme
Answer
These sources differ on several points. Source B accuses Labour MPs of failing to support
unemployed textile workers in Manchester whereas Source D demonstrates the solidarity of
local Labour politicians and local people in the march to the High Court. In Source B the
charge against Labour is that they preferred to talk, ‘empty and meaningless slogans at
Liberal meetings’ in contrast to the politicians of Poplar who were prepared to take action in
pursuit of changing the rating system. This point could be extended by consideration of the
leadership shown by Labour politicians. In Source B the Party is described as without ‘teeth
or claws’ and with ‘blind leaders’. However, in Source D the leaders of the council were
prepared to go to jail and to remain defiant in prison by singing the Red Flag and Lansbury
addressed their supporters from his ‘cell window’. According to Source B Labour MPs were
more concerned with temperance reform than ‘the subject of unemployment’. However, the
whole thrust of Source D indicates that the priority of the Labour Party in Poplar was to
improve the lot of the poor and unemployed. In Source B MPs are said to ‘have displayed
greater activity for temperance reform’ with the implication that some MPs regarded moral
virtue as a remedy for poverty. This contrasts starkly with Source D which recognises clearly
the imperative of financial matters to deal with the problems of the unemployed and they
were prepared to flout their obligations to the LCC by withholding money from them.
A very obvious but important point should be made to explain the differences. Source B is
commenting on the Parliamentary Labour Party which was in ‘alliance’ with the Liberals who
headed the government. As such they were not in a position to determine policy whereas
the Labour Party was in control of the county council in Poplar with some scope to decide
policy and an ability to rebel against the LCC, albeit at a cost. However, there is
convergence of purpose between the authors of Sources B and D: they both want change.
When Source B was written the Liberal Party was addressing a range of social problems
and expectations of change were high and, although reforms for the working man were
introduced later, there had not been any significant progress by 1908 which explains the
frustration of the author of Source B. After World War One there was great pressure on
government, even at local level, to create ‘Homes for Heroes’. This helps explain the
determination of the author of Source D to affect change from a Conservative dominated
Coalition Government. Furthermore, the author was writing almost ten years after the rates
row and perhaps exaggerates the role he and his colleagues played in reforming the rates.
This could be linked to a broader point of motive. Lansbury was an ambitious Labour MP in
1928 and he may have been trying to enhance his reputation by writing his autobiography at
this stage. Indeed, he assumed the leadership of the Party in 1931 and held the post till
1935.
16
January 2013
Marks
30
Guidance
Focus: Comparison of two
Sources.
No set answer is expected,
but candidates need to
compare the contents,
evaluating such matters as
authorship, dating, utility
and reliability, so using the
Sources ‘as evidence for
…’. The headings and
attributions should aid
evaluation and reference to
both is expected in a good
answer.
F963/02
Question
Mark Scheme
Answer
The author of Source B was a frustrated radical hoping to stimulate or embarrass the
Labour Party into action and he wanted to be entirely detached from the Liberals.
January 2013
Marks
Guidance
70
Focus: Judgement in
context, based on the set of
Sources and own
knowledge.
Successful answers will
need to make use of all five
Sources, testing them
against contextual
knowledge and evaluating
their strengths and
weaknesses, any
limitations as evidence. A
range of issues may be
addressed in focusing upon
the terms of the question
but no set conclusion is
expected.
In judgement on the evidence candidates might argue that a comparison of the Party at
national and local level has its limitations especially as Lansbury was also an MP. Given the
different personal motives of the authors some might argue that Source B was more
reliable. Either way both sources show how the problem of unemployment was a major
issue as far many in the Party were concerned and that there were differences within the
Party in how to deal with it, and over political tactics in the different circumstances of 1908
and 1921.
(b)
Sources that support the interpretation strongly are B and E, although Source C is
weighted that way too. However, Source C also provides evidence to the contrary: even
Source E can be used to challenge the interpretation. Sources A and D provide less
ambiguous evidence to challenge the interpretation.
Sources B and E both charge Labour with ‘betrayal’ (Source B) and ‘treachery’ (Source E)
specifically of the working class but more generally of party principles. Source B
sarcastically suggests ‘they have displayed greater activity for temperance reform than for
Labour interests’ and Source E accuses the Labour Government of ‘wholesale scrapping of
principles’. This is developed in Source B which suggests Labour MPs are more interested
in playing at politics and attending Liberal meetings where they mouth ‘empty and
meaningless slogans’ implying a willingness to compromise their principles. Source E
damns the Labour Party as working in ‘the service of capitalism’ which explicitly suggests
they have abandoned their principles. Source C could be integrated into this analysis as it is
particularly critical of MacDonald who is thought to be ‘preparing his exit from the ILP’ and of
‘joining the Liberal Party’. Even the founder of the Party, Kier Hardie, is described as
disillusioned ‘with no real faith left in the Labour movement as a revolutionary force’. It is
implied that ’the rank and file become more restive’ because they too are disillusioned.
However, the authors of Sources B and C are of the radical wing of the Party and the
author of Source E is from the Communist Party. As such the latter has a vested interest in
painting the Labour Party as unprincipled and part of the establishment, ‘anxious to
conserve the whole worn out fabric of Parliament’. He also ignores the fact that Mac Donald
headed a minority government. The criticism of Tillett and Webb might be explained by
virtue of being some of the early members of the Party and intellectuals who were intolerant
of compromise, even naive in failing to appreciate the realities of politics.
17
F963/02
Question
Mark Scheme
Answer
Perhaps their criticism might be considered extreme given the relatively small size of the
parliamentary party.
However, both Sources C and E are less critical of the Party than Source B. The latter
seems to condemn the parliamentary party as a whole as unprincipled: in reference to
‘Labour MPs could have been in Manchester’ the implication is that none were and that they
were all culpable of not ‘supporting textile workers suffering starvation’. However, in Source
C an MP of principle argued MPs ‘ought to vote ... ‘‘according to the merits’ of the particular
issue’, and, that he ‘carried his resolution – however impractical’. In describing it in this way
the author reveals her solidarity with this MP but the fact that he ‘shone out’ indicates that he
was an exception, as a man of principle, amongst Labour MPs. In Source E a distinction is
made between the Labour Government, against which the charge of being unprincipled and
more concerned with power is made, and backbenchers, as the remarks ‘causing disquiet
amongst their own followers in Parliament’, suggests that some MPs, at least, were more
principled.
Most candidates will use Source D to oppose the interpretation arguing that ‘the local
Labour Party programme’ was taken seriously and action taken to achieve it. The fact that
local politicians were prepared to go to jail in pursuit of the policy of ‘equalisation of the
rates’ could be offered as evidence for their commitment to principles. Also, the singing of
the Red Flag by the imprisoned Labour Party politicians suggests allegiance to socialist
principles. The fact that they appear to have had the support of the unemployed suggests
they were regarded as committed to the interests of the working class and true to their
principles. It could be argued that the record of one local council is not representative of the
Labour Party as a whole. Some might question whether the reform of the rates was merely
tinkering with the system and did not amount to radical change of the sort associated with
Labour Party rhetoric and constitutional principles of nationalisation and the social equality.
The rates were merely one issue and we do not know if the local party was similarly
principled on other matters.
Source A is fairly unambiguous in highlighting the priority of principle. Socialism is said to
have had ‘ethical appeal’ and ‘it was politics inspired by idealism’. In addition, the ways in
which the ‘word’ was spread indicates the commitment of the supporters of the Labour Party
to its ideals.
18
January 2013
Marks
Guidance
F963/02
Question
Mark Scheme
Answer
References to the ‘Vocal Unions’ and ‘cycling corps’, ‘the singing of choirs’ and the
enthusiasm with which slogans such as ‘Workers of the World Unite’ were distributed
suggests a pride and honesty in those involved. The piece as a whole stresses the
importance of the message and the principles behind the movement. It might be argued that
this is not surprising given the passage is about the propaganda work of the ILP and does
not comment on Labour in power. Further, these recollections are reflecting on the early
years of the party when it was trying to gain support when enthusiasm for a new venture
created an optimism and belief that the ILP would make a difference because it was
different. The fact that the author is writing many years after his career has ended may be
something candidates could comment on to assess the utility of the evidence.
The evidence can clearly be used to support the interpretation but a strong counter
argument can be constructed. This is more likely to be effective if candidates make
distinctions between different parts of the Labour Party: Governments, MPs, rank and file,
ILP, Fabians etc, or comment on the question in relation to various periods. However, even
candidates who are less discerning in this regard should be able to produce a sound
analysis.
19
January 2013
Marks
Guidance
F963/02
Question
4
(a)
Mark Scheme
Answer
Both Source B and Source D see bombing as destructive – B sees ‘a whirlwind’ and talks
of the scale of bombing – millions of tons. D talks of impressive destruction and the impact
on Germany – creating a ‘ruined land’. So both are aware of the power and destructiveness
of the bombing. However, the thrust is different in other ways. B sees bombing as an act of
revenge – the key sentence is that Germany has sowed the wind and reaped the whirlwind
and Hitler’s boasts have rebounded on him. The RAF campaign is seen in terms of a
technical success. There is no hint of remorse or self-criticism. In D however, the bombing is
seen in a different light – there is an element of deception – ‘terror under other pretexts’
which is not present in B at all. Dresden, as opposed to Düsseldorf raises a serious query
about the conduct of the war not at all raised in B. The emphasis in B is on success and
achievement; but D has ‘terror and wanton destruction’. The object of bombing is not
queried in B but the creation of ‘an utterly ruined land’ casts doubts on the wisdom of the
policy in D.
When considering provenance, what explains the difference is the very different context
and purpose of the two sources. The speech to Londoners in 1943 (B) is to offer the
consolations of revenge after the sufferings of the Blitz and in the middle of a very protracted
war in which it was difficult to strike directly at the heart of German power.
By 1943, with the aid of the US air force it was possible to inflict heavy damage on German
cities and it was a matter of raising morale by drawing attention to the power of the allied
attacks. Victory was so far away that it would not have occurred to Churchill to consider
what the allies might take over when their forces came to control Germany. By 1945, with
the end of the war in sight this became a more pressing concern. Dusseldorf had been an
industrial area; Dresden far less so. D is not a public document and Churchill would not
have criticised any aspect of the war in public, however ferocious such was the intense
desire to bring the war to an end; but in private there could be greater reflection, particularly
as the matter of post-war political and historical reputation was now a matter to be
considered. In other words, moral qualms were able to be indulged in the situation in 1945,
but had little place in the midst of the war in 1943. Also, what might be raised in confidence
was very different to what could be said in public, particularly in the light of the very heavy
losses incurred by RAF bombing crews.
20
January 2013
Marks
30
Guidance
No set answer is expected,
but candidates need to
compare the contents,
evaluating such matters as
authorship, dating, utility
and reliability, so using the
Source ‘as evidence for…..’
The Headings and
attributions should aid
evaluation and reference to
both is expected in a good
answer.
F963/02
Question
Mark Scheme
Answer
When making a judgement, candidates might consider that In the light of the bitter feelings
about the bombing of Britain, it may be that B is more typical of Churchill and other war
leaders’ attitude to bombing; However given Churchill’s generosity to defeated enemies and
his scepticism about the policies of his military commanders, it might be argued that D is
also typical, but not of the war as a whole. B may be seen as a more useful guide to
understanding British bombing policy given Harris’s beliefs that German morale would break
and the heavy commitment of manpower and resources to bombing. The exceptionally high
casualties of Dresden and the fact that it was primarily for the benefit of the USSR may
make Churchill’s regrets in D rather less typical.
21
January 2013
Marks
Guidance
F963/02
Question
(b)
Mark Scheme
Answer
This remains a controversial topic and Bomber Command and its chief, Sir Arthur Harris, felt
ill-used by Churchill after the war. Some German historians have seen the allied bombing as
a war crime and the efficacy of bombing both in undermining morale in Germany and in
restricting war production have been questioned. Sources E and C offer a case for the
policy to have been ill-judged as a whole. Source D suggests some lack of judgement while
Sources A and B see a justified and successful policy.
The case for poor judgement: Source E sees a change of policy in 1942 leading to
retaliation and having an opposite effect on German morale from that intended with the
population closing ranks behind Hitler as never before. The civilian bombing at the expense
of strategic bombing was ineffective and the general effect was to lengthen rather than to
shorten the war. Fest offers historical rather than moral judgements, but his generation
suffered directly from the bombing and he may not be an impartial observer. However, he is
an expert on German wartime armament through his work on Speer who did remarkably
keep production going despite the bombing.
In Source C Bishop Bell in a brave and highly unpopular attack on wartime policy looked to
the future and saw the policy as ill-judged in threatening the very values for which the war
was being fought and ending any chance of the millions who were not Nazis supporting an
end to the war – making a similar point to Speer about increasing rather than decreasing
German support for the Hitler regime. There is a moral condemnation that ‘the roots of
civilization’ are threatened; candidates might see some evidence for this in the increasing
brutalization and carelessness for civilian life. Obviously, as a religious figure, Bell is
speaking from a moral and philosophical perspective, but his arguments have some
practical basis as well. This is a public speech with the intention to warn, but it does have
some echoes in Churchill’s own view of Dresden in Source D. The point regarding poor
judgement could also be developed using E’s comments about Harris and D’s regrets – did
Churchill show poor judgement in first instructing him to ‘area bomb’ and then not reigning
Harris in over widening the strategy. Later relations between Churchill and Harris might
suggest this.
22
January 2013
Marks
70
Guidance
Focus: Judgement in
context, based on a set of
Sources and own
knowledge.
Successful answers will
need to make use of all five
Sources, testing them
against contextual evidence
and evaluating their
strengths and weaknesses,
any limitations as evidence.
A range of issues may be
addressed in focusing upon
the terms of the question
but no set conclusion is
expected.
F963/02
Question
Mark Scheme
Answer
The counter-view. However, by 1945 the outcome of war was no longer in question and
criticisms of bombing may not take into account the problems of engaging with Germany in
a decisive way before a Second Front was opened in June 1944. Before that the burden of
the war fell on the USSR and as Source A makes clear, part of the rationale for heavy
bombing of Germany was to support Stalin (or some may say to offer at relatively low cost
allied support which did not involve the huge casualties of a land–based Second Front).
There was a rational argument that German air strength was being diverted and depleted
and it was certainly important to do everything possible to encourage the Russian victories
in Russia in 1943 which were the turning point in the war. Stalin however regarded this as a
poor substitute for actually landing large scale forces in France. There is rather more
strategic justification in Source A as one would expect from the nature of the source – a
joint letter to Stalin at a time when relations were quite difficult within the alliance. Source B
is different, being a rousing speech to the people of London who would be less interested in
strategic concerns than in seeing revenge for the raids inflicted on the capital and having
their confidence boosted in the midst of a long and seemingly endless struggle by an
assurance of the power and success of the RAF. Churchill’s judgement here might be a
morale and political one for a domestic audience. However, the effectiveness of the raids
celebrated in Source B might be questioned in the light of Source E and the ability of
Germany to sustain war production well into 1944–5. D might question the wisdom of
persisting with terror bombing, but this was at a time when Churchill could reflect on the
morality of it all and look forward to occupying Germany – perhaps luxuries not available
earlier in the war when, as he said, Britain had to fight as it could rather than how it wished.
23
January 2013
Marks
Guidance
OCR (Oxford Cambridge and RSA Examinations)
1 Hills Road
Cambridge
CB1 2EU
OCR Customer Contact Centre
Education and Learning
Telephone: 01223 553998
Facsimile: 01223 552627
Email: [email protected]
www.ocr.org.uk
For staff training purposes and as part of our quality assurance
programme your call may be recorded or monitored
Oxford Cambridge and RSA Examinations
is a Company Limited by Guarantee
Registered in England
Registered Office; 1 Hills Road, Cambridge, CB1 2EU
Registered Company Number: 3484466
OCR is an exempt Charity
OCR (Oxford Cambridge and RSA Examinations)
Head office
Telephone: 01223 552552
Facsimile: 01223 552553
© OCR 2013
GCE
History A
Advanced GCE F963/02
Option B Modern 1815-1945
Mark Scheme for June 2010
Oxford Cambridge and RSA Examinations
OCR (Oxford Cambridge and RSA) is a leading UK awarding body, providing a wide range of
qualifications to meet the needs of pupils of all ages and abilities. OCR qualifications include
AS/A Levels, Diplomas, GCSEs, OCR Nationals, Functional Skills, Key Skills, Entry
Level qualifications, NVQs and vocational qualifications in areas such as IT, business,
languages, teaching/training, administration and secretarial skills.
It is also responsible for developing new specifications to meet national requirements and the
needs of students and teachers. OCR is a not-for-profit organisation; any surplus made is
invested back into the establishment to help towards the development of qualifications and
support which keep pace with the changing needs of today’s society.
This mark scheme is published as an aid to teachers and students, to indicate the requirements
of the examination. It shows the basis on which marks were awarded by Examiners. It does not
indicate the details of the discussions which took place at an Examiners’ meeting before marking
commenced.
All Examiners are instructed that alternative correct answers and unexpected approaches in
candidates’ scripts must be given marks that fairly reflect the relevant knowledge and skills
demonstrated.
Mark schemes should be read in conjunction with the published question papers and the Report
on the Examination.
OCR will not enter into any discussion or correspondence in connection with this mark scheme.
© OCR 2010
Any enquiries about publications should be addressed to:
OCR Publications
PO Box 5050
Annesley
NOTTINGHAM
NG15 0DL
Telephone:
Facsimile:
E-mail:
0870 770 6622
01223 552610
[email protected]
F963/02
Mark Scheme
June 2010
Question (a) Maximum mark 30
A01a and b
AO2a
1
13-14
15-16
2
11-12
13-14
3
9-10
10-12
4
7-8
8-9
5
5-6
6-7
6
3-4
3-5
7
0-2
0-2
Notes related to Part A:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
Allocate marks to the most appropriate level for each AO
If several marks are available in a box, work from the top mark down until the best fit
has been found
Many answers will not be at the same level for each AO
1
F963/02
Mark Scheme
Marking Grid for Question (a)
A01a and b
A0s
Total for Recall, select and deploy historical
knowledge appropriately, and communicate
each
question knowledge and understanding of history in a
clear and effective manner.
=30
June 2010
A02a
As part of an historical enquiry, analyse and
evaluate a range of appropriate source
material with discrimination.
Demonstrate understanding of the past
through explanation, analysis and arriving at
substantiated judgements of:
- key concepts such as causation,
consequence, continuity, change and
significance within an historical context;
- the relationships between key features and
characteristics of the periods studied.
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
 Consistent and developed comparison of the key issue with a balanced and well‐supported judgement. There will be little or no unevenness.  Focused use of a range of relevant historical concepts and context to address the key issue.  The answer is clearly structured and organised. Communicates coherently, accurately and effectively. 13-14
 Largely comparative evaluation of the key issue with a balanced and supported judgement. There may be a little unevenness in parts.  Focused use of some relevant historical context with a good conceptual understanding to address the key issue.  The answer is well structured and organised. Communicates clearly.  Focused comparative analysis. Controlled and discriminating evaluation of content and provenance, whether integrated or treated separately.  Evaluates using a range of relevant provenance points in relation to the sources and question. There is a thorough but not necessarily exhaustive exploration of these. 15-16
11-12
 Some comparison linked to the key issue. Is aware of some similarity and/or difference. Judgements may be limited and/or inconsistent with the analysis made.  Some use of relevant historical concepts and contexts but uneven understanding. Inconsistent focus on the key issue.  The answer has some structure and organisation but there is also some description. Communication may be clear but may not be consistent. 9-10
13-14
 Provides a comparison but there is unevenness, confining the comparison to the second half of the answer or simply to a concluding paragraph. Either the focus is on content or provenance, rarely both.  Source evaluation is partial and it is likely that the provenance itself is not compared, may be undeveloped or merely commented on discretely. 2
 Relevant comparative analysis of content and evaluation of provenance but there may be some unevenness in coverage or control.  Source evaluation is reasonably full and appropriate but lacks completeness on the issues raised by the sources in the light of the question. 10-12
F963/02
Level 4
Level 5
Level 6
Level 7
Mark Scheme
June 2010
 Some general comparison but undeveloped with some assertion, description and/or narrative. Judgement is unlikely, unconvincing or asserted.  A general sense of historical concepts and context but understanding is partial or limited, with some tangential and/or irrelevant evidence.  Structure may be rather disorganised with some unclear sections. Communication is satisfactory but with some inaccuracy of expression.  Attempts a comparison but most of the comment is sequential. Imparts content or provenance rather than using it.  Comparative comments are few or only partially developed, often asserted and/or ‘stock’ in approach. 8-9
7-8
 Very Limited comparison with few links to the key issue. Imparts generalised comment and /or a weak understanding of the key points. The answer lacks judgement or makes a basic assertion.  Basic, often inaccurate or irrelevant historical context and conceptual understanding.  Structure lacks organisation with weak or basic communication. 5-6
 Comparison is minimal and basic with very limited links to the key issue. Mainly paraphrase and description with very limited understanding. There is no judgement.  Irrelevant and inaccurate concepts and context.  Has little organisation or structure with very weak communication. 3-4
 Fragmentary, descriptive, incomplete and with few or no links to the key issue. There is little or no understanding. Much irrelevance.  Weak or non existent context with no conceptual understanding.  No structure with extremely weak communication.  Identifies some comparative points but is very sequential and perhaps implicit  Comment on the sources is basic, general, undeveloped or juxtaposed, often through poorly understood quotation. 6-7
 Little attempt to compare. Weak commentary on one or two undeveloped points, with basic paraphrase. Sequencing is characteristic.  Comments on individual sources are generalised and confused. . 3-5
 No attempt to compare either content or provenance with fragmentary, brief or inaccurate comment.  Makes no attempt to use any aspects of the sources. 0-2
0-2
3
F963/02
Mark Scheme
June 2010
Question (b) Maximum mark 70
A01a and b
AO2a and b
1
20-22
42-48
2
17-19
35-41
3
13-16
28-34
4
9-12
21-27
5
6-8
14-20
6
3-5
7-13
7
0-2
0-6
Notes related to Part B:
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
Allocate marks to the most appropriate level for each AO
If several marks are available in a box, work from the top mark down until the best fit
has been found
Many answers will not be at the same level for each AO
4
F963/02
AOs
Total
mark for
the
question
= 70
Mark Scheme
A0Ia and b
Ao2a and b
Recall, select and deploy historical
knowledge appropriately, and
communicate knowledge and
understanding of history in a clear and
effective manner.
As part of an historical enquiry, analyse and
evaluate a range of appropriate source
material with discrimination.
Demonstrate understanding of the past
through explanation, analysis and arriving
at substantiated judgements of:
- key concepts such as causation,
consequence, continuity, change and
significance within an historical context;
- the relationships between key features
and characteristics of the periods studied.
Level 1
Level 2
June 2010
Analyse and evaluate, in relation to the
historical context, how aspects of the past
have been interpreted and represented in
different ways.
 Convincing analysis and argument with developed explanation leading to careful, supported and persuasive judgement arising from a consideration of both content and provenance. There may be a little unevenness at the bottom of the level.  Sharply focused use and control of a range of reliable evidence to confirm, qualify, extend or question the sources.  Coherent organised structure. Accurate and effective communication.  A carefully grouped and comparative evaluation of all the sources with effective levels of discrimination sharply focused on the interpretation.  Analyses and evaluates the strengths, limitations and utility of the sources in relation to the interpretation. Uses and cross references points in individual or grouped sources to support or refute an interpretation.  Integrates sources with contextual knowledge in analysis and evaluation and is convincing in most respects. Has synthesis within the argument through most of the answer. 20-22
 Good attempt at focused analysis, argument and explanation leading to a supported judgement that is based on the use of most of the content and provenance.  A focused use of relevant evidence to put the sources into context.  Mostly coherent structure and organisation if uneven in parts. Good communication. 42-48
 Grouped analysis and use of most of the sources with good levels of discrimination and a reasonable focus on the interpretation.  Analyses and evaluates some of the strengths and limitations of the sources in relation to the interpretation. May focus more on individual sources within a grouping, so cross referencing may be less frequent.  Some, perhaps less balanced, integration of sources and contextual knowledge to analyse and evaluate the interpretation. Synthesis of the skills may be less developed. The analysis and evaluation is reasonably convincing. 35-41
17-19
5
F963/02
Level 3
Mark Scheme
 Mainly sound analysis, argument and explanation, but there may be some description and unevenness. Judgement may be incomplete or inconsistent with the analysis of content and provenance.  Some relevant evidence but less effectively used and may not be extensive.  Reasonably coherent structure
and organisation but uneven.
Reasonable communication. 13-16
Level 4
Level 5
 Attempts some analysis, argument and explanation but underdeveloped and not always linked to the question. There will be more assertion, description and narrative. Judgements are less substantiated and much less convincing.  Some relevant evidence is deployed, but evidence will vary in accuracy, relevance and extent. It may be generalised or tangential.  Structure is less organised, communication less clear and some inaccuracies of expression. 9-12
 Little argument or explanation, inaccurate understanding of the issues and concepts. The answer lacks judgement.  Limited use of relevant evidence or context which is largely inaccurate or irrelevant.  Structure is disorganised, communication basic and the sense not always clear. 5-8
6
June 2010
 Some grouping although not sustained or developed. Sources are mainly approached discretely with limited cross reference. Their use is less developed and may, in parts, lose focus on the interpretation. There may be some description of content and provenance.  Is aware of some of the limitations of the sources, individually or as a group, but mostly uses them for reference and to illustrate an argument rather than analysing and evaluating them as evidence. There is little cross referencing.  There may be unevenness in using knowledge in relation to the sources. Synthesis may be patchy or bolted on. Analysis and evaluation are only partially convincing. 28-34
 Sources are discussed discretely and largely sequentially, perhaps within very basic groups. Loses focus on the interpretation. The sources are frequently described.  May mention some limitations of individual sources but largely uses them for reference and illustration. Cross referencing is unlikely.  An imbalance and lack of integration between sources and knowledge often with discrete sections. There is little synthesis. Analysis and explanation may be muddled and unconvincing in part. 21-27
 A limited attempt to use the sources or discriminate between them. The approach is very sequential and referential, with much description. Points are undeveloped.  There is little attempt to analyse, explain or use the sources in relation to the question. Comment may be general.  There is a marked imbalance with no synthesis. Analysis and explanation are rare and comments are unconvincing. 14-20 F963/02
Level 6
Level 7
Mark Scheme
June 2010
 There is very little explanation or understanding. Largely assertion, description and narrative with no judgement. Extremely limited relevance to the question.  Evidence is basic, generalised, patchy, inaccurate or irrelevant.  Little organisation or structure with poor communication.  Very weak and partial use of the sources for the question. No focus on interpretation.  A very weak, general and paraphrased use of source content.
 No synthesis or balance. Comments are entirely unconvincing. 3-4
 No argument or explanation. Fragmentary and descriptive with no relevance to the question.  No understanding underpins what little use is made of evidence or context.  Disorganised and partial with weak communication and expression. 7-13
 Little application of the sources to the question with inaccuracies and irrelevant comment. Fragmentary and heavily descriptive.  No attempt to use any aspect of the sources appropriately.  No contextual knowledge, synthesis or balance. There is no attempt to convince. 0-2
0-6
7
F963/02
1
Mark Scheme
June 2010
The Condition of England 1815-1853
(a)
Study Sources B and D
Compare these sources as evidence for the causes of the Plug Plot
disturbances in 1842.
[30]
No set answer is expected, but candidates need to compare the contents, evaluating such
matters as authorship, dating, utility and reliability, so using the Source ‘as evidence for…’.
The headings and attributions should aid evaluation and reference to both is expected in a
good answer.
Both Sources agree that the reduction of wages would appear to have been the trigger
and that it would seem that that this was done deliberately by employers. They also stress
that others encouraged workers to strike and disturb the peace for their own ends. This is
especially elaborated on by Cooper in D. They differ on the reasons why wages were
reduced. The magazine in B hints at a general ‘intention’ to do this quickly, presumably as
part of an employer reaction to the great Victorian Depression (1842 was the worst year of
the 19th century). The need would be to reduce labour costs. B also lays the blame on the
Chartists, to be expected from a new magazine anxious to appeal to the wealthy and to
stress their command of northern topics. It identifies a ‘spreading organisation of a most
formidable’ type, but it also adopts a dim view of the Anti Corn Law League. In contrast
Source D, Cooper, blames the Anti Corn Law League, who, it claims, deliberately
encouraged employers to pick a strike to paralyse the government and assist their case for
the repeal of the Corn Laws. Source B also stresses poverty, hence the references to
plundering (clothes from workhouses and food from shops). Source D introduces
drunkenness and the Charter (“Strike for the Charter”).
In part the similarities are explained by the date, 1842, a year of exceptional depression
and poverty. However the Illustrated News (B), a contemporary source, takes a more
propertied view, blaming radical organisations for stirring things up to satisfy their own
ends. Source D is a Chartist source written by a key witness and participant in the event. It
places the blame elsewhere, on employers, on drunken workers and the depression.
Cooper takes care to stress drunkenness because he was almost immediately held
responsible, with others, for the Pottery disturbances. As a radical Chartist speaker he was
imprisoned. In his memoirs he may have wanted to clear himself, particularly as he later
withdrew from radicalism and repented for a misspent youth. He claims that he was
ashamed of the actions of those who destroyed property and broke the law. In practice he
may have encouraged disturbance and be one of those members of Source B’s ‘spreading
organisation’. He certainly blamed the Anti Corn Law League.
Both are useful for the different perspectives. It is difficult to verify the sources of B’s
information and it is certainly generalised. Its respectable perspective ensures Chartist and
League blame but it does sympathise with the poor. Cooper in contrast was a participant
and potentially the more informative but his memoirs portray reticence on his own
involvement in physical force.
(b)
Study all the Sources
Use your own knowledge to assess how far the sources support the
interpretation that force and provocation were tactics more used by the
authorities and employers than the Chartists.
[70]
Successful answers will need to make use of all five sources, testing them against
contextual knowledge and evaluating their strengths and weaknesses, including any
limitations as evidence. A range of issues may be addressed in focusing upon the terms of
the question but no set response is expected.
The sources may be used in a variety of ways to assess the relative use of force in the
Chartist period. Only Source A, Thomas Dunning, unequivocally comments on state
8
F963/02
Mark Scheme
June 2010
violence and force. The other four sources can bear different interpretations. However
when discussing Chartist physical force it is worth remembering that whilst four of the
sources are from Chartist participants all are memoirs, often written long after Chartist
collapse in a less violent and more reforming age. Three of these four represent moral
force Chartism, Gammage in C particularly so. Only Cooper was identified with physical
force in 1842 and by the time he wrote his memoir he had long changed his mind. All are
likely to play down Chartist violence yet play up O’Connor’s provocative stance, although
Adams in E admits that this was more self delusional than forceful in practice.
Nonetheless the argument that Chartists used force and provocation as a tactic can
be found in Sources B, D and E. Riots are mentioned in the magazine (B), with hints of
trained ‘discipline’ and the possibility of ‘rebellion’. Gammage in C refers disparagingly to
O’Connor’s provocative demagogy and posturing that own knowledge can link to threats of
physical force (‘peacefully if we may, forcefully if we must’).However Gammage is also at
pains to point out that other chartist organisations, notably the London Working Men’s
Association, disclaimed physical force. There is a convincing argument that the Chartists
avoided force whenever possible, knowing its potential for harming the cause, as Cooper
reminds his audience outside the Crown in Source D. Adams in E corroborates
Gammage’s view on O’Connor provocations with his comments on ‘denunciations’, ‘rabble
rousing’ and regal ‘delusions’, something which his republican sympathies would find
uncongenial. As noted, only Cooper in D fully describes one of the two main physical force
moments in Chartism, the Plug Plots of 1842. The other moment, the Newport Rising in
1839 may have had hopes of triggering a wider rising but was localised and the jury
remains out on who was responsible for the shooting. Cooper refers to a ‘wild general
strike’ which wasn’t necessarily ‘physical’. The evidence in the Potteries is muddied by
Cooper’s subsequent arrest and trial, but it would seem from this account that much of the
force was random, disorganised and focused on the destruction of property. From
hindsight he clearly disapproves. The magazine in B also refers to plundering. Own
knowledge might refer to the violent and physical force language used, the reports of
military drilling , the intimidating tactics of large scale meetings and the occasional
surfacing of weapons.
Three of the sources contain strong suggestions that the authorities and employers
used force and provocation on every possible occasion (A, B, and D). In B we are told
that the employers reduced wages without notice and troops ‘poured into the disturbed
districts’ during the Plug disturbances, a fact confirmed by Cooper in D who refers to
employers who, for their own ACLL ends, provoked workers whilst cavalry and artillery
were deployed by the authorities. Own knowledge may mention the use of the new
railways enabling troops from other areas to be deployed quickly. Source A, Dunning, is
however the strongest evidence for forceful tactics by the authorities. He refers to
persecution and imprisonment, a long standing tactic used by governments to take
dangerous radicals out of circulation and starve them of the oxygen of publicity. A series of
mock trials were held and, on grounds of sedition, radicals were sentenced to a couple of
years in gaol. Dunning cites precise numbers (93) and provides effective commentary
given his legal role in challenging the evidence in these trials (and his success in 1834 in
defending some trade unionists). He is well aware of the pressure brought to bear in Court
(the weapons on constant display to remind juries of a Chartist threat of force). The fate of
Cooper in 1842 (D) and of all the Chartist leadership, including moral force leaders like
Lovett, supports this. During the Chartist Petitions and especially at Kennington Common
in 1848 the government was armed to the teeth, using the tactic of special constables
sworn in for an auxiliary role. Although Dunning’s memoirs were written at the very end of
a long life he clearly kept records and writes of the cruel conviction of all governments.
9
F963/02
2
Mark Scheme
June 2010
The Age of Gladstone and Disraeli 1865-1886
(a)
Study Sources C and E
Compare these sources as evidence for the attitudes of those who opposed
British imperial expansion.
[30]
No set answer is expected, but candidates need to compare the contents, evaluating such
matters as authorship, dating, utility and reliability, so using the sources ‘as evidence
for…’. The headings and attributions should aid evaluation and reference to both is
expected in a good answer.
Both sources C and E agree that there was resistance to expansion although their
attitudes are different, as is the type of resistance they are discussing (from Afghans in C
and Egyptians in E). Both are from a western, British viewpoint and stress in C a sense of
‘freedom’ (Gladstone) and in E (Churchill) a sense of nationhood (Arabi as ‘the movement
of the nation’). Both agree that the opposition is righteous (‘naturally and not wrongfully’ in
C; ‘we should have approved their action’ in E) and they agree that Britain has wrongfully
oppressed opposition. Their tone is remarkably similar – to Gladstone such oppression is
‘horrible’, to Churchill it is ‘devastation’, ‘struggling wretches’ and the ‘mess of oppression’.
They both condemn British military expansion and intervention and sympathise with the
attitudes of those who resisted.
They differ in that Gladstone in C is discussing the Afghan attitude to British political
methods (the Indian model of establishing British Residents as Trojan Horses, hence the
Afghan opposition to Disraeli, Carnarvon, and Lytton’s proposal for a Resident at Kabul to
counter Russian influence) whereas Churchill in E is discussing fiscal infiltration. He
objects to the entrapment of the Egyptians via debt and the crippling interest rates incurred
through spendthrift rulers. However Gladstone would not have agreed with Churchill’s
point on the legitimacy of Egyptian debt repudiation. The flouting of fiscal rectitude was
not, in his eyes, to be equated with the unwarranted destruction of Afghan hill villages. The
bombardment of Alexandria was legitimate; burning and subsequent death in the Afghan
snow was not.
In terms of provenance Gladstone (C)) is speaking in an election campaign to denounce
the forward Imperialism of Beaconsfieldism, using emotive language in the wake of
disasters in both South Africa and Afghanistan. Its purpose is to see the Afghans in the
same light as one would one’s own and to rally popular emotion behind one of the great
campaigns of modern political history. Churchill in E is, similarly, a political and public
speech, 3 years later, in an area that was part of the Midlothian constituency that
Gladstone won from a Conservative landowner. He is concerned to stress the hypocrisy of
Gladstone, now Liberal PM., who had justified his decision to bombard Alexandria, having
condemned Disraeli for retaliating against the Afghan Amir. Interestingly Churchill was a
Conservative but he condemns both Tory and Liberal for pursuing illegitimate ends. His
angle is the political outsider keen to make an impression within Conservatism and to
pressurise his leader, Lord Salisbury. Identifying with the deceased Disraeli he cannot
resist having a go at Gladstone. Both are partisan sources, neither especially balanced,
but a case could be made for Churchill as the more useful source, unless one sees
Gladstone as more typical in the attitudes of those who opposed imperial expansion. Both
sense the attitude of those on the receiving end, as well as opponents at home, and both
are useful for gauging public opinion given their attempts to mould it.
10
F963/02
(b)
Mark Scheme
June 2010
Study all the Sources
Use your own knowledge to assess how far the Sources support the
interpretation that there was little difference between the Imperial policies of
Gladstone and Disraeli.
[70]
Successful answers will need to make use of all five Sources, testing them against
contextual knowledge and evaluating their strengths and weaknesses, including any
limitations as evidence. A range of issues may be addressed in focusing upon the terms of
the question but no set conclusion is expected.
D, E and parts of Sources A and B contain evidence that Imperial policy differed
little in practice. Given that D and E come from opposite political ends (Gladstone and
Churchill) one might consider them effective evidence on continuity but D is Gladstone in
office as PM and this is an official diplomatic offer to Kruger continuing the pursuit of
Confederation. It is not necessarily his personal opinion or policy and indeed we are told
that the advice came from the Colonial Office. Nonetheless Gladstone did not challenge it.
Churchill is making a point about the similarity of intervention under both men, whether it is
Afghanistan or Egypt, but his view is that of the outsider and his agenda might be suspect.
Perhaps better evidence is parts of A and B, both public statements of Gladstone and
Disraeli whilst in opposition (and therefore more reliable, or simply more suspect in terms
of point scoring?). Interestingly, in A, Disraeli condemns Gladstone’s Liberal moves whilst
PM on Imperial Confederation, although he acknowledges that he has no objection
provided the terms were right. The bounds of empire have become too loose. Yet later,
whilst PM, Disraeli encourages Frere in Cape Colony to pursue a South African
Confederation along Canadian lines, which led to disaster with the Zulus. In D Gladstone,
at the instigation of the Colonial Office, is prepared to continue with Confederation and
attempts to persuade Kruger to accept British Sovereignty (it cannot be given up). Again,
as the introduction indicates, it led to disaster (the First Boer war) and the policy was
abandoned in the Convention of Pretoria (which acknowledged the Transvaal’s
independence, saving some vague fig leaf on suzerainty). On the issue of Confederation
there would seem to be continuity. There is also evidence of a policy of forceful
intervention by both when challenged. Source C demonstrates Disraeli’s apparent use of
force to woo the Amir (knowledge might suggest he was reluctantly dragged into it by
Lytton) whilst Source E shows Gladstone’s use of force in Egypt to preserve financial
stability in the Canal zone, perceived as a vital British interest since Disraeli’s Purchase in
1875. However both sources come from the mouths of opponents, although the fact of
military and naval intervention cannot be disputed. Both justified it, but on very different
grounds. In A and B both agree on a ‘mighty mission’.
The alternative view, that there was a considerable difference in imperial policy
between them, can be found in Sources A, B and C. Sources A and B establish the key
public difference between the two men and both are classic statements of their kind.
However both are written whilst in opposition, keen to establish clear blue water between
them. Each uses the Empire as a stick to beat the other. Thus Disraeli in A accuses the
Gladstone government of a plot to dismember the empire using the means of unfettered
Confederation. He accuses Gladstone of fiscal meanness, throwing away our greatest
asset to save money and reduce taxes to buy further power. There may be some truth in
this as Gladstone notoriously economised with both army and navy. On the other hand
Gladstone in B accuses Disraeli of needless and reckless expansion regardless of British
interests and of the means to pay for it (no ‘men or money to sustain it’). A clear difference
emerges on Imperialism. For Gladstone the Empire is a Pax Britannica with Britain as its
core, setting an example by justice, reform and improvement. Welfare and peace are the
key, even to the extent of ‘friendly independence’. Knowledge would suggest this to be the
case given Gladstone’s reluctance to intervene and his Confederation policy in Canada
and South Africa in the first and second ministries, (Source D refers to the Transvaal
having ‘the fullest liberty to manage their local affairs’, although this was ‘to be without
prejudice to the rest of the population’, a reference to continued antagonism with the
11
F963/02
Mark Scheme
June 2010
Zulus). However for Disraeli the Empire is the ‘Empire of England’, to be based on a keen
sense of national interest, (such as imperial tariffs - although he never attempted anything
like this whilst in power). It implied he would spend money (although in power he too was
reluctant to incur expenditure). Gladstone maintained in B that Disraeli also desired
territorial acquisition, which candidates might dispute in practice. Certainly the Empire
increased more in size under Gladstone than under Disraeli. As to Disraeli’s supposed
propensity to use force Gladstone also resorted to it, albeit reluctantly. Source C also
underlines the differences, but it too is produced in opposition, part of one of the great
political campaigns to win an election on the basis of an opponent’s immoral and forward
imperialism. Its tone is sincere but emotional. The sources certainly support a rhetorical
difference but they are less certain in their evidence and provenance as to practice.
12
F963/02
3
Mark Scheme
June 2010
England and a New Century 1900-1924
Post War Problems 1918 to 1924
(a)
Study Sources B and C
Compare these Sources as evidence for views on government spending on
social problems during the immediate post war period.
[30]
No set answer is expected, but candidates need to compare the contents, evaluating such
matters as authorship, dating, utility and reliability, so using the Sources ‘as evidence
for...’. The headings and attributions should aid evaluation, and reference to both is
expected in a good answer.
There are obvious differences in the content of the two sources. Source B supports
government spending, particularly on housing and legislation on industry, as a means of
reducing the danger of revolution. But, in Source C the focus of the Geddes Report is on
shortage of money, although the committee does suggest greater efficiencies as well as
cuts in government expenditure. Source B is mainly concerned with housing, urban
renewal and working hours. But it also urges improvements in industry, particularly where
working conditions are concerned. Source C has wider economic and financial concerns
within a particular remit, and seems to regard social conditions as a lower priority.
However a close reading reveals that this extract focuses more on savings than cuts per
se. Health programmes are considered to have merit. Both sources reflect a background
of post war social and economic difficulty.
In terms of provenance, the two years between the dates of the sources reflect a radical
change in the situation. By 1922, the Coalition Government is no longer able to provide
large sums of money for housing, and other social reforms. In Source B, Tom Jones (a
close friend, as well as an adviser) would expect the Prime Minister to respond positively.
Lloyd George had promised “Homes for heroes” in the run up to the 1918 Election. He has
already supported the setting up of the Whitley Councils, bodies which represented both
managers and workers in the main industries. Jones sounds optimistic and clearly goes
beyond a civil service remit to endorse a progressive Liberal agenda when Lloyd George
was at the height of his power. Lloyd George, already known for his energy as a war time
leader, is in a strong position at this time. However, by the time of the Geddes Report
(Source C), economic problems and trade union militancy have weakened Lloyd George’s
position. Right wing opinion (the Committee is composed entirely of business men and
financiers) favours retrenchment to avoid tax increases on business. Less sympathy is
shown here for working class interests. Lloyd George, having set up the Committee
himself, will be forced to agree to massive cuts in social expenditure.
(b)
Study all the Sources.
Use your own knowledge to assess how far the Sources support the
interpretation that the Labour Party was better placed than its rivals to deal
with Britain’s post war problems 1918-1924.
[30]
Successful answers will need to make use of all five Sources, testing them against
contextual knowledge, and evaluating their strengths and weaknesses and any limitations
as evidence. A range of issues may be addressed in focusing upon the terms of the
question, but no set conclusion is expected.
Candidates will benefit from knowing (in outline at least) the main political events of 1918
to 1924. All of the parties, including Labour, suffered from having to confront the serious
social and economic problems bequeathed by the First World War. The issue is who was
best placed to deal with the social and economic consequences of the War.
Supporting the assertion. Source A. Having made important war-time contributions to
Government, the Labour Party shows a new confidence in laying out ambitious plans for
13
F963/02
Mark Scheme
June 2010
what would effectively be a welfare state, replacing the discredited efforts of the pre-war
Poor Law. After the Election of 1918, Labour only had 63 seats. Yet, effectively, with the
Liberals split, and Lloyd George the leader of a Conservative dominated coalition, Labour
was moving towards becoming the second party. However, candidates may point out that
the conference resolutions in A were probably unrealistic. At this stage, Britain’s post-war
economic weaknesses were not yet fully appreciated. Labour was informal opposition
aware of the new democratic vote to all men and was eager to claim the progressive
agenda.
Source B mentions the revolutionary pressures of 1919. These would tend to strengthen
Labour’s appeal to the newly-enfranchised working classes but it also suggests Lloyd
George’s Coalition to be the best placed, indicating significant achievement to date.
Source D strengthens the view that the Liberals are on the way out, and that Labour has
now (late 1923, and with 191 seats gained in the recent election) replaced them as the
chief rival to the Conservatives although Amery calculates politically that both Liberal and
Labour would be hampered by coalition and lack achievement – a calculation that was
proved correct. The eventual result, mentioned in Source E, is the formation of the First
Labour Government under Ramsay MacDonald. One might suppose that (by 1924) Labour
was in a much stronger position to introduce its social reforms, although it was a minority
government. E condemns it for selling out on more radical solutions to post-War problems.
The main success was the Wheatley Housing Act of 1924.
Opposing the assertion. Source B suggests that Lloyd George (Prime Minister in a
strong Coalition Government, dominated by the Conservatives) by taking bold action,
especially on housing, can head off threats from the Left. The Whitley Councils are an
example of LG’s success in his early reforms, as is Addison’s Housing Act of 1919 and
Fisher’s Education Act. However, by 1922, Lloyd George is being overwhelmed by his
problems. The Whitley Councils were scrapped in 1921. Lloyd George was forced to
accept the Geddes call for cuts in expenditure (see Source C). This source could be used
to measure the extent of the problem fore all parties. It clearly limited the prospect of the
then government and especially the Lloyd George Liberals. The economy continued to
stagnate. Later in 1922, LG fell from office, and was replaced by Bonar Law. The
Conservatives had a tendency to split over tariff reform, the traditional Conservative
solution to Britain’s problems, but soon recovered given the prospect of government freed
from Lloyd George’s spell.
Source C clearly suggests a severe blow to any political party considering social reform,
especially the kind of proposals favoured by Labour. The implication in Source D is that
the Conservative Party, despite a loss of electoral support in 1923 over protectionist
policies, will soon recover its pre-eminent position, although it fails to mention post-War
economic/social problems. With hindsight, Amery’s advice to Baldwin (which Baldwin took)
is seen to have been well-founded. Indeed, the First Labour Government was to be short
lived. And Source E indicates that a Labour Government under Ramsay Macdonald was
less likely to support the radical social reform that socialists like the Webbs wanted than
the Lloyd George Liberals. There were some radical plans to deal with rising
unemployment, but most never came to fruition.
14
F963/02
4
Mark Scheme
June 2010
Churchill 1920-45
The Election of 1945
(a)
Study Sources A and B.
Compare these Sources as evidence for the appeals made to the electorate in
the campaign leading to the General Election of 1945.
[30]
No set answer is expected, but candidates need to compare the contents, evaluating such
matters as authorship, dating, utility and reliability, so using the Sources ‘as evidence’
for….The headings and attributions should aid evaluation and reference to both is
expected in a good answer.
Content: A refers to Labour’s experience in war; B seems to denigrate it by reference to
‘Gestapo’ – something that Labour had been fighting against. Both refer to the ordinary
man- but A is more effective, claiming that the victory in the war was won by the people.
For B the people must be protected against the power of the state. A says that the state
will provide full employment and proper social security – the emphasis is on collective
protection against hard times. B stresses individual liberty against the power of the state.
Essentially A is offering a view of a beneficent state making up for deficiencies in past
Conservative policy. B is seeing an oppressive state and equating Labour with
totalitarianism, both Nazi and Communist. A is far more positive and effective, pointing to
actual past Conservative failures. B relies on a less realistic view of Labour with the
emphasis on what Labour might do – ignoring their wartime achievements. The tone of the
passages is different – A looks forward positively, though it is critical of opponents; B
offers, here, no positive commitments but a negative – Labour is going to threaten liberty
and the Conservatives offer the status quo of traditional liberty, something A dismissed as
equating to “mean and shabby treatment”.
Provenance of Sources: Both are election appeals; both exaggerate the weaknesses of
the opponents because it is election time. However, Source A is a considered and
prepared written response. In fact the Conservative written manifesto said much the same
about social reform and Churchill’s government endorsed the Beveridge Report. However,
Source B, Churchill’s speech is much less considered and more improvised – he seems to
have gone back to his early attacks on socialism and is equating Labour with
totalitarianism in an extreme manner which runs contrary to his own manifesto. A, a
collective document prepared by Labour as a whole must be contrasted with B, a flight of
oratory which met with little enthusiasm within the Conservatives and showed Churchill to
be out of touch with the mood of the times. The sources are useful for showing the reasons
for Labour’s victory and Churchill’s limitation as a peacetime politician. Whereas A is quite
typical of Labour’s appeal in 1945, B is not typical of what the Conservatives were actually
offering although they are, classically, Churchill. Candidates might consider that A is more
valuable for explaining the issues of the election while B showed why the Labour appeal
was strengthened, so there is no set answer required for the relative value of the two
sources, but candidates have the opportunity to assess this.
(b)
Study all the Sources
Use your own knowledge to assess how far the Sources support the
interpretation that the main reason for Churchill’s election defeat in 1945 was
the policy of social reform offered by Labour.
[70]
Successful answers will need to make use of all five Sources, testing them against
contextual knowledge and evaluating their strengths and weaknesses, any limitations as
evidence. A range of issues may be addressed in focusing upon the terms of the question
but no set conclusion is expected.
The debate here is whether Churchill’s conduct of the election and the poor Conservative
record on social issues before the war were the key reasons, or whether it was Labour’s
ability to offer a strong campaign and the public’s expectations for greater social reform
15
F963/02
Mark Scheme
June 2010
that were the main reasons. The war had brought a lot of changes and hopes. Did the
electorate think that Labour was more likely to deliver those hopes; or did the
Conservatives throw away the trump cards they held by poor electioneering? The actual
popular vote was closer than the large parliamentary majority gained by Labour suggests
and Churchill thought that he would win until very close to the actual poll.
Sources B, C and E support the view that Churchill misjudged the campaign, and by
implication this rather than the offers of social change was the most important factor.
though Thatcher also stresses some advantages that Labour had. B is a famous opening
speech in which Churchill equates Labour with the Gestapo and stands, as he did in 1940,
as the champion of liberty.
With wartime propaganda stressing the fight for freedom, this might have seemed a good
idea. However, as Attlee and his colleagues had stood alongside Churchill since 1940 as
bitter enemies of Fascism, this sort of rhetoric seemed absurd. Also, the USSR was
popular at this time and there was an increased interest in state planning. Wartime reports
such as Barlow and Uthwatt had recommended this. Full employment was thought
possible and the Conservatives were pledged to implement Beveridge and to provide a
health service. Wartime reconstruction could not be left to private enterprise. Few were
convinced by the simplistic rhetoric produced by a leader whose main preoccupations had
been foreign policy.
The reactions of Thatcher (E) and Sackville-West (C) are similar. However Thatcher is
writing with the benefit of hindsight. Knowing that Churchill lost the election might colour
her view of remembering that he had gone too far as she listened to the broadcast in her
Oxford College. She is balanced enough to provide some wider analysis – this is after all a
published work. Vita Sackville West is not attempting analysis but a ‘gut reaction’ in a
private letter. Unlike Thatcher, she knew Churchill and there is some personal
disappointment that he seems not to be rising to the challenge of domestic politics.
Labour on the other hand responded more successfully to the highly emotional mood of
the nation which the cartoon (D) so vividly represents. The issue of a lasting peace and a
post-war Europe which will avoid the destruction of war and the sufferings of soldiers
seems here to be paramount rather than social reforms or Churchill’s misjudgements. This
is an appeal to the emotions from a left wing newspaper on the eve of the election. That
cartoon represents an injured and battered soldier amid destruction offering a very hard
won peace to the nation. The poor Conservative policies of the inter-war years referred to
in A must not come again. As A says, this was a war won by the ordinary people
represented in D. A is obviously intended as election propaganda but offers ‘proper social
security’. This is the source that supports the view of the question most fully. Not the
rhetoric of B, but the firm promises of social services and full employment were needed.
As E says Labour could outbid the Conservatives on this front. The Labour ministers had
been in charge of domestic policy during the war. Conservative commitment to Beveridge
was doubted by many. This was Labour’s home ground and they could point to the
apparently poor record of the National Governments of the 1930s – Means Test, high
unemployment etc. Churchill had not been part of this, but he was shackled to a
Conservative party which had been seen, despite its reforming aspects in the 1930s, as
uncaring. Thatcher’s analysis can be defended. Also Churchill could not gain all the credit
for victory in what A rightly identifies as a people’s war led by a coalition involving Labour
and Liberals.
Candidates might know about the younger generation’s radicalism, the influence of the
Army Current Affairs discussions, the influence of wartime discussions about the post-war
world, especially the Beveridge Report of 1942, about which many Conservatives were
privately and publicly luke warm. Churchill gave priority to military and diplomatic concerns
rather than post-war social policy. There were concerns about the disappointing aftermath
of World War I, and an admiration for the Soviet achievement. They might contrast
dynamic Labour figures like Bevin, Bevan, and Morrison with some lacklustre
performances by the Conservatives who were over-reliant on Churchill’s prestige now
squandered in what C considered a “confused and wordy” response. Certainly, Churchill’s
16
F963/02
Mark Scheme
June 2010
concerns in 1945 – for the post-war settlement, for Eastern Europe, for Britain’s Empire –
were not the concerns of many of his voters.
Three of the sources are Conservative, their focus is on Churchill (his speech and the
reaction to it) but B and E, implicitly and explicitly, acknowledge the role of social reform.
The two Labour sources, A and D, focus largely on this and imply success for this very
reason.
17
OCR (Oxford Cambridge and RSA Examinations)
1 Hills Road
Cambridge
CB1 2EU
OCR Customer Contact Centre
14 – 19 Qualifications (General)
Telephone: 01223 553998
Facsimile: 01223 552627
Email: [email protected]
www.ocr.org.uk
For staff training purposes and as part of our quality assurance
programme your call may be recorded or monitored
Oxford Cambridge and RSA Examinations
is a Company Limited by Guarantee
Registered in England
Registered Office; 1 Hills Road, Cambridge, CB1 2EU
Registered Company Number: 3484466
OCR is an exempt Charity
OCR (Oxford Cambridge and RSA Examinations)
Head office
Telephone: 01223 552552
Facsimile: 01223 552553
© OCR 2010
GCE
History A
Advanced Subsidiary GCE
Unit F963/02: Option B Modern 1815-1945
Mark Scheme for June 2011
Oxford Cambridge and RSA Examinations
OCR (Oxford Cambridge and RSA) is a leading UK awarding body, providing a wide range of
qualifications to meet the needs of pupils of all ages and abilities. OCR qualifications include
AS/A Levels, Diplomas, GCSEs, OCR Nationals, Functional Skills, Key Skills, Entry
Level qualifications, NVQs and vocational qualifications in areas such as IT, business,
languages, teaching/training, administration and secretarial skills.
It is also responsible for developing new specifications to meet national requirements and the
needs of students and teachers. OCR is a not-for-profit organisation; any surplus made is
invested back into the establishment to help towards the development of qualifications and
support which keep pace with the changing needs of today’s society.
This mark scheme is published as an aid to teachers and students, to indicate the requirements
of the examination. It shows the basis on which marks were awarded by Examiners. It does not
indicate the details of the discussions which took place at an Examiners’ meeting before marking
commenced.
All Examiners are instructed that alternative correct answers and unexpected approaches in
candidates’ scripts must be given marks that fairly reflect the relevant knowledge and skills
demonstrated.
Mark schemes should be read in conjunction with the published question papers and the Report
on the Examination.
OCR will not enter into any discussion or correspondence in connection with this mark scheme.
© OCR 2011
Any enquiries about publications should be addressed to:
OCR Publications
PO Box 5050
Annesley
NOTTINGHAM
NG15 0DL
Telephone:
Facsimile:
E-mail:
0870 770 6622
01223 552610
[email protected]
F963/02
Mark Scheme
June 2011
Question (a) Maximum mark 30
A01a and b
AO2a
1
13-14
15-16
2
11-12
13-14
3
9-10
10-12
4
7-8
8-9
5
5-6
6-7
6
3-4
3-5
7
0-2
0-2
Notes related to Part A:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
Allocate marks to the most appropriate level for each AO
If several marks are available in a box, work from the top mark down until the best fit
has been found
Many answers will not be at the same level for each AO
1
F963/02
Mark Scheme
Marking Grid for Question (a)
A01a and b
A0s
Total for Recall, select and deploy historical
each
knowledge appropriately, and
question communicate knowledge and
=30
understanding of history in a clear and
effective manner.
Level 1
Level 2
Demonstrate understanding of the past
through explanation, analysis and
arriving at substantiated judgements of:
- key concepts such as causation,
consequence, continuity, change and
significance within an historical context;
- the relationships between key features
and characteristics of the periods
studied.
 Consistent and developed
comparison of the key issue with
a balanced and well-supported
judgement. There will be little or
no unevenness.
 Focused use of a range of
relevant historical concepts and
context to address the key issue.
 The answer is clearly structured
and organised. Communicates
coherently, accurately and
effectively.



Level 3


13-14
Largely comparative evaluation
of the key issue with a balanced
and supported judgement. There
may be a little unevenness in
parts.
Focused use of some relevant
historical context with a good
conceptual understanding to
address the key issue.
The answer is well structured and
organised. Communicates
clearly.
11-12
Some comparison linked to the
key issue. Is aware of some
similarity and/or difference.
Judgements may be limited
and/or inconsistent with the
analysis made.
Some use of relevant historical
concepts and contexts but
uneven understanding.
Inconsistent focus on the key
2
June 2011
A02a
As part of an historical enquiry, analyse
and evaluate a range of appropriate
source material with discrimination.






Focused comparative analysis.
Controlled and discriminating
evaluation of content and
provenance, whether integrated or
treated separately.
Evaluates using a range of
relevant provenance points in
relation to the sources and
question. There is a thorough but
not necessarily exhaustive
exploration of these.
15-16
Relevant comparative analysis of
content and evaluation of
provenance but there may be
some unevenness in coverage or
control.
Source evaluation is reasonably
full and appropriate but lacks
completeness on the issues raised
by the sources in the light of the
question.
13-14
Provides a comparison but there
is unevenness, confining the
comparison to the second half of
the answer or simply to a
concluding paragraph. Either the
focus is on content or provenance,
rarely both.
Source evaluation is partial and it
is likely that the provenance itself
is not compared, may be
F963/02
Mark Scheme

Level 4



Level 5



Level 6



June 2011
issue.
The answer has some structure
and organisation but there is also
some description.
Communication may be clear but
may not be consistent.
undeveloped or merely
commented on discretely.
9-10
Some general comparison but
undeveloped with some
assertion, description and/or
narrative. Judgement is unlikely,
unconvincing or asserted.
A general sense of historical
concepts and context but
understanding is partial or
limited, with some tangential
and/or irrelevant evidence.
Structure may be rather
disorganised with some unclear
sections. Communication is
satisfactory but with some
inaccuracy of expression.
10-12
Attempts a comparison but most
of the comment is sequential.
Imparts content or provenance
rather than using it.
Comparative comments are few or
only partially developed, often
asserted and/or ‘stock’ in
approach.
7-8
Limited comparison with few links
to the key issue. Imparts
generalised comment and /or a
weak understanding of the key
points. The answer lacks
judgement or makes a basic
assertion.
Basic, often inaccurate or
irrelevant historical context and
conceptual understanding.
Structure lacks organisation with
weak or basic communication.
5-6
Comparison is minimal and basic
with very limited links to the key
issue. Mainly paraphrase and
description with very limited
understanding. There is no
judgement.
Irrelevant and inaccurate
.
concepts and context.
Has little organisation or structure
with very weak communication.






8-9
Identifies some comparative
points but is very sequential and
perhaps implicit
Comment on the sources is basic,
general, undeveloped or
juxtaposed, often through poorly
understood quotation.
6-7
Little attempt to compare. Weak
commentary on one or two
undeveloped points, with basic
paraphrase. Sequencing is
characteristic.
Comments on individual sources
are generalised and confused.
3-5
3-4
3
F963/02
Level 7
Mark Scheme



Fragmentary, descriptive,
incomplete and with few or no
links to the key issue. There is
little or no understanding. Much
irrelevance.
Weak or non existent context
with no conceptual
understanding.
No structure with extremely weak
communication.
June 2011


No attempt to compare either
content or provenance with
fragmentary, brief or inaccurate
comment.
Makes no attempt to use any
aspects of the sources.
0-2
0-2
4
F963/02
Mark Scheme
June 2011
Question (b) Maximum mark 70
A01a and b
AO2a and b
1
20-22
42-48
2
17-19
35-41
3
13-16
28-34
4
9-12
21-27
5
6-8
14-20
6
3-5
7-13
7
0-2
0-6
Notes related to Part B:
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
Allocate marks to the most appropriate level for each AO
If several marks are available in a box, work from the top mark down until the best fit
has been found
Many answers will not be at the same level for each AO
5
F963/02
AOs
Total
mark for
the
question
= 70
Level 1
Level 2
Mark Scheme
A0Ia and b
Recall, select and deploy historical
knowledge appropriately, and
communicate knowledge and
understanding of history in a clear and
effective manner.
Demonstrate understanding of the past
through explanation, analysis and
arriving at substantiated judgements of:
- key concepts such as causation,
consequence, continuity, change and
significance within an historical context;
- the relationships between key
features and characteristics of the
periods studied.
 Convincing analysis and
argument with developed
explanation leading to careful,
supported and persuasive
judgement arising from a
consideration of both content
and provenance. There may be
a little unevenness at the
bottom of the level.
 Sharply focused use and
control of a range of reliable
evidence to confirm, qualify,
extend or question the sources.
 Coherent organised structure.
Accurate and effective
communication.



20-22
Good attempt at focused
analysis, argument and
explanation leading to a
supported judgement that is
based on the use of most of the
content and provenance.
A focused use of relevant
evidence to put the sources into
context.
Mostly coherent structure and
organisation if uneven in parts.
Good communication.
6
June 2011
AO2a and b
As part of an historical enquiry, analyse
and evaluate a range of appropriate
source material with discrimination.
Analyse and evaluate, in relation to the
historical context, how aspects of the
past have been interpreted and
represented in different ways.






A carefully grouped and
comparative evaluation of all
the sources with effective levels
of discrimination sharply
focused on the interpretation.
Analyses and evaluates the
strengths, limitations and utility
of the sources in relation to the
interpretation. Uses and cross
references points in individual or
grouped sources to support or
refute an interpretation.
Integrates sources with
contextual knowledge in
analysis and evaluation and is
convincing in most respects.
Has synthesis within the
argument through most of the
answer.
42-48
Grouped analysis and use of
most of the sources with good
levels of discrimination and a
reasonable focus on the
interpretation.
Analyses and evaluates some of
the strengths and limitations of
the sources in relation to the
interpretation. May focus more
on individual sources within a
grouping, so cross referencing
may be less frequent.
Some, perhaps less balanced,
integration of sources and
contextual knowledge to
analyse and evaluate the
interpretation. Synthesis of the
skills may be less developed.
F963/02
Mark Scheme
June 2011
The analysis and evaluation is
reasonably convincing.
Level 3



17-19
Mainly sound analysis,
argument and explanation, but
there may be some description
and unevenness. Judgement
may be incomplete or
inconsistent with the analysis of
content and provenance.
Some relevant evidence but
less effectively used and may
not be extensive.
Reasonably coherent structure
and organisation but uneven.
Reasonable communication.



Level 4



Level 5


13-16
Attempts some analysis,
argument and explanation but
underdeveloped and not always
linked to the question. There
will be more assertion,
description and narrative.
Judgements are less
substantiated and much less
convincing.
Some relevant evidence is
deployed, but evidence will vary
in accuracy, relevance and
extent. It may be generalised or
tangential.
Structure is less organised,
communication less clear and
some inaccuracies of
expression.
9-12
Little argument or explanation,
inaccurate understanding of the
issues and concepts. The
answer lacks judgement.
Limited use of relevant
7




35-41
Some grouping although not
sustained or developed.
Sources are mainly approached
discretely with limited cross
reference. Their use is less
developed and may, in parts,
lose focus on the interpretation.
There may be some description
of content and provenance.
Is aware of some of the
limitations of the sources,
individually or as a group, but
mostly uses them for reference
and to illustrate an argument
rather than analysing and
evaluating them as evidence.
There is little cross referencing.
There may be unevenness in
using knowledge in relation to
the sources. Synthesis may be
patchy or bolted on. Analysis
and evaluation are only partially
convincing.
28-34
Sources are discussed
discretely and largely
sequentially, perhaps within
very basic groups. Loses focus
on the interpretation. The
sources are frequently
described.
May mention some limitations of
individual sources but largely
uses them for reference and
illustration. Cross referencing is
unlikely.
An imbalance and lack of
integration between sources
and knowledge often with
discrete sections. There is little
synthesis. Analysis and
explanation may be muddled
and unconvincing in part.
21-27
A limited attempt to use the
sources or discriminate between
them. The approach is very
sequential and referential, with
much description. Points are
F963/02
Mark Scheme

evidence or context which is
largely inaccurate or irrelevant.
Structure is disorganised,
communication basic and the
sense not always clear.
June 2011


Level 6



Level 7



5-8
There is very little explanation
or understanding. Largely
assertion, description and
narrative with no judgement.
Extremely limited relevance to
the question.
Evidence is basic, generalised,
patchy, inaccurate or irrelevant.
Little organisation or structure
with poor communication.
3-4
No argument or explanation.
Fragmentary and descriptive
with no relevance to the
question.
No understanding underpins
what little use is made of
evidence or context.
Disorganised and partial with
weak communication and
expression.






undeveloped.
There is little attempt to analyse,
explain or use the sources in
relation to the question.
Comment may be general.
There is a marked imbalance
with no synthesis. Analysis and
explanation are rare and
comments are unconvincing.
14-20
Very weak and partial use of the
sources for the question. No
focus on interpretation.
A very weak, general and
paraphrased use of source
content.
No synthesis or balance.
Comments are entirely
unconvincing.
7-13
Little application of the sources
to the question with
inaccuracies and irrelevant
comment. Fragmentary and
heavily descriptive.
No attempt to use any aspect of
the sources appropriately.
No contextual knowledge,
synthesis or balance. There is
no attempt to convince.
0-6
0-2
8
F963/02
Mark Scheme
June 2011
The Condition of England 1815-1853
1
(a)
Study Sources B and C
Compare these Sources as evidence for the causes of the agricultural
disturbances in 1830-31 (the Swing riots).
[30]
No set answer is expected, but candidates need to compare the contents, evaluating
such matters as authorship, dating, utility and reliability, so using the sources ‘as
evidence for…’. The headings and attributions should aid evaluation and reference to
both is expected in a good answer.
The context is the widespread riots (overturning hedges, burning ricks, looting property and
destroying machinery) that spread across southern and eastern England in 1830 -31,
thoroughly alarming the authorities, the last great labourer’s revolt against agrarian change
and conditions. Both sources suggest reliance by the poor on the poor rate and suggest
that it has become a feature of their life. For Hudson’s interviewees (C)this is a matter of
regret and the Poor Law is seen as one of the several causes of disturbance (seasonal
sacking using the Poor Law to keep them over the winter). For the report, (B), it is also a
cause for concern. There is some implied support from Hudson (C) for the Report (B) on the
reliance of the poor on allowances as the Report (B) argues that it enabled labourers to be
supported at very low ratepayer cost as a pool of continuing cheap labour when the need
arose (planting and harvesting). For Hudson this is just one example of the poverty and
oppression that he sees as at the root of the disturbances.
However the differences outweigh the similarities. The Report (B) blames the relative
generosity of the poor rates in the disturbed areas, arguing that it produced sturdy and
insolent idlers who regarded such payments as a right. It implies the disturbances occurred
through to increase such inappropriate rights and payments, - ‘disappointment and hatred if
the expectation is not fulfilled’. It argues that the rioters believed that the authorities were
withholding their benefits either through an unwillingness to dig into their own pockets
(‘greed’) or through corruption. Hudson in C makes no reference to such generosity and
mentions the allowance system only as a secondary factor in the riots. There are no sturdy
and insolent poor angry at insufficient handouts in his account. Instead his focus is on
desperation from acute poverty and oppression, implying that in disturbed areas the
authorities were far from generous. He identifies three key factors – very low wages,
technological threats to employment (threshing machines) and the persistence of seasonal
dependence and underemployment which, in the winter months, forced a subsistence on
the Poor Law, something that the young, elderly and weak had to face throughout the year.
Thus there are two views of the poor here – a weak and desperate poor, already forced to
commit low level crime (poaching), and a sturdy and aggressive poor prepared to take what
they arrogantly believed to be theirs.
The provenance of the sources is different. Hudson (C) bases his account on the
memories of some of the rural poor themselves, albeit remembered long after.. It is an
account of a lost way of life, remembered in bitterness and with sympathy by Hudson whose
tone betrays these emotions (‘spiritless slaves’). His evidence is from one county, Wiltshire,
and from labourers likely to be at the lower end of employment. He blames the oppression
of the farmers and landowners but his organisation of points is convincing and is
corroborated by other rural evidence, particularly in reference to machinery, enclosures and
wages. In contrast the Report (B) is famous for its utilitarian, a priori and partial
methodology. Its purpose was not to cast light on a vanished world but to change the way
poverty was dealt with. Its commissioners, propertied and educated, often strangers to the
areas they descended upon, were looking for evidence on out of control allowances and a
consequently deleterious impact on the character of the poor; it was concerned to use the
riots as evidence of this and to link outbreaks to high poor rates. It uses selective evidence
9
F963/02
Mark Scheme
June 2011
to conclude that the Old Poor Law caused the riots and would have seized on C’s
comments on the young, weak and elderly.
In judgement candidates may well see Hudson’s evidence as more nuanced, although
there is some evidence of the abuse of the poor rates to support the Report. It is true that
the Speenhamland areas, on the whole, saw the main disturbances but these were also the
areas of most rural change with the least option of urban factory work. The North had higher
wages. This would suggest that the evidence in Hudson, at a time of life when labourers
would reflect without fear of the consequences, is more accurate, although we are not told
whether he asked leading questions of those he interviewed.
10
F963/02
1
(b)
Mark Scheme
June 2011
Study all the Sources.
Use your own knowledge to assess how far the Sources support the
interpretation that the most important reason for the reform of the Old Poor
Law was its demoralising impact upon the poor.
[70]
Successful answers will need to make use of all five Sources, testing them against
contextual knowledge and evaluating their strengths and weaknesses, including any
limitations as evidence. A range of issues may be addressed in focusing upon the
terms of the question but no set conclusion is expected.
A variety of factors may be considered of importance in deciding the fate of the Old Poor
law, including the assertion in the question. In addition there were fears over the rising
costs, that the Laws were no longer the guarantor of law and order, new economists argued
that they constituted a barrier to a free labour market and the Benthamites who stressed
both the negative moral dimensions of the old system and its administrative inefficiencies.
All these views are evident in the sources but candidates will need to prioritise their relative
importance in the debate. Three sources (A, B and E) come from opponents of the Old
Law, (a northern overseer in A, the condemnatory Poor Law Report in B, based on some
rather selective evidence and approaches, and an Assistant Commissioner in E, although
much of the extract here is a conversation intended to ridicule a local official whose view is
that the poor and their problems were the way of the world). Candidates could view these as
highly selective but they were influential in moulding propertied and governmental opinion.
Two sources support the Old Law (C and D) ,to a greater or lesser degree, although
Hudson in C considers that wages are so low that a Poor law can only scratch the surface,
whilst the local official in E takes the view that all need a little land and a cow and until such
time bread and wage handouts are inevitable. The MP in D affirms the right of the poor to
some assistance and tries to counter the view that they are thus dependent and
demoralised, although such views were not necessarily very typical amongst the governing
classes.
The view that the Old Poor Law demoralised can be found in various forms in A, B, C
(from different perspectives) and E. Sources A, B and E all come from those under the
influence of Chadwick and the Benthamites who, taking their cue from Malthus, were
worried that the Old Laws had become a cause of poverty rather than a solution to it. They
stressed dependence and large families. Thus the overseer in A attacks the allowance
system for de-incentivising the poor. The example he quotes, (a solitary one), is able to
obtain well above the going wage rate in the rural South (55p as opposed to 35p) because
of his large family and higher bread prices, both considered when his allowance was worked
out. The overseer stresses that this is one reason for large families amongst the poor. He
collects such evidence and is concerned to use it to question the existing system. The
Assistant Commissioner in E corroborates this by quoting, with patronising concern, a
local ratepayer who considers it natural and a God given right to procreate. The provenance
of this might suggest that such a view on demoralisation was less widely held in local
society and care needs to be taken not to overestimate the influence of Benthamite views.
In the Report (B) the undermining of good work habits is also picked up, the emphasis is on
a change of character from deferential and hard working to sturdy, insolent and belligerent
concerned with handouts as of ‘right’. Source C, from a much later period, takes a different
view of demoralisation. For Hudson it is the demoralisation of poverty, low wage and
underemployment. We find little example of generous allowances in his account of the rural
areas. Candiates could stress either the untypicality of A, B and E (the methodology of the
Report and those involved with it – leading questions etc) or their relative influence on
government thinking and thus the importance of demoralisation in the debate.
Another nail in the coffin of the Old Law was cost. The sources, in stressing the generosity
of the allowance system as the Overseer in A does, imply rising costs and candidates may
well look at the rise of the poor rate in the period to 1834 and the pressures on government
11
F963/02
Mark Scheme
June 2011
to reduce it from the propertied classes. Scrope in D refers to this when commenting on the
rate payers, whom he considers excessively penny pinching. However if this was the case,
and Hudson in C confirms it with his comments on hard masters, then in the rural areas the
squeeze on costs was already underway. Nonetheless governments might well not listen to
Vestry opinion. Scrope’s comments on them (D) betray a bias against such attitudes and
this may well be shared by larger landowners.
The Old Poor Law had always been seen as a guarantor of stability but Sources B and
C, would suggest this was no longer the case. The Report in B is especially worried that
the poor are demanding their ‘rights’ under the old system and that Speenhamland, devised
as a temporary expedient during the revolutionary wars in the 1790s, was now seen as
permanent. If the comments in the Report (B) are accepted then the Poor Law had caused
the riots not prevented them. Scrope’s language in D and his discussion of the poor’s rights
in Parliament would seem to corroborate this, although his is a very different perspective,
comparing their rights equally to those of the propertied and titled and fully endorsing them.
So too does the local vestry official quoted in E. He goes as far as to talk of ancient rights to
a little land and a cow, alongside a natural order that welcomed children as part of God’s
plan. Candidates could comment on the impact of such traditional ideas in the 1830s when
change and new intellectual views challenged them. Scrope is making Parliament aware
that abolition of outdoor relief runs the risk of breaking traditional ‘compacts’ based on
natural justice and he warns of the consequences. Nonetheless candidates need to
question his typicality within Parliament, and thus the weight they would allow this source.
Other issues would be the increasing acceptance of the need to achieve a free labour
market in early industrial society and the perception that the Old Poor Law was an obstacle
to this. Candidates may mention Ricardo and the new economists who took a dim view of
the Poor Law settlement laws which prescribed that relief could only be administered in the
parish of birth, thus discouraging labour mobility and the chance of the poor moving to new
areas of employment. The Overseer in A makes this point when citing Robert Smith’s
reluctance to move outside his parish. In addition the Benthamites stressed the
administrative inefficiencies of the Old Law and the sources amply illustrate this, albeit
from a slanted angle. They clearly despise the ignorance and parochial nature of the
Vestries, responsible for presiding over a haphazard system. The Report (B) refers to
corruption and inefficiency, whilst Hudson in C, from a different perspective, condemns a
system that sacks men after the harvest and allows the poor rate to keep them through the
winter. Candidates may well know this was condemned as the larger landowners were
enabled to keep a pool of cheap labour at the expense of the smaller farmers and local
shopkeepers. The Assistant Commissioner writing in E to Chadwick, the main antagonist
of the Old Law, mentions disapprovingly the parochial attitudes of a ratepayer, Vestry voter
and tenant who chose those who administered the Old Poor Law.
Candidates may well conclude that the official voices in the sources (Overseers and
Commissioners) were the most influential and their critique of a demoralised and rebellious
poor the key factor but costs and administrative problems are also evident.
12
F963/02
Mark Scheme
June 2011
The Age of Gladstone and Disraeli 1865-1886
2
(a)
Study Sources D and E.
Compare these sources as evidence for attitudes to British achievements at
the Congress of Berlin in 1878.
[30]
No set answer is expected, but candidates need to compare the contents, evaluating
such matters as authorship, dating, utility and reliability, so using the sources ‘as
evidence for…’. The headings and attributions should aid evaluation and reference to
both is expected in a good answer.
The sources are from the two main protagonists, Gladstone in D and Disraeli in E so the
differences are more evident than the similarities. The only achievement that they can
agree upon is that Britain’s material strength is regarded as impressive by her opponents
and even here Gladstone only very begrudgingly acknowledges this; given his dislike of
Disraelian sabre rattling.
On all else the achievements at Berlin are disputed. Gladstone considers Britain’s moral
respect to have been lessened given Disraeli’s lack of interest in the Balkan peoples but
Disraeli stresses that he has had the interests of the subject peoples at heart, considering
their conciliation vital to the peace of the area – ‘improve the condition of its subjects’.
Gladstone thinks that Disraeli and Salisbury have done deals with Europe and fallen too
much under their self interested sway, whereas the latter disagrees, stressing the twofold
set of principles he held to, one of which was Ottoman integrity the other a peaceful
solution. Gladstone dismisses Disraeli’s pursuit of interests as illusory but Disraeli rebuts
this by stressing the over- riding interest of maintaining the Ottomans, something he feels he
has achieved with the dismemberment of the large Bulgaria of San Stephano. To Gladstone
there is no principle but Disraeli stresses precisely these, perhaps as a means of irritating
Gladstone.
On provenance candidates could point to the context. In 1878 Gladstone had been
sidelined on the Eastern Question having initially seized the initiative over the Bulgarian
massacres. Once Russia declared war British opinion changed and Disraeli was able to
pose as the defender of British interests. In D Gladstone is still seeking to capitalise on the
moral issue, perhaps with one eye on the nonconformists and Christian opinion in general,
drawing attention to the re- imposition of Ottoman control over Macedonia and Eastern
Rumelia, hence Disraeli’s reference to a concern for their interests. However Disraeli was
now safe in the Lords (Earl of Beaconsfield) and can seek to gloss his achievements,
confident in the knowledge that public and royal opinion had backed him on the issue. He
can point to both European respect and to peace, thus taking the wind out of Gladstone’s
sails. He certainly touches, no doubt annoyingly, the Gladstonian buttons of principle and
peace. As to judgement , Gladstone’s was a minority view on British achievements at
Berlin, although some candidates might question exactly what Disraeli achieved for the
subject peoples there. His previous record would suggest that he prevented European
pressure being effectively applied to the Ottomans to persuade them to implement reform
and toleration in the Balkan provinces.
13
F963/02
2
(b)
Mark Scheme
June 2011
Study all the Sources
Use your own knowledge to assess how far the Sources support the
interpretation that Disraeli pursued irresponsible policies on the Eastern
Question during the period from 1871 to 1878.
[70]
Successful answers will need to make use of all five Sources, testing them against
contextual knowledge and evaluating their strengths and weaknesses, including any
limitations as evidence. A range of issues may be addressed in focusing upon the
terms of the question but no set conclusion is expected.
Gladstone and many highly placed Tories like Derby and Salisbury were convinced that
Disraeli did pursue irresponsible policies on eastern issues but, from 1877 to 1878, popular
and royal opinion saw his policies as both responsible and as representing a return to the
prestige of the Palmerston years. The sources represent these opposing views, Gladstone
in A and D (at the beginning and end of the 1871 -1878 period) and Derby in C being
critical, Disraeli in E maintaining a responsible approach and Barrington’s report in B of a
private conversation with Disraeli perhaps providing a more critical yet friendly approach to
Eastern policy. Together they provide a broad chronological survey of policy in the 1870s
and candidates will need to put them into their appropriate context.
The accusation of irresponsibility is best seen in Sources A, C and D, although one
reading of Barrington in B lends weight to the charge that he overestimated the ‘treachery’
and ambition of the Russians and might well have done better to work more closely with
Russia on imposing a settlement on a disturbed Ottoman Empire in the 1874-6 period if he
sought to avoid war. Gladstone in A might be expected to take a dim view of Disraeli’s
views yet his analysis of Disraeli’s policies is convincing. He is responding to a speech that
Disraeli made attacking the London Conference, which Gladstone had retrospectively called
to give international ‘approval’ for unilateral Russian action in abrogating the Black Sea
clauses during the Franco-Prussian war of 1870 (forbidding Russian warships access to
their own naval backyard). He was in a position to know that they had never been
considered permanent and he rightly points out that Disraelian action was impossible given
the deals other powers had made with Russia. Britain would have to fight alone without a
European ally. As a naval power this was ridiculous. Disraeli’s propensity to threaten a war
that was unlikely to be won or prove smooth is corroborated in Source C by Derby. He
writes with horror to Salisbury about Disraeli’s sabre rattling. He is aware that Disraeli
doesn’t want war with Russia but he mistrusts the policy of military threats that could easily
become war. Such views could be supported by the outbreak of jingoism and Disraeli’s
gestures of sending the fleet to the Dardanelles or plans to occupy the Gallipoli peninsula,
and his playing up to war fever. Source C is telling evidence from his closest colleague, the
Foreign Secretary, who was to resign over the issue by 1877. His view in C is that Disraeli
was too obsessed with chimera like prestige and Empire to be realistic about cutting a
diplomatic deal with Russia. His irresponsible posturing prevented this. However Derby
himself took an independent line and eventually joined the liberals in 1880.
Temperamentally he was more inclined to a peaceful solution, as was his colleague Lord
Salisbury, whose work before and behind the scenes at the Congress of Berlin helped
Disraeli appear triumphant. Candidates might refer to these deals to put Disraeli’s policy at
Berlin into perspective. His behaviour there was gauche and irresponsible - threatening to
leave - and more concerned with prestige. Gladstone in D, with much less ammunition than
in A, again tries to suggest that Disraeli ignored real British interests in protecting the weak,
a minor point for most by 1878. He was on stronger ground when referring to ‘imaginary
interests’ and candidates could consider the wisdom of continuing to support a decaying
Turkey through a military alliance, especially the guarantee Britain gave to maintain Asian
Turkey, an all but impossible and unrealistic commitment, taken on board as a quid pro quo
for Cyprus ( all part of his imperial string of naval bases to protect the route to India, soon
14
F963/02
Mark Scheme
June 2011
redundant once Alexandria was acquired). Candidates could comment on Disraeli’s
apparent lack of responsibility over the Bulgarian horrors prior to this.
The alternative view, that Disraeli took a responsible view on the Eastern Question is to
be found by questioning the reliability of A, C and D and by taking seriously the evidence in
B and E. It could be argued that he was right to be sceptical about the atrocity stories in the
Balkans and he certainly feared, probably rightly, that it would enflame Russian passions
and make war against Turkey more likely. In Source B Disraeli speculates in private with a
friend and colleague, in E he glosses and explains his work at Berlin, after the event. In
opposition Disraeli would appear to have been irresponsible in demanding action be taken
over the Black Sea clauses but Derby in C perhaps underestimates the use of bluff
(arguably the fleet was in no fit state to make much of a show) to get to the negotiating
table, whilst Gladstone in D is clearly clutching at ancient straws (Bulgarian atrocities).
Barrington in B indicates that Disraeli had a clear idea of the need to stop Russian
domination of the Ottomans and that a simple carve up along the lines of Russian control at
Constantinople and British control of Egypt would ultimately prove counter productive.
Whether or not Constantinople was the key to India was and is a moot point. In contrast to
Derby’s view of Disraeli’s jingoism, Barrington in B at least in 1876, comments that Disraeli
was ‘guarded’ as to peace or war and stresses his ‘grand object is victory in diplomacy’.
Nonetheless, by 1877 and San Stephano, Disraeli, as promised to Barrington, has treated
Russian entry to Bulgaria very seriously. His policy was responsibly firm. He was
determined to uphold traditional British policy in the area. Source E sees Disraeli justify
himself in relation to a tradition that he has become the triumphant heir to, but was he wise
to do so? He was aided by the horrified reaction of the other European powers to San
Stephano which made Salisbury’s deals at Berlin easier. Conclusions will largely be
determined by a convincing evaluation of the sources, with much weight being put on
Gladstone in A, Barrington in B and to the chronology of Eastern policy in the 1870s.
15
F963/02
3
(a)
Mark Scheme
June 2011
Study Sources C and D
Compare these Sources as evidence for the relationship between Asquith and
Lloyd George in 1916.
[30]
No set answer is expected, but candidates need to compare the contents, evaluating such
matters as authorship, dating, utility and reliability, so using the Sources ‘as evidence for
…’. The headings and attributions should aid evaluation and reference to both is
expected in a good answer.
Their view on how to direct the war is central. Both sources recognise the importance of
Asquith’s reluctance to accept the proposals to change the War Committee as the source of
conflict between him and Lloyd George. In Source C this is made explicit in the second
sentence and, later, Asquith makes it clear that the proposals risk ‘undermining my own
authority’. The entry for December 2nd in Source D explains that Asquith refused the proposals
to preserve his influence and control. It is also apparent that neither man respects the other.
Whilst acknowledging Lloyd George’s ‘many qualities’ Asquith, in Source C, nonetheless,
considers Lloyd George to be untrustworthy. In return, it is claimed in Source D that Lloyd
George thought Asquith was ‘absolutely hopeless’. Bonar Law was an important figure without
whose support each would be weaker in relation to the other. In Source C Asquith states how
he appreciates his ‘loyalty’ absolving him of any treachery. In Source D, it appears that Lloyd
George does not feel strong enough to act without the support of Bonar Law. A key point of
difference between the sources is the motives ascribed to Lloyd George. Asquith is suspicious of
Lloyd George who, in Source C, he accuses of wanting to ‘displace me’, simply, it implies, to
satisfy personal ambition. By contrast, in the entry for 30th November in Source D, Lloyd George
is motivated by the obligation to serve his country responding to the call of the people. However,
some may read the first line of the same entry as similar to Source C in suggesting selfish
ambitions by Lloyd George.
The reliability of the sources is questionable. Asquith, in Source C, is defending his stance by
attacking Lloyd George whom he regarded as responsible for the situation. In contrast, in
Source D, Stevenson is naturally protective of her lover. Indeed, the comments in Source D are
not explicitly those of Lloyd George and their veracity might be challenged. Candidates may
consider the reliability of the sources by another approach. Both sources are confidential: the
opening line of Source C makes this point and Source D was clearly intended to be private. As
such both may be regarded as the free expression of the writers’ views although Asquith could
not be sure his letter would remain secret given Bonar Law’s association with Lloyd George and
Stevenson’s diary was clearly published later, an event the authoress may have anticipated. Yet,
Asquith’s charge against Lloyd George was an assumption, never proved, and Stevenson’s
account about the War Committee (Source D) and Asquith’s response to it (Source C) fits the
facts. Something might be made of the dates. Source C was written immediately after the first
moves in the crisis whereas the last two entries in Source D were reflections at a time when the
crisis had deepened. Judgement will be a matter of weighing up these provenance factors and
many will conclude that they are both useful in terms of the perspective taken.
16
F963/02
3
(b)
Mark Scheme
June 2011
Study all the Sources
Use your own knowledge to assess how far the Sources support the
interpretation that Asquith should bear the major responsibility for splitting
the Liberal Party in 1916.
[70]
Successful answers will need to make use of all five Sources, testing them against
contextual knowledge and evaluating their strengths and weaknesses, any
limitations as evidence. A range of issues may be addressed in focusing upon the
terms of the question but no set conclusion is expected.
Elements of support for Asquith’s role can be found in all the sources but mainly in
Source D. The alternative view, that Lloyd George and/or the Conservatives bear the
major responsibility, can be found in Sources B, C, D and E with evidence that Asquith
held the party together in Sources A and B. Most sources provide evidence on Asquith
and some candidates might present the evidence thematically. A key charge against
Asquith is that he lacked the qualities needed for effective leadership. Most damning in this
respect is Source D where he is described as indecisive and to ‘have lost all will-power’.
However, candidates should evaluate the source as unreliable to the extent that the
authorship of the comment is ambiguous and, whether the views of Stevenson or Lloyd
George, they represent the views of opponents of Asquith. In Source A Asquith cuts a
sorry figure who ‘looked old and worried’ and, rather than provide direction, he appears
dependent on his colleagues in so far as ‘He flung himself on our mercy’. However, the fact
that Asquith received ‘an over-powering ovation’ suggests his speech had inspired his
colleagues. Knowledge about Asquith’s formidable intellect and ability and also how
effective he was as leader before 1914 may be known by candidates. Even Asquith, in
Source C, admits to the ‘intolerable daily burden’ a comment candidates may evaluate as
reliable given it is self-critical and knowledge of his weaknesses (drinking problems etc)
could be added.
Asquith might also be criticised for the formation of the Coalition in 1915. Source A
emphasises the opposition within the ranks of the Liberal Party to it with some speaking
‘very strongly against a coalition’ although he could be defended as simply taking a
position that ‘had become inevitable’. It is clear that Asquith did not want to join forces with
the Conservatives who he describes as ‘his bitterest enemies’. Candidates may explain
this reluctance as a consequence of the struggles of 1910-11 and more recent criticism by
the Conservatives of the conduct of the war. The fact that the split did not occur till late
1916 suggests that the formation of the Coalition was not an immediate cause of the split
at least. Nonetheless, Asquith’s failure to foresee the consequence of the Coalition in
terms of the Press is picked up in Source E. Candidates might explain this reference: the
Press now adopted the role of opposition which had been forfeit by the Tories when they
joined the Coalition. Indeed, his naivety is suggested in the fact that he ‘informed
Northcliffe of the shell shortage’. Over time, the Press was a factor ‘in the overthrow of
Asquith’s administration’.
Asquith’s war policy might be assessed. Source B portrays a Cabinet divided on
conscription and Gallipoli and problems with the supply of munitions. Knowledge about
each of these issues might be provided and some may add to the list details about events
in Europe, then and later notably the Battle of the Somme, all of which weakened Asquith.
However, candidates might excuse Asquith responsibility for these divisions and instead
blame the failure of commanders and ministers: Lloyd George is said to have ‘muddled ...
Munitions’. However, demands for the reform of the War Committee, mentioned in
Sources C, D and E, hint at disappointment with Asquith’s conduct of the war and his
refusal to concede could be viewed as culpability on his part. Knowledge of the discussions
and letters between Asquith and Lloyd George could be discussed by those well versed in
the subject. In evaluation candidates could argue that Asquith’s defensive position reflects
a sensitivity and pride, revealed in Source C in his concern not to ‘undermine his own
17
F963/02
Mark Scheme
June 2011
authority, even if the other two sources are treated with some suspicion given the position
of their authors.
Clearly, Lloyd George could be blamed for splitting the Liberal Party. In several sources
Lloyd George’s actions are described as deliberately targeted on his attaining the top spot.
As early as October 1915 his eye for an ‘opening to the leadership’ is identified, in Source
B, which may be dismissed as the subjective view of one man but which suggests some
observation of Lloyd George over time. In Source C Asquith is convinced that Lloyd
George had ‘engineered’ things ‘with the purpose of displacing me’ but such a judgement
might be dismissed as a ploy by Asquith to undermine the credibility of Lloyd George’s
proposals. The implication of the comments for 30 November in Source D is that Lloyd
George intended to ‘smash the government’ but this is the assessment of his mistress. In
Source E ‘Churchill claims that the resignation of Lloyd George led to the fall of the
government’ which might be used to argue that the latter bears responsibility for the split in
the Party. However, it could be argued that Lloyd George had no alternative given the
contradictory positions adopted by Asquith in his dialogue with Lloyd George on the reform
of the War Committee. In all cases the evidence that Lloyd George conspired against
Asquith is hard to verify.
Strong candidates will make mention of other politicians. Liberals inside and out of the
Cabinet, could be blamed for their reluctance to back Asquith fully or to put principle to one
side at a time of national emergency. This could be substantiated with reference to Source
A although the source explains that initial concerns about the Coalition were calmed by
Asquith. The fragility of support for Asquith from colleagues is evident in Source C and
their stubborn adherence to principle is revealed in Source B. Bonar Law might be blamed
for siding with Lloyd George as indicated in Source E, the importance of his alliance with
Lloyd George recognised in Source D. Although Bonar Law is portrayed as a reliable
colleague in Source C this might be evaluated as insincere as a device to divide him from
Lloyd George and Source B shows Bonar Law was prepared to resign over Gallipoli. In
Source E Northcliffe is said to have ‘exercised a commanding influence’ and candidates
may be aware of some of the devastating attacks made on the Coalition by the papers
mentioned which confirms the influence they had even if it does not explain the split in the
Liberal Party.
18
F963/02
4
(a)
Mark Scheme
June 2011
Study Sources B and D.
Compare these Sources as evidence for the relationship between Churchill
and Roosevelt.
[30]
No set answer is expected, but candidates need to compare the contents, evaluating
such matters as authorship, dating, utility and reliability, so using the Source ‘as
evidence for…..’ The Headings and attributions should aid evaluation and reference
to both is expected in a good answer.
The issue here is whether the apparently warm relations between Churchill and Roosevelt
which D exemplifies were borne out by the realities of US-British relations. B seems to
offer a more hostile view. Roosevelt may have been concerned that the US should not be
drawn into spending US lives in propping up the British Empire. Churchill worked very hard
to charm and impress Roosevelt, but was not always successful in actually influencing US
policy.
Content: D refers to the help and comfort America brought. B makes it clear that the help
was not extended to preserve the Empire with its ‘mediaeval’ ideas. There is no hint of this
resentment by FDR in D. B does not refer to the ‘unsordid’ Lease Lend, but there is a
direct reference to the Atlantic Charter – giving a very different interpretation. In B the
Charter is something that Churchill might want to wriggle out of, by implication because of
the Empire. In D the Charter is seen as part of a great cooperative effort by both sides (We
drew up together the Atlantic Charter) although Churchill is careful to refer to its impact on
‘other peoples’ which may not include the subjects of the British Empire. There is little
personal warmth expressed by FDR in B, and Churchill is not mentioned by name,
whereas D is in the nature of an emotional tribute to a personal friendship (personal regard
and affection) There is little reflection in D of the obvious concern that the US is not
subordinated to Britain that appears in B. Roosevelt in B is referring to British interests in
general; Churchill in D to a personal relationship based on US generosity.
Nature : B is a reported conversation between father and son after FDR had made a
considerable journey to an unfamiliar environment. It was at a difficult time in the war,
when there had been a number of differences between the USA and Britain over strategy,
Vichy France and the post-war world. D on the other hand was spoken when the war was
nearly over. Whatever the differences, a massive Anglo-American expeditionary force had
landed in France and was approaching final victory. Churchill’s hopes for US help had
materialised and it was important that differences should be forgotten and ongoing US
economic help and help against the Soviet threat should be continued. This was a public
speech as opposed to a private conversation made in very different circumstances and
with a different purpose. Judgment: Neither is entirely trustworthy or typical. FDR did have
warmer relations with Churchill than this outburst suggests; Churchill had more problems
with FDR than his eulogy suggests. Both are problematic – there is no corroboration that
these were FDRs words and we have to accept Elliot’s version (Churchill was angry at the
book and thought it misrepresented the facts). Similarly, in the emotional aftermath of
FDR’s death, Churchill would not be likely to produce a balanced analysis. He was a highly
emotional person and this was a very emotional tribute. Candidates are free to decide
which offers the more typical and authentic view of the relationship.
19
F963/02
4
(b)
Mark Scheme
June 2011
Study all the Sources.
Use your own knowledge to assess how far the Sources support the
interpretation that relations between Britain and the USA were very
successfully managed by Churchill between 1941 and 1945.
[70]
Successful answers will need to make use of all five Sources, testing them against
contextual evidence and evaluating their strengths and weaknesses, any limitations
as evidence. A range of issues may be addressed in focusing upon the terms of the
question but no set conclusion is expected.
The debate here is whether a successful management of Churchill’s relations with the US
is valid. Sources A, B and C suggest a failure to manage relations, or at least that Britain
had to take a second seat to the US. Sources D and to some extent E implies more
success based on Churchill’s assiduous personal diplomacy and management of
Roosevelt. Of the sources here E attempts a balance – a special relationship but not as
special as Churchill thought. D suggests the special personal relationship, but has to be
viewed with some caution, given the circumstances and intentions of the tribute. B
suggests more that Best is right to see the relationship as less special than Churchill
supposed. It can be supported by US sympathy for Indian independence and an
unwillingness to divert any resources to the recovery of British colonies taken by Japan. It
can also be supported by the insistence of US military predominance in the second front
and US refusal to press ahead to get to Berlin before Stalin. However, the nature of the
Source does need to be considered critically as a hearsay account published some years
afterwards. A is the German view which actually confirms the view in B that the US wanted
to remain dominant. Obviously the purpose is to show Churchill in a humiliating way and
hope for a rift between the allies. By the time of publication in 1943 the campaign in Russia
had suffered a fatal blow. A second front was feared and the German people needed to be
reassured that the Anglo-US alliance was fragile. This was actually widely held to be the
case. Hitler is said to have believed that FDR’s death in April 1945 was a sign that
Germany now had a chance of survival if the US split from its ally. However the cartoon
also shows US economic power and actually FDR and Churchill are hand in hand. The
cartoon is not however entirely fanciful as Lord Moran’s diary reveals Churchill’s pique at
being treated as the junior partner. As Moran was close to Churchill and saw the
immediate effect of Roosevelt’s snub, this is a useful source; but it does refer to a specific
conference. The diaries were not published until after the war. They were seen as a
breach of confidentiality, but do offer a unique view. Both sources show a Churchill out of
control in his relations with the USA. Roosevelt was concerned that Churchill did not see
the Atlantic Charter as having application to Britain; Churchill was concerned that FDR did
not see that Stalin would have little interest in the principles of the Atlantic Charter in postwar expansion – hence his desperate deal with Stalin done independently of the US to
establish spheres of influence in Eastern Europe in October 1944. Candidates could
question the typicality of A and C and the sources as a whole do not have enough
evidence of the good humour and warmth of the personal relationship between the
leaders, for example in Churchill’s successful visit to Washington in December 1941 or his
witty and well-received speech to Congress. His face to face meetings are said to have
overcome FDR’s initial hostility to him when they first met and begun a remarkable
partnership in which shared democratic ideals led to cooperation and victory. Candidates
could point to Churchill’s success in persuading FDR to invade North Africa, in persuading
him to delay D Day and then giving massive military aid – these could support the judicious
view in E. However, there is enough material to support some truth in the more skeptical
views in A, B and C. Churchill had to accept a hard bargain for any US help, no certainty
of US intervention against Germany and then facing a lot of problems in relations with the
USA which involved virtual appeasement of FDR. By 1943 Churchill could not prevent
Roosevelt becoming closer to Stalin and failed to get US understanding of the threat from
Stalin. Churchill had to accept US military leadership and the predominance of US
Strategy.
20
OCR (Oxford Cambridge and RSA Examinations)
1 Hills Road
Cambridge
CB1 2EU
OCR Customer Contact Centre
14 – 19 Qualifications (General)
Telephone: 01223 553998
Facsimile: 01223 552627
Email: [email protected]
www.ocr.org.uk
For staff training purposes and as part of our quality assurance
programme your call may be recorded or monitored
Oxford Cambridge and RSA Examinations
is a Company Limited by Guarantee
Registered in England
Registered Office; 1 Hills Road, Cambridge, CB1 2EU
Registered Company Number: 3484466
OCR is an exempt Charity
OCR (Oxford Cambridge and RSA Examinations)
Head office
Telephone: 01223 552552
Facsimile: 01223 552553
© OCR 2011
GCE
History A
Advanced Subsidiary GCE
Unit F963/02: Option B Modern 1815-1945
Mark Scheme for June 2012
Oxford Cambridge and RSA Examinations
OCR (Oxford Cambridge and RSA) is a leading UK awarding body, providing a wide range of
qualifications to meet the needs of candidates of all ages and abilities. OCR qualifications
include AS/A Levels, Diplomas, GCSEs, OCR Nationals, Functional Skills, Key Skills, Entry
Level qualifications, NVQs and vocational qualifications in areas such as IT, business,
languages, teaching/training, administration and secretarial skills.
It is also responsible for developing new specifications to meet national requirements and the
needs of students and teachers. OCR is a not-for-profit organisation; any surplus made is
invested back into the establishment to help towards the development of qualifications and
support, which keep pace with the changing needs of today’s society.
This mark scheme is published as an aid to teachers and students, to indicate the requirements
of the examination. It shows the basis on which marks were awarded by examiners. It does not
indicate the details of the discussions which took place at an examiners’ meeting before marking
commenced.
All examiners are instructed that alternative correct answers and unexpected approaches in
candidates’ scripts must be given marks that fairly reflect the relevant knowledge and skills
demonstrated.
Mark schemes should be read in conjunction with the published question papers and the report
on the examination.
OCR will not enter into any discussion or correspondence in connection with this mark scheme.
© OCR 2012
Any enquiries about publications should be addressed to:
OCR Publications
PO Box 5050
Annesley
NOTTINGHAM
NG15 0DL
Telephone:
Facsimile:
E-mail:
0870 770 6622
01223 552610
[email protected]
F963/02
Mark Scheme
Subject-specific Marking Instructions that apply across the whole question paper to be included here.
Question (a) Maximum mark 30
A01a and b
AO2a
1
13-14
15-16
2
11-12
13-14
3
9-10
10-12
4
7-8
8-9
5
5-6
6-7
6
3-4
3-5
7
0-2
0-2
Notes related to Part A:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
Allocate marks to the most appropriate level for each AO
If several marks are available in a box, work from the top mark down until the best fit has been found
Many answers will not be at the same level for each AO
1
June 2012
F963/02
Mark Scheme
June 2012
Marking Grid for Question (a)
AOs
Total for
each
question =30
Level 1
Level 2
AO1a and b
Recall, select and deploy historical knowledge appropriately,
and communicate knowledge and understanding of history in a
clear and effective manner.
Demonstrate understanding of the past through explanation,
analysis and arriving at substantiated judgements of:
key concepts such as causation, consequence,
continuity, change and significance within an
historical context;
the relationships between key features and
characteristics of the periods studied.

Consistent and developed comparison of the key issue
with a balanced and well-supported judgement. There will
be little or no unevenness.

Focused use of a range of relevant historical concepts
and context to address the key issue.

The answer is clearly structured and organised.
Communicates coherently, accurately and effectively.



13-14
Largely comparative evaluation of the key issue with a
balanced and supported judgement. There may be a little
unevenness in parts.
Focused use of some relevant historical context with a
good conceptual understanding to address the key issue.
The answer is well structured and organised.
Communicates clearly.
AO2a
As part of an historical enquiry, analyse and evaluate a range of
appropriate source material with discrimination.




Focused comparative analysis. Controlled and
discriminating evaluation of content and provenance,
whether integrated or treated separately.
Evaluates using a range of relevant provenance points in
relation to the sources and question. There is a thorough
but not necessarily exhaustive exploration of these.
15-16
Relevant comparative analysis of content and evaluation of
provenance but there may be some unevenness in
coverage or control.
Source evaluation is reasonably full and appropriate but
lacks completeness on the issues raised by the sources in
the light of the question.
13-14
11-12
2
F963/02
AOs
Level 3
Mark Scheme



Level 4



Level 5



AO1a and b
Some comparison linked to the key issue. Is aware of
some similarity and/or difference. Judgements may be
limited and/or inconsistent with the analysis made.
Some use of relevant historical concepts and contexts but
uneven understanding. Inconsistent focus on the key
issue.
The answer has some structure and organisation but
there is also some description. Communication may be
clear but may not be consistent.
9-10
Some general comparison but undeveloped with some
assertion, description and/or narrative. Judgement is
unlikely, unconvincing or asserted.
A general sense of historical concepts and context but
understanding is partial or limited, with some tangential
and/or irrelevant evidence.
Structure may be rather disorganised with some unclear
sections. Communication is satisfactory but with some
inaccuracy of expression.
7-8
Limited comparison with few links to the key issue.
Imparts generalised comment and /or a weak
understanding of the key points. The answer lacks
judgement or makes a basic assertion.
Basic, often inaccurate or irrelevant historical context and
conceptual understanding.
Structure lacks organisation with weak or basic
communication.
June 2012






AO2a
Provides a comparison but there is unevenness, confining
the comparison to the second half of the answer or simply
to a concluding paragraph. Either the focus is on content or
provenance, rarely both.
Source evaluation is partial and it is likely that the
provenance itself is not compared, may be undeveloped or
merely commented on discretely.
10-12
Attempts a comparison but most of the comment is
sequential. Imparts content or provenance rather than using
it.
Comparative comments are few or only partially developed,
often asserted and/or ‘stock’ in approach.
8-9
Identifies some comparative points but is very sequential
and perhaps implicit
Comment on the sources is basic, general, undeveloped or
juxtaposed, often through poorly understood quotation.
6-7
5-6
3
F963/02
AOs
Level 6
Mark Scheme



Level 7



AO1a and b
Comparison is minimal and basic with very limited links to
the key issue. Mainly paraphrase and description with
very limited understanding. There is no judgement.
Irrelevant and inaccurate concepts and context.
Has little organisation or structure with very weak
communication.
3-4
Fragmentary, descriptive, incomplete and with few or no
links to the key issue. There is little or no understanding.
Much irrelevance.
Weak or non existent context with no conceptual
understanding.
No structure with extremely weak communication.
June 2012




AO2a
Little attempt to compare. Weak commentary on one or two
undeveloped points, with basic paraphrase. Sequencing is
characteristic.
Comments on individual sources are generalised and
confused.
3-5
No attempt to compare either content or provenance with
fragmentary, brief or inaccurate comment.
Makes no attempt to use any aspects of the sources.
0-2
0-2
4
F963/02
Mark Scheme
Question (b) Maximum mark 70
A01a and b
AO2a and b
1
20-22
42-48
2
17-19
35-41
3
13-16
28-34
4
9-12
21-27
5
6-8
14-20
6
3-5
7-13
7
0-2
0-6
Notes related to Part B:
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
Allocate marks to the most appropriate level for each AO
If several marks are available in a box, work from the top mark down until the best fit has been found
Many answers will not be at the same level for each AO
5
June 2012
F963/02
AOs
Total
mark for
the
question
= 70
Level 1
Level 2
Mark Scheme
AO1a and b
Recall, select and deploy historical knowledge appropriately,
and communicate knowledge and understanding of history in
a clear and effective manner.
AO2a and b
As part of an historical enquiry, analyse and evaluate a range of
appropriate source material with discrimination.
Demonstrate understanding of the past through explanation,
analysis and arriving at substantiated judgements of:
key concepts such as causation, consequence,
continuity, change and significance within an
historical context;
the relationships between key features and
characteristics of the periods studied.

Convincing analysis and argument with developed
explanation leading to careful, supported and persuasive
judgement arising from a consideration of both content
and provenance. There may be a little unevenness at
the bottom of the level.

Sharply focused use and control of a range of reliable
evidence to confirm, qualify, extend or question the
sources.

Coherent organised structure. Accurate and effective
communication.



June 2012
20-22
Good attempt at focused analysis, argument and
explanation leading to a supported judgement that is
based on the use of most of the content and
provenance.
A focused use of relevant evidence to put the sources
into context.
Mostly coherent structure and organisation if uneven in
parts. Good communication.
Analyse and evaluate, in relation to the historical context, how aspects
of the past have been interpreted and represented in different ways.






17-19
6
A carefully grouped and comparative evaluation of all the
sources with effective levels of discrimination sharply focused on
the interpretation.
Analyses and evaluates the strengths, limitations and utility of
the sources in relation to the interpretation. Uses and cross
references points in individual or grouped sources to support or
refute an interpretation.
Integrates sources with contextual knowledge in analysis and
evaluation and is convincing in most respects. Has synthesis
within the argument through most of the answer.
42-48
Grouped analysis and use of most of the sources with good
levels of discrimination and a reasonable focus on the
interpretation.
Analyses and evaluates some of the strengths and limitations of
the sources in relation to the interpretation. May focus more on
individual sources within a grouping, so cross referencing may
be less frequent.
Some, perhaps less balanced, integration of sources and
contextual knowledge to analyse and evaluate the interpretation.
Synthesis of the skills may be less developed. The analysis and
evaluation is reasonably convincing.
35-41
F963/02
AOs
Level 3
Mark Scheme



AO1a and b
Mainly sound analysis, argument and explanation, but
there may be some description and unevenness.
Judgement may be incomplete or inconsistent with the
analysis of content and provenance.
Some relevant evidence but less effectively used and
may not be extensive.
Reasonably coherent structure and organisation but
uneven. Reasonable communication.



Level 4



Level 5



13-16
Attempts some analysis, argument and explanation but
underdeveloped and not always linked to the question.
There will be more assertion, description and narrative.
Judgements are less substantiated and much less
convincing.
Some relevant evidence is deployed, but evidence will
vary in accuracy, relevance and extent. It may be
generalised or tangential.
Structure is less organised, communication less clear
and some inaccuracies of expression.



9-12
Little argument or explanation, inaccurate understanding
of the issues and concepts. The answer lacks
judgement.
Limited use of relevant evidence or context which is
largely inaccurate or irrelevant.
Structure is disorganised, communication basic and the
sense not always clear.



June 2012
AO2a and b
Some grouping although not sustained or developed. Sources
are mainly approached discretely with limited cross reference.
Their use is less developed and may, in parts, lose focus on the
interpretation. There may be some description of content and
provenance.
Is aware of some of the limitations of the sources, individually or
as a group, but mostly uses them for reference and to illustrate
an argument rather than analysing and evaluating them as
evidence. There is little cross referencing.
There may be unevenness in using knowledge in relation to the
sources. Synthesis may be patchy or bolted on. Analysis and
evaluation are only partially convincing.
28-34
Sources are discussed discretely and largely sequentially,
perhaps within very basic groups. Loses focus on the
interpretation. The sources are frequently described.
May mention some limitations of individual sources but largely
uses them for reference and illustration. Cross referencing is
unlikely.
An imbalance and lack of integration between sources and
knowledge often with discrete sections. There is little synthesis.
Analysis and explanation may be muddled and unconvincing in
part.
21-27
A limited attempt to use the sources or discriminate between
them. The approach is very sequential and referential, with much
description. Points are undeveloped.
There is little attempt to analyse, explain or use the sources in
relation to the question. Comment may be general.
There is a marked imbalance with no synthesis. Analysis and
explanation are rare and comments are unconvincing.
14-20
5-8
7
F963/02
AOs
Level 6
Mark Scheme



Level 7



AO1a and b
There is very little explanation or understanding. Largely
assertion, description and narrative with no judgement.
Extremely limited relevance to the question.
Evidence is basic, generalised, patchy, inaccurate or
irrelevant.
Little organisation or structure with poor communication.
3-4
No argument or explanation. Fragmentary and
descriptive with no relevance to the question.
No understanding underpins what little use is made of
evidence or context.
Disorganised and partial with weak communication and
expression.
0-2






June 2012
AO2a and b
Very weak and partial use of the sources for the question. No
focus on interpretation.
A very weak, general and paraphrased use of source content.
No synthesis or balance. Comments are entirely unconvincing.
7-13
Little application of the sources to the question with inaccuracies
and irrelevant comment. Fragmentary and heavily descriptive.
No attempt to use any aspect of the sources appropriately.
No contextual knowledge, synthesis or balance. There is no
attempt to convince.
0-6
8
F963/02
Question
(a)
1
Mark Scheme
Answer
The context is the increasing interest in public health issues in the 1840s. ‘1842’
saw the first big move towards raising awareness of public health with Chadwick’s
famous Sanitary Report of that year (Source A); whilst by 1847 bills had been
presented to parliament and had become government sponsored. Candidates may
also be aware of the limited approach and jurisdictional authority of local authorities,
even after the Municipal Corporations Act of 1835 opened many to ratepayer
suffrage which, in the case of health, could limit what was done by a more rigorous
electoral control over what could and was spent.
Both reflect the need to do something and comment on the role of local authorities in
this light. The similarities here outweigh the differences, partly because both come
from sanitary reformers. They are convinced that local authorities (local corporations)
are inadequate in their approach and there is a stress on the limited money and
resources available to them. Chadwick in A comments on their inefficient operations
whilst Guy in B goes further and points to their lack of sufficient scale (in terms of
extended drainage and a lack of authority over a sufficiently large area to make a
difference). Both stress the importance of drainage and the need for efficient
administration through the appointment of salaried and professional officers of
health, lacking according to both sources.
The differences are ones of emphasis. Chadwick in A focuses on the revenue
problem – rates are unequal in their distribution, of little value in practical terms
(most would be absorbed in the new poor law rate) and inefficiently collected and
administered. He promises economy and saving money, perhaps over optimistically.
In contrast the problem for Guy in B is the local electoral system. Ratepayers were
potentially removed from public health problems and were unlikely to appreciate the
scale of action needed or be bold enough to demand action from their
representatives. As a result Guy stresses the need for government appointment to
sanitary office, not the local patronage that produced officers for whom local and
political loyalties trumped health and administrative expertise.
The provenance explains the critical approach to local authorities. Both sources are
written by experts, both by committed sanitary reformers, especially Edwin
Chadwick, for whom it had become something of a crusade in the 1840s. Both have
an interest in stressing local authority inefficiency. Chadwick had become an object
of local authority suspicion and hatred and he reciprocated. Both look to central
government for the answers and the authority to over-ride local corporations,
9
June 2012
Marks
30
Guidance
Focus: Comparison of two Sources
No set answer is expected, but
candidates need to compare the
contents, evaluating such matters
as authorship, dating, utility and
reliability, so using the Source ‘as
evidence for…..’ The Headings
and attributions should aid
evaluation and reference to both is
expected in a good answer.
F963/02
Mark Scheme
June 2012
Question
Answer
although Guy does so with some reluctance. The purpose of both is to persuade,
although their audience differs – Chadwick in A is seeking to mould intelligent
propertied opinion (and stresses economy and saving money). He is seeking official
sanction (a Report that went beyond its remit and was only published to a wider
audience at his own expense). Guy in B is addressing a more specialist audience via
a journal, although it reflects a widening interest in health issues by intelligent public
opinion. The author is predisposed to oppose centralisation and is at pains to state a
problem – local authorities simply lack the boundaries to deal with a problem that is
beyond them. This explains the emphasis on election. In terms of judgement both
are equally valid in the points they make on local authority limitation but both
generalise. Neither acknowledges the admittedly few authorities that were seizing
the initiative (Liverpool for example). Some may consider Guy the better source as
he focuses on the institutional limitations whereas Chadwick rather speciously claims
that savings could be made in the Poor Law bill to compensate for the health
expenditure he claims is so necessary.
Marks
Guidance
(b)
The Sources provide a variety of views on the issue of what provided the major
impetus to tackle health in the 1840s. The question asserts the centrality of
Chadwick, his work and efforts. However, there were other factors at work – the role
of cholera in panicking the political classes; public awareness and the state of
knowledge on the issue; the issue of local government reform and the impact of the
industrial revolution on the health of towns and cities. All of the sources are, to a
greater or lesser extent, predisposed towards public health reform. Two sources, A
and B, are self appointed experts on the issue whilst C, D and E are laymen, looking
critically at the unfolding debate and those involved in it.
The view that Chadwick’s work was the key to what was achieved can be largely
found in A, with some support from B and C. Source A is Chadwick himself and
the provenance point here is obvious. This is an extract from his famous report of
1842, published under his own name and the product of his work as a poor law
commissioner. By 1840, from poor law reports, he had concluded that the occupants
of workhouses were often there because of poor health. Increasingly much of the
continued expense was incurred in their role as unofficial local hospitals. Health was
the key to the operation of a smooth and free labour market. However, he needed to
convince both a suspicious public and government that the health of the poor
70
Focus: Judgement in context,
based on a set of Sources and
own knowledge.
Successful answers will need to
make use of all five Sources,
testing them against contextual
evidence and evaluating their
strengths and weaknesses, any
limitations as evidence. A range of
issues may be addressed in
focusing upon the terms of the
question but no set conclusion is
expected.
10
The sources can be read/analysed
in different ways and as part of
their judgement candidates will
need to appreciate this.
F963/02
Question
Mark Scheme
Answer
affected all, both in terms of infectious disease and in its indirect impact on the
pockets of the employing classes. His 1842 report arguably did precisely that. He
asserted the causes of disease (wrongly as it turned out – miasma and atmospheric
causes were to be disproved in the 1850s) and succinctly summarised them in the
opening sentences of the source. His analogies are striking – annual loss of life was
greater than in Britain’s wars. Local authorities were not up to the job. Savings were
promised (again rather speciously – the claim is a future reduction of one thirtieth in
expenditure provided an initial large outlay was made on new, water flushed,
drainage). New civil servants were in fact an economy! Thus he provided solutions
and savings, all in one go. His theories fitted the facts that he deployed and he could
claim that he had been asked to investigate by the Whig government. This had a
considerable impact at the time (a Health of Towns Association with branches all
over Britain was set up) and Peel’s government was forced further to consider urban
health. 100,000 copies of his report were sold. Candidates however could point to
the assertions in the source on the causes of disease and to the existing interests
that were implicitly condemned to oblivion – improvement commissioners and often
powerful water companies would have to be wound up. The result of his report was a
polarisation into ‘clean’ and ‘dirty’ parties that arguably hindered health reform. Guy
in B lends some support to the view of Chadwick’s pivotal role by echoing his 1842
findings – on drainage, local authority inadequacy and the need for proper sanitary
officials, but his is the view of a minority, albeit an increasing one, and he is careful
to voice appropriate caveats as to centralisation and officialdom This was a
recognition of the opposition’s case against Chadwick. The author in C (Fraser’s
magazine), also gives cautious recognition of Chadwick’s centrality in the debate. It
is in the form of a warning to Chadwick based on an awareness of his controversial
poor law role – his tendency to doctrinaire approaches (a perceived inhumane
Benthamite utilitarianism) and compulsion.
The view that minimises Chadwick’s importance is to be found in a different
reading of Chadwick in source A (see above), in combination with C, which points
to negative public perceptions of him. A focus on increasing criticism of local
authorities is to be found in B but Sources D and E stress that the main factor
was fear of cholera. Sources D and E both provide telling evidence of the powerful
fear of cholera, a fear far more concrete than from other epidemics (typhus) –arriving
from Asia in 1830, it had not been seen before and government immediately took
11
June 2012
Marks
Guidance
F963/02
Question
Mark Scheme
Answer
action to hold ships in quarantine and set up a temporary Board of Health to deal
with the first outbreak in 1832. Opinion was divided on causes –victim contact or
miasma (as Chadwick believed in Source A) – and on treatments. Clearly it was
behind early public health reform in the early 1830s when there had been little by
way of Chadwick’s statistics, solutions and advocacy (the product of the 1840s) and
Dickens in Source E claims that it was again the key in the 1840s. With another
epidemic in 1848/9 he argued cholera lay behind the Public Health Act of 1848 (this
time a permanent Central Board with power to act if death rates climbed and to
appoint an inspector). The delays after 1842 and the timing of the Act would confirm
Dickens’ view. Similarly his point about bulletins ceasing when cholera abated and
the ‘buttoning of pockets’ to pay for health measures is corroborated by events – the
Board was to be for a trial period of 6 years only and was to be permissive. It was
closed in 1854 and Chadwick dismissed. Shopkeepers, labourers and ratepayers
resented interference and Chadwick made enemies, as Source C warned. He
seemed incapable of realising that it would take time and cooperation for large cities
to build arterial systems. Dickens was a persuasive and engaged campaigner. His
evidence is compelling and is indirectly supported by Punch in Source D. This, too,
highlights action as a result of cholera and interestingly makes what turned out to be
the correct link between it and the water supply. In this sense Chadwick’s new
Central Board was guilty of making it worse – flushing the London sewers into the
Thames and encouraging the continuance of rivers, sources of drinking water, as
dumping grounds for waste. However, Punch in Source D had no scientific backing
for this claim in 1849.
Another view is the general raising of health consciousness in the period, a point
stressed in Source C in relation to local government inadequacy but also in the form
of the sort of publicity provided by Punch in Source D and Dickens in Source E,
both more popular and arguably influential than Chadwick. The latter was regarded
with suspicion by populace and government alike. Sources like A and B, once the
implications were realised, may well have been counter-productive. The satire of
Punch (a well known verse with obvious and popular targets in the form of corrupt
vested interests) and the adulation commanded by Dickens may lead to a conclusion
that marginalises the role of Chadwick in favour of cholera and corruption.
Alternatively the elegance and persuasiveness of Chadwick, not least the savings
argument, could well form the basis for an acceptance of the view in the question.
12
June 2012
Marks
Guidance
F963/02
Question
(a)
2
Mark Scheme
Answer
The context for both sources is the 1874 election. Both are liberal sources and
comment from this perspective on Liberal achievements. Both talk of ‘enabling’ the
British people and both refer to the achievement of moral policy and reform, on
issues such as the Alabama arbitration. However there are considerable
differences. For Gladstone in A the whole point of a Liberal government is fiscal
rectitude – economy and debt reduction, a continued lowering of tariffs (Free Trade)
and low taxation. His tone reveals considerable pride in the achievement of this and
he proffers the hope that the Income Tax would finally be abolished should the
Liberals be re-elected. He is also proud of liberal diplomacy abroad which brought
peace and an end to factious disputes like the Alabama case. Halifax in B fails to
even mention financial achievements, although he hints at unease at ‘what was
going on abroad’. He doesn’t share Gladstone’s optimism as to what the Liberals
had sought and achieved abroad. For him the key Liberal achievement had been the
removal of abuse, privilege and corruption. Instead of focusing on tariffs and taxation
he mentions the removal of the Irish Church (Disestablishment and Dis-Endowment
in 1869) of army purchase (Cardwell’s Army reforms) and the Secret Ballot Act in
1872. This was political rather than financial and economic achievement.
As regards provenance the key lies in the respective political positions of the two
sources, and their dates. Gladstone in Source A is the Liberal leader and PM
addressing his constituents immediately prior to the general election and aware that
anything he said would be printed (the ‘Times’) and seen as a national Liberal
election manifesto. For Gladstone the fiscal imperative was absolute. Always his own
Chancellor he was determined to find a great mission to reunite the Liberal party and
typically found it in a return to the basics of Free trade and low taxation. However
this is a vote winning speech and the achievement of low taxation and a ‘sound
economy’ and the proposed abolition of the Income Tax should be seen in this light.
He hoped to counter the message of his Tory rival, a brewer who sought to exploit
the Licensing issue that had recently bedevilled the Liberals. In contrast Lord
Halifax in Source B, albeit from a liberal perspective, is more wide ranging in his
assessment. As a member of the Lords, holding an honorary position as elder
statesman in Gladstone’s government, he can afford to be more sanguine. His
purpose is to console and commiserate immediately after the election defeat. He
writes a personal letter to his leader. He studiously avoids the failure of Gladstone’s
fiscal mission talking instead of a rebound in the thinking of the electorate, natural
13
June 2012
Marks
30
Guidance
Focus: Comparison of two
Sources.
No set answer is expected, but
candidates need to compare the
contents, evaluating such matters
as authorship, dating, utility and
reliability, so using the Sources ‘as
evidence for …’. The headings and
attributions should aid evaluation
and reference to both is expected
in a good answer.
F963/02
Mark Scheme
June 2012
Question
Answer
swings to and from a party or government that had genuinely, and rightly, sought the
removal of long standing abuses. He stresses that Liberal achievements may not, in
the long run, have resulted in so negative a popular response as the electoral result
would suggest. In terms of judgement candidates may consider Halifax to be the
better guide on what the Liberals, as a whole, achieved, given his balance of positive
and negative and the wider take on the reforms, although Gladstone, as liberal and
PM, may well provide better evidence in terms of his own view of what Liberals did,
and should, stand for.
Marks
Guidance
(b)
The sources support three possible interpretations – that the result was down to
Conservative leadership and organisation; that the Liberals had, by their reforms and
actions, lost it; that the result was the product of general social and economic trends
in the country that advantaged the Conservatives, although candidates may see this
as part of the reaction to Liberal reform. Three of the sources are from a liberal
perspective, albeit different strands (Gladstone in A, a senior Whig in B and a radical
liberal journalist in D). They are divided in their verdict, although no credit is given to
Disraeli and the Conservatives. They either stress their own mistakes and policies,
well intentioned or otherwise (A and B) or point to long term trends that favour
Conservatism (D – suitably vacuous in its reference to Conservatism, as befits a
radical assessment). Two of the sources are from a Conservative angle (the Queen
in Source C reporting Disraeli’s views and Gorst in Source E commenting on
strategies and organisation).
70
Focus: Judgement in context,
based on the set of Sources and
own knowledge.
Successful answers will need to
make use of all five Sources,
testing them against contextual
knowledge and evaluating their
strengths and weaknesses, any
limitations as evidence. A range of
issues may be addressed in
focusing upon the terms of the
question but no set conclusion is
expected.
The argument for conservative leadership and organisation is to be found in
sources C and E, the Queen and Gorst, son of Disraeli’s electoral organiser, and
indirectly in D’s implicit reference to Disraeli’s strategy of promising respite from
harassing legislation – the preference of the electorate for ‘leaving well alone’.
However Sources C and E have different conservative emphases. Queen
Victoria’s record of Disraeli’s conversation with her on the results stresses, rather
predictably, Disraeli’s own leadership of the party. He takes the credit for the strategy
of 1873/4, refusing office when Gladstone sought to resign following the debacle of
the Irish Universities bill and allowing him to struggle on with a divided party and no
particular policy until January 1874. Candidates might refer to his speeches from
1872 carving out a philosophy for mid Victorian Conservatism and to his witty takes
14
F963/02
Question
Mark Scheme
Answer
on Gladstone’s apparent interventionism (‘volcanoes’ etc.). Victoria is partisan but
this is a factual record of what was said. It is given more validity by the initial
comment on the result as a ‘great surprise’, Disraeli thinking the likelihood to be a
small liberal majority. This is hardly an endorsement of a convincing and proactive
Conservatism on Disraeli’s part. In contrast Gorst in E almost entirely stresses
conservative organisation, countering Disraeli’s own view, in C, that organisation had
nothing to do with it. The pro conservative sources diverge here. In 1874 (Source C)
Disraeli is dismissive on organisational issues. From hindsight (Gorst wrote his pro
conservative biography, Source E, in1900) there is a melding of leadership and
organisation, as befits the son of the man who later claimed the credit for victory. He
suggests that the idea of bringing together local constituency and a central
organisation was Disraeli’s, despite no mention of its beneficial role in Disraeli’s
conversation with Victoria. From that alleged suggestion there followed the work of
his father – ensuring the party was not caught on the hop by Gladstone’s sudden
and unexpected dissolution, targeting winnable seats and moving quickly to back
‘agreed’ candidates. There is no mention here of any other factor. Credit is given to
Disraeli and Gorst whom, it is argued in E, would obviously realise the implications of
the 1867 Reform Act with its need to mobilise, in new ways, an expanded urban
electorate. Candidates may find this convincing given Gorst’s work and calculations.
They may be aware of Liberal deficiencies before Chamberlain got to work but
Disraeli’s tone and insouciance in C may lead them to consider the Conservative
thesis to be unconvincing. They could also cite Harrison’s comments in D on the
limits of Conservative organisation – that the party could not control Manchester.
Another interpretation, to be found in sources A and B, is that the Liberals lost
the election. This is given some weight by their liberal slant. Gladstone in A pins
his hopes on fiscal rectitude and the promise of a bribe for the middle classes – the
abolition of the income tax. His mention of the Alabama arbitration was, perhaps,
unwise, especially its linkage to paying off debt. He studiously ignores the
controversial legislation of his government and the precise context of the election in
Greenwich (the Licensing Act). Candidates might consider his comments to reflect
either desperation or an ill-conceived attempt to pin Liberalism back to its mid
century hey-day. They certainly hid more than they reveal about the state of play in
Liberal politics. However, Harrison in D challenges the importance of the Licensing
Act and Forster’s Education Act (beer having little influence on the London middle
15
June 2012
Marks
Guidance
F963/02
Question
Mark Scheme
Answer
class; the nonconformist ‘25 section men...not strong in London’). Halifax in B is
similarly more measured. He is concerned to discern wider factors affecting the
Liberal vote – an unpopular foreign policy (that could be pinned more squarely on
Gladstone as the reference in A suggests) and a John Bright inspired Secret Ballot
that rebounded on the Liberals by enabling the expression of private dissatisfaction.
Again, however, Harrison is concerned to refute this in D (Halifax’s comments on
master/men tension is criticised by the observation that there were few workers in
the Home Counties). Halifax may well, as a Whig Liberal, reflect a more staid liberal
approach to the perceived radicalism of Gladstone. Whilst acknowledging that the
Liberals alienated vested interests, who protested loudly, he prefers to put it down to
a swing of the pendulum.
A third view can be constructed, using Sources B and D (Halifax and Harrison),
although this could equally be made part of the previous argument – that the Liberals
lost by losing their grip on the middle ground for whom the tax promises in A would
appear slight after reductions in recent years. This view stresses general trends and
the swing of the pendulum. Halifax’s thesis in B stresses a general swing in the
electorate, still propertied, based on fear. This was partly economic and partly
foreign (a balance of power less favourable to Britain). The result, according to
Halifax, was the ‘taking refuge in Conservatism’. As a liberal he considers this
irrational but, alas, inevitable. Harrison in D presents a more sophisticated analysis
but comes to much the same conclusion – that trends were underway which saw the
middle class move away from Liberalism. He is concerned to refute short term
analyses based on either particular liberal failings (licensing; trade unions; education
and the nonconformists; the new electorate of 1867 – residuum; the Gladstone bribe
of income tax abolition in A) or on Conservative organisation (controlling
Manchester). He argues that the turnaround didn’t occur in areas where liberal
issues might rebound against them but amongst the large middle class centres –
London, its suburbs, the Home Counties and the big northern cities. Candidates
could refute this, at least in the north, where the issues he dismisses, it could be
argued, did have an effect.
In terms of judgement candidates may find any one of these convincing, depending
on their evaluation of the sources and the contextual use of their own knowledge.
th
16
June 2012
Marks
Guidance
F963/02
Question
(a)
3
Mark Scheme
Answer
The sources agree on certain specific points about why votes for women was
opposed. Firstly, opponents argued the woman’s priority was the home, the
assumption being that politics was not for them. However, each adopts a different
slant on this. Source C is emphatic that ‘Politics will go on without the help of
women, but the home will not’ implying they are indispensable in the latter but not
the former, whereas Source D suggests the incompetence of women in the home –
unable to ‘sew, cook’ etc is such that it would be foolish to ‘introduce into politics
these unsatisfactory creatures’. Secondly, opponents thought women lacked
knowledge of politics: Source C accepting ‘the special knowledge of men’ in contrast
to ‘inexperienced women’ and Source D concedes ‘wives are without the smattering
of newspaper information which their husbands exchange’. Thirdly, and related, is
the view that women were mentally not equipped for politics. Source C asserts that
‘women are not equal to men ... in intellect’ and the third sentence in Source D
makes it clear by inversion that the ‘popular’ view was that women were mentally
inferior. Fourthly, opponents argued that women lacked stamina. As with the
previous point, a careful reading of the fourth sentence of Source D makes it clear
that men believed women lacked ‘perseverance and resolve’ which is stated in
Source C which criticised women’s lack of ‘endurance or nervous energy’.
In evaluating these sources candidates might highlight the different perspectives of
the authors. In Source C the views expressed clearly represent those of the
authoress which she claims are supported more broadly by women as a whole
drawing on the results of the survey of women in East Grinstead to prove her point.
By contrast, in presenting the views of opponents Source D is clearly interpreting the
views of ‘politicians’, the press’ and the public but the implication is clear that they
are the views of men with which she disagrees. Candidates will likely assert that this
is unsurprising given that Mrs Colquhoun was a member of the Anti-Suffrage League
and Mrs Martin was a Suffragist. Mention of the integrity of the Empire in Source C
might be used as more than simply an argument of opponents against the vote for
women but an indication of the conservatism of Mrs Colquhoun which may help
explain her resistance to political change. The typicality of these views might be
verified as consistent with the organisations represented by the authoresses and a
way of judging the reliability of the sources and the equality of their value as
evidence.
17
June 2012
Marks
30
Guidance
Focus: Comparison of two
Sources.
No set answer is expected, but
candidates need to compare the
contents, evaluating such
matters as authorship, dating,
utility and reliability, so using
the Sources ‘as evidence for
…’. The headings and
attributions should aid
evaluation and reference to
both is expected in a good
answer.
F963/02
Question
(b)
Mark Scheme
Answer
This question is about the arguments for giving women the vote, not the
reasons for doing it.
In support of the interpretation Source A implies that the present system
amounted to ‘tyranny’, the implication being that votes for women would check this.
In addition, the record of municipal government is claimed to be ‘in advance of
Parliamentary attitudes’, in part it is implied, because women play a part there.
Candidates might elaborate on women in local government. It could also be claimed
that the point about ‘women have to obey the laws’ suggests that the framing of laws
would be better. Source D supports the view that women’s involvement would be a
positive political development in stressing the attributes of women including
‘perseverance and resolve’, ‘mental superiority’, ‘commonsense’ and ‘knowledge of
the workings of male human nature’. Knowledge of women who had proved these
talents and of the hardships endured by many women would usefully re-enforce
these claims. The logic of the arguments presented may commend Sources A and
D as strong evidence in favour of the interpretation. However, candidates may
question their reliability given the commitment of both women to the cause of
women’s suffrage.
Source C is helpful in developing the counter-argument. The results of the
survey suggest that only a minority of women wanted the vote implying a denial of
the interpretation. Furthermore, the authoress argues that the political system would
not be improved if women had the vote. Indeed, Source C is explicit in stating that
‘the problems of government can only be solved by ... men’. Although the survey
quoted may represent the views of women in one locality candidates should note
that the Anti-Suffrage League was national, stated in the introduction, and in 1911
the support for the women’s cause was limited: Parliament had dropped a
Conciliation Bill and an upsurge of violence from the Suffragettes alienated many.
Yet, her reference to women abroad having the vote might be used as support for
the argument for giving the vote to women in England.
Closely linked to the point that votes for women would improve the political system is
the reason that women should be given the vote as affirmation of their equality.
This point is made most forcefully, perhaps, in Source B which regards the vote as
essential to validate women’s equality in every other sphere of life. This is made
clear in ‘disenfranchisement brands women with a permanent mark of inferiority’
18
June 2012
Marks
70
Guidance
Focus: Judgement in context,
based on the set of Sources
and own knowledge.
Successful answers will need to
make use of all five Sources,
testing them against contextual
knowledge and evaluating their
strengths and weaknesses, any
limitations as evidence. A range of
issues may be addressed in
focusing upon the terms of the
question but no set conclusion is
expected.
F963/02
Question
Mark Scheme
Answer
which will colour their view of themselves in ‘education, work and social relations’
and also perpetuate the view of men that they are ‘superior’. The tone of Source B is
critical of men’s attitudes as a whole which might lead candidates to argue that the
author represents the minority view of men. The theme of equality is made explicit in
Source A in the first and fourth items listed which suggest women will not enjoy
equality of security of interest or justice until they have the vote. The final point listed
could be cross-referenced to Source B and its comments on inequality of ‘social
relations’. Candidates may dismiss the points made in Source A as the poster was
clearly propaganda for the WSPU but given the proximity of Source B to the views
expressed in Source A it could be argued otherwise. Indeed, Source D might be
used to support the view that equality was the main reason why women should be
given the vote. The specific qualities of women considered in the source suggest that
women were the equal of men in most respects. Indeed, the final clause claiming
women were ‘invaluable as voters’ stresses the point.
Pre 1917 Women’s contribution to the war effort and the ending of militancy is
regarded as the main argument that they deserved the vote according to Source E,
on two counts. In asking ‘how could we have carried on the war without them’ the
author acknowledges that women were indispensable to the war effort and as a
result he ‘would find it impossible to withhold from women their right’. In addition, the
author was impressed by the decision of the Suffragettes to suspend their ‘detested
campaign’ of violence and the opportunity presented to politicians to concede to
women’s demands without appearing to do so as a result of pressure. Candidates
will be able to add detail about Asquith’s hostility to the suffrage movement, the
violence of the WSPU and the specific contribution of women to the war effort.
Speaking as a politician rather than as Prime Minister also allowed him to express
his opinions more frankly than before and by 1917 there was little debate about the
contribution of women in WW1.
19
June 2012
Marks
Guidance
F963/02
Question
(a)
4
Mark Scheme
Answer
Similarities: Neither is very complimentary about his style. E (Clementine
Churchill) sees an overbearing and sarcastic attitude to subordinates and B sees a
lack of consideration, with admirals being brought into early morning conferences. B
(Kennedy) sees him overworking and E suggests that rudeness and irascibility may
be the result of pressure, though does not say it directly. Neither sees in Churchill a
calm or professional approach, but rather both suggest vigour and energy which are
not always well-judged.
Differences: There is no mention in E of the excessive drinking and dining that
figures in B, and there is no mention of the popularity that Churchill enjoys in E.
Though B sees a lack of consideration, it is not as direct about Churchill’s rude and
abrasive manner as E. This may well be because of the extreme pressure that
Churchill was under by the time his wife warned him – he had certainly not had the
rest that Kennedy thought was necessary
Provenance: E is of course after Churchill has the huge responsibility of guiding
Britain in a time of extreme crisis, while B is concerned with speculation, detrimental
to Churchill’s claims on the leadership, in the period prior to Chamberlain’s
resignation. Neither source had direct evidence of Churchill’s leadership and must
have relied on reports from subordinates. E is much closer to Churchill as it had the
purpose of improving his relations with others. B had no such purpose and was
recording his private thoughts. Both have limitations as evidence – and both omit the
charm that Churchill could employ and the devotion he often engendered among
those who worked for him. Kennedy as a leading newspaper man would have had
inside information and Clementine knew her husband and had been told by those
close to him that he was going too far. However neither makes allowances for the
exigencies of war and neither is from a current military background – though
Brooke’s diaries give a similar picture after 1941. In terms of judgement, it may well
be that a close family member would be more reliable and truthful, but that someone
like Kennedy who had contacts with the workings of government would have a
clearer idea of leadership qualities. No set answer is required for a judgement about
the relative usefulness of these sources – E is from the time of Churchill’s
premiership while B is not, but may reflect a particularly stressful period. On the
other hand there is plenty of other evidence to support these defects of leadership as
well as many examples of much greater strengths than this source suggests.
20
June 2012
Marks
Guidance
No set answer is expected, but
candidates need to compare the
contents, evaluating such matters
as authorship, dating, utility and
reliability, so using the Source ‘as
evidence for…..’ The Headings
and attributions should aid
evaluation and reference to both is
expected in a good answer.
F963/02
Question
(b)
Mark Scheme
Answer
The issue is whether the view Churchill did not have many appropriate leadership
qualities in terms of being trusted and offering good judgement and only came to
office because Halifax did not feel he could accept the responsibility is sustainable.
The alternative is that Churchill had those uncompromising, energetic war-like
qualities that were needed, even if he did drink, bully and harass subordinates and
lack the trust of some, if not all, establishment figures because he was a popular
hero.
A (Colville) establishes the dilemma of 1940 – Churchill’s reputation of
untrustworthiness and instability – borne out by poor judgement over the threat of
Communism, India, his choice of associates like Bracken and Boothby and his
unwise stance during the Abdication. However against this was the confidence he
gave. He had wide experience of office, had direct experience of war and unbounded
optimism (at least in public) about Britain’s will and ability to win and a record of
urging governments to stand up to Germany.
The view that Churchill was the best suited for the premiership in 1940 is to be
found, with qualifications in A and B but particularly in C (Boothby). Boothby,
though hardly an unbiased observer, being close to Churchill and having worked to
have him as leader, was justified in commenting on Labour’s lack of confidence in
Chamberlain who was blamed for failures in Norway which Churchill, oddly, was not
(though much of the disaster could be laid at his door). The sources do not, rightly,
claim that Churchill had the confidence of most of the Conservatives but
nevertheless refers to Churchill’s appointment as Prime Minister as ‘inevitable’. This
must be seen as more of an encouragement to Churchill than necessarily accurate.
The popularity of Churchill might support the evidence in C and some aspects of
A. His pre-war stance on Appeasement, his journalistic writing and his speeches,
together with the impression that he was leading the war effort (albeit, in reality with
some lack of judgement, as in Norway and with some unrealistic ideas of a
campaign to help Finland), suggest why he was best suited in the popular if not the
official mind to be PM. Better candidates might make something of this distinction in
their responses to the question.
The alternative view is in B, D and E. George VI in D provides the main corrective
– Churchill’s qualities had not impressed the King and he still favoured Halifax who,
by that time, had distanced himself from earlier appeasement and stood as a
dignified and experienced politician. This useful source makes it clear that
Chamberlain was a key figure in having Churchill accepted, once Halifax had made it
21
June 2012
Marks
70
Guidance
Focus: Judgement in context,
based on a set of Sources and
own knowledge.
Successful answers will need to
make use of all five Sources,
testing them against contextual
evidence and evaluating their
strengths and weaknesses, any
limitations as evidence. A range of
issues may be addressed in
focusing upon the terms of the
question but no set conclusion is
expected.
F963/02
Question
Mark Scheme
Answer
clear that he did not want to lead. The source is a personal record and consonant
with the royal family’s earlier distrust of Churchill. Some doubt is also cast on C by
the opinion of a leading journalist, Kennedy of the Times, in B. The erratic and
untrustworthy side referred to in A once again is apparent – with the heavy drinking
and the unreasonable demands on subordinates and the military leaders. This
continued during Churchill’s premiership and is well-documented by sources such as
Brooke’s diaries. The heavy drinking is not just gossip but is referred to in many
other memoirs. E (Lady Churchill), in a personal and quite wounding letter, raises
some of the issues of B and helps to explain the King’s view in D. It does not
mention the great charm that Churchill could deploy or the loyalty he could engender
and it is written at a particularly difficult time for Churchill which might exacerbate
some unfortunate traits of his leadership. However other evidence corroborates an
overbearing manner and disregard for subordinates. Some might consider that the
fact that such a letter could be written indicates that Churchill was a big enough man
to take criticism – and this is justified. Those who stood up to him and questioned
him often gained respect and he did listen to different views.
Provenance: C is the strongest source for Churchill being best suited to lead. Both
A and B see his abilities and B refers to his popularity but neither thought him the
natural choice at the time. C is by a strong supporter, part of a group of dissident
Conservatives out of favour with mainstream Chamberlain supporters, Though
written at the time, it is for the purpose of reassuring Churchill and does not present
an unbiased view of the situation – there were plenty of people in Parliament and the
country who had more doubts than are expressed here about Churchill’s past record.
He himself thought that the disasters of Norway might well have ruined his
reputation. Labour favoured Halifax as the PM until Halifax’s doubts and so did the
King who was personally upset at Halifax’s refusal. However even someone close to
Chamberlain in Source A thought that Churchill was destined to be Prime Minister –
but interestingly not in 1940, stressing both his instability and his untrustworthiness.
A could well be influenced by his closeness to Chamberlain who was still very wellrespected in the party in 1940 and B, though a leading journalist was not as close to
the centre of power as A and possibly C. E was certainly personally close to
Churchill, but may have been worried by the signs of strain which only she could see
and by the reports she was hearing – though regrettable, some bullying in 1940
might have been necessary.
22
June 2012
Marks
Guidance
F963/02
Question
Mark Scheme
Answer
Context: Candidates might pick up on Churchill’s previously poor reputation and
why he might have been considered untrustworthy and unstable. This might be
contrasted with knowledge of his own reputation as an opponent of Appeasement.
The dangerous situation of May 1940 might be used as evidence to support the
views in E and B for the need of someone of Churchill’s energy and uncompromising
demands. Alternatively knowledge of his unreasonable behaviour might be used to
confirm the views in A and B that he was indeed too dangerous a choice and in E
that he was difficult to work for. No set answer is expected here.
23
June 2012
Marks
Guidance
OCR (Oxford Cambridge and RSA Examinations)
1 Hills Road
Cambridge
CB1 2EU
OCR Customer Contact Centre
Education and Learning
Telephone: 01223 553998
Facsimile: 01223 552627
Email: [email protected]
www.ocr.org.uk
For staff training purposes and as part of our quality assurance
programme your call may be recorded or monitored
Oxford Cambridge and RSA Examinations
is a Company Limited by Guarantee
Registered in England
Registered Office; 1 Hills Road, Cambridge, CB1 2EU
Registered Company Number: 3484466
OCR is an exempt Charity
OCR (Oxford Cambridge and RSA Examinations)
Head office
Telephone: 01223 552552
Facsimile: 01223 552553
© OCR 2012
GCE
History A
Advanced Subsidiary GCE
Unit F963/02: Option B Modern 1815-1945
Mark Scheme for June 2013
Oxford Cambridge and RSA Examinations
F963/02
Mark Scheme
OCR (Oxford Cambridge and RSA) is a leading UK awarding body, providing a wide range of
qualifications to meet the needs of candidates of all ages and abilities. OCR qualifications
include AS/A Levels, Diplomas, GCSEs, Cambridge Nationals, Cambridge Technicals,
Functional Skills, Key Skills, Entry Level qualifications, NVQs and vocational qualifications in
areas such as IT, business, languages, teaching/training, administration and secretarial skills.
It is also responsible for developing new specifications to meet national requirements and the
needs of students and teachers. OCR is a not-for-profit organisation; any surplus made is
invested back into the establishment to help towards the development of qualifications and
support, which keep pace with the changing needs of today’s society.
This mark scheme is published as an aid to teachers and students, to indicate the requirements
of the examination. It shows the basis on which marks were awarded by examiners. It does not
indicate the details of the discussions which took place at an examiners’ meeting before marking
commenced.
All examiners are instructed that alternative correct answers and unexpected approaches in
candidates’ scripts must be given marks that fairly reflect the relevant knowledge and skills
demonstrated.
Mark schemes should be read in conjunction with the published question papers and the report
on the examination.
OCR will not enter into any discussion or correspondence in connection with this mark scheme.
© OCR 2013
F963/02
Mark Scheme
Annotations
Annotation
Meaning
Subject-specific Marking Instructions
Question (a) Maximum mark 30
A01a and b
AO2a
1
13–14
15–16
2
11–12
13–14
3
9–10
10–12
4
7–8
8–9
5
5–6
6–7
6
3–4
3–5
7
0–2
0–2
Notes related to Part A:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
Allocate marks to the most appropriate level for each AO
If several marks are available in a box, work from the top mark down until the best fit has been found
Many answers will not be at the same level for each AO
1
June 2013
F963/02
Mark Scheme
June 2013
Marking Grid for Question (a)
A0s
Total for each
question = 30
Level 1
Level 2
A01a and b
Recall, select and deploy historical knowledge appropriately,
and communicate knowledge and understanding of history in a
clear and effective manner.
Demonstrate understanding of the past through explanation,
analysis and arriving at substantiated judgements of:
key concepts such as causation, consequence,
continuity, change and significance within an historical
context;
the relationships between key features and
characteristics of the periods studied.

Consistent and developed comparison of the key issue
with a balanced and well-supported judgement. There
will be little or no unevenness.

Focused use of a range of relevant historical concepts
and context to address the key issue.

The answer is clearly structured and organised.
Communicates coherently, accurately and effectively.
13–14

Largely comparative evaluation of the key issue with a
balanced and supported judgement. There may be a
little unevenness in parts.

Focused use of some relevant historical context with a
good conceptual understanding to address the key
issue.

The answer is well structured and organised.
Communicates clearly.
11–12
2
A02a
As part of an historical enquiry, analyse and evaluate a range of
appropriate source material with discrimination.




Focused comparative analysis. Controlled and
discriminating evaluation of content and provenance,
whether integrated or treated separately.
Evaluates using a range of relevant provenance points in
relation to the sources and question. There is a thorough
but not necessarily exhaustive exploration of these.
15–16
Relevant comparative analysis of content and evaluation of
provenance but there may be some unevenness in
coverage or control.
Source evaluation is reasonably full and appropriate but
lacks completeness on the issues raised by the sources in
the light of the question.
13–14
F963/02
A0s
Level 3
Mark Scheme



Level 4



Level 5



A01a and b
Some comparison linked to the key issue. Is aware of
some similarity and/or difference. Judgements may be
limited and/or inconsistent with the analysis made.
Some use of relevant historical concepts and contexts
but uneven understanding. Inconsistent focus on the key
issue.
The answer has some structure and organisation but
there is also some description. Communication may be
clear but may not be consistent.
9–10
Some general comparison but undeveloped with some
assertion, description and / or narrative. Judgement is
unlikely, unconvincing or asserted.
A general sense of historical concepts and context but
understanding is partial or limited, with some tangential
and/or irrelevant evidence.
Structure may be rather disorganised with some unclear
sections. Communication is satisfactory but with some
inaccuracy of expression.
7–8
Limited comparison with few links to the key issue.
Imparts generalised comment and / or a weak
understanding of the key points. The answer lacks
judgement or makes a basic assertion.
Basic, often inaccurate or irrelevant historical context
and conceptual understanding.
Structure lacks organisation with weak or basic
communication.
5–6
3
June 2013






A02a
Provides a comparison but there is unevenness, confining
the comparison to the second half of the answer or simply
to a concluding paragraph. Either the focus is on content or
provenance, rarely both.
Source evaluation is partial and it is likely that the
provenance itself is not compared, may be undeveloped or
merely commented on discretely.
10–12
Attempts a comparison but most of the comment is
sequential. Imparts content or provenance rather than using
it.
Comparative comments are few or only partially developed,
often asserted and/or ‘stock’ in approach.
8–9
Identifies some comparative points but is very sequential
and perhaps implicit
Comment on the sources is basic, general, undeveloped or
juxtaposed, often through poorly understood quotation.
6–7
F963/02
A0s
Level 6
Mark Scheme



Level 7



A01a and b
Comparison is minimal and basic with very limited links
to the key issue. Mainly paraphrase and description with
very limited understanding. There is no judgement.
Irrelevant and inaccurate concepts and context.
Has little organisation or structure with very weak
communication.
3–4
Fragmentary, descriptive, incomplete and with few or no
links to the key issue. There is little or no understanding.
Much irrelevance.
Weak or non existent context with no conceptual
understanding.
No structure with extremely weak communication.
0–2
June 2013


A02a
Little attempt to compare. Weak commentary on one or two
undeveloped points, with basic paraphrase. Sequencing is
characteristic.
Comments on individual sources are generalised and
confused.
.


3–5
No attempt to compare either content or provenance with
fragmentary, brief or inaccurate comment.
Makes no attempt to use any aspects of the sources.
Question (b) Maximum mark 70
A01a and b
AO2a and b
1
20–22
42–48
2
17–19
35–41
3
13–16
28–34
4
9–12
21–27
5
6–8
14–20
6
3–5
7–13
7
0–2
0–6
Notes related to Part B:
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
Allocate marks to the most appropriate level for each AO
If several marks are available in a box, work from the top mark down until the best fit has been found
Many answers will not be at the same level for each AO
4
0–2
F963/02
AOs
Total
mark for
the
question
= 70
Level 1
Level 2
Mark Scheme
A0Ia and b
Recall, select and deploy historical knowledge appropriately, and
communicate knowledge and understanding of history in a clear
and effective manner.
Demonstrate understanding of the past through explanation,
analysis and arriving at substantiated judgements of:
key concepts such as causation, consequence, continuity,
change and significance within an historical context;
the relationships between key features and characteristics of
the periods studied.

Convincing analysis and argument with developed
explanation leading to careful, supported and persuasive
judgement arising from a consideration of both content and
provenance. There may be a little unevenness at the bottom
of the level.

Sharply focused use and control of a range of reliable
evidence to confirm, qualify, extend or question the sources.

Coherent organised structure. Accurate and effective
communication.



20–22
Good attempt at focused analysis, argument and
explanation leading to a supported judgement that is based
on the use of most of the content and provenance.
A focused use of relevant evidence to put the sources into
context.
Mostly coherent structure and organisation if uneven in
parts. Good communication.
17–19
5
June 2013
Ao2a and b
As part of an historical enquiry, analyse and evaluate a range of
appropriate source material with discrimination.
Analyse and evaluate, in relation to the historical context, how
aspects of the past have been interpreted and represented in
different ways.






A carefully grouped and comparative evaluation of all the
sources with effective levels of discrimination sharply
focused on the interpretation.
Analyses and evaluates the strengths, limitations and utility
of the sources in relation to the interpretation. Uses and
cross references points in individual or grouped sources to
support or refute an interpretation.
Integrates sources with contextual knowledge in analysis and
evaluation and is convincing in most respects. Has synthesis
within the argument through most of the answer.
42–48
Grouped analysis and use of most of the sources with good
levels of discrimination and a reasonable focus on the
interpretation.
Analyses and evaluates some of the strengths and limitations
of the sources in relation to the interpretation. May focus
more on individual sources within a grouping, so cross
referencing may be less frequent.
Some, perhaps less balanced, integration of sources and
contextual knowledge to analyse and evaluate the
interpretation. Synthesis of the skills may be less developed.
The analysis and evaluation is reasonably convincing.
35–41
F963/02
AOs
Level 3
Mark Scheme



A0Ia and b
Mainly sound analysis, argument and explanation, but there
may be some description and unevenness. Judgement may
be incomplete or inconsistent with the analysis of content
and provenance.
Some relevant evidence but less effectively used and may
not be extensive.
Reasonably coherent structure and organisation but uneven.
Reasonable communication.
June 2013



Level 4



Level 5



13–16
Attempts some analysis, argument and explanation but
underdeveloped and not always linked to the question.
There will be more assertion, description and narrative.
Judgements are less substantiated and much less
convincing.
Some relevant evidence is deployed, but evidence will vary
in accuracy, relevance and extent. It may be generalised or
tangential.
Structure is less organised, communication less clear and
some inaccuracies of expression.
9–12
Little argument or explanation, inaccurate understanding of
the issues and concepts. The answer lacks judgement.
Limited use of relevant evidence or context which is largely
inaccurate or irrelevant.
Structure is disorganised, communication basic and the
sense not always clear.
5–8
6






Ao2a and b
Some grouping although not sustained or developed.
Sources are mainly approached discretely with limited cross
reference. Their use is less developed and may, in parts,
lose focus on the interpretation. There may be some
description of content and provenance.
Is aware of some of the limitations of the sources, individually
or as a group, but mostly uses them for reference and to
illustrate an argument rather than analysing and evaluating
them as evidence. There is little cross referencing.
There may be unevenness in using knowledge in relation to
the sources. Synthesis may be patchy or bolted on. Analysis
and evaluation are only partially convincing.
28–34
Sources are discussed discretely and largely sequentially,
perhaps within very basic groups. Loses focus on the
interpretation. The sources are frequently described.
May mention some limitations of individual sources but
largely uses them for reference and illustration. Cross
referencing is unlikely.
An imbalance and lack of integration between sources and
knowledge often with discrete sections. There is little
synthesis. Analysis and explanation may be muddled and
unconvincing in part.
21–27
A limited attempt to use the sources or discriminate between
them. The approach is very sequential and referential, with
much description. Points are undeveloped.
There is little attempt to analyse, explain or use the sources
in relation to the question. Comment may be general.
There is a marked imbalance with no synthesis. Analysis and
explanation are rare and comments are unconvincing.
14–20
F963/02
AOs
Level 6
Mark Scheme



Level 7



A0Ia and b
There is very little explanation or understanding. Largely
assertion, description and narrative with no judgement.
Extremely limited relevance to the question.
Evidence is basic, generalised, patchy, inaccurate or
irrelevant.
Little organisation or structure with poor communication.
3–4
No argument or explanation. Fragmentary and descriptive
with no relevance to the question.
No understanding underpins what little use is made of
evidence or context.
Disorganised and partial with weak communication and
expression.
0–2
7
June 2013






Ao2a and b
Very weak and partial use of the sources for the question. No
focus on interpretation.
A very weak, general and paraphrased use of source
content.
No synthesis or balance. Comments are entirely
unconvincing.
7–13
Little application of the sources to the question with
inaccuracies and irrelevant comment. Fragmentary and
heavily descriptive.
No attempt to use any aspect of the sources appropriately.
No contextual knowledge, synthesis or balance. There is no
attempt to convince.
0–6
F963/02
Question
1 (a)
Mark Scheme
Answer
The context is that despite the initial stress on child labour by the 1840s female factory labour
had become an issue. How far should it be restricted (the Mines Act of 1842 and the Factory Act
of 1844 had imposed restrictions on female hours, ten and a half, and, in the case of the Mines,
the type of work allowed women – not underground)? How far was female factory labour
desirable?
Both agree on the general need to improve the hours and conditions for women and girls in the
factories. Both want to protect family life and agree the impact of factory labour has been the
neglect of wifely duties– Ashley’s ‘details of domestic life’ and Jameson’s ‘needlework,
cleanliness, and the management of wages to provide homely comforts’. There is some
agreement on the dangers for women. Jameson refers to those who survive to adulthood,
implying many do not, whilst Ashley, although more vague, does imply danger in the competition
with more vigorous adult men.
The differences are that Jameson argues that factory labour is preferable to other forms –
agriculture and domestic service – because of comparative freedom, independence and the
stated and regulated hours (after 1844), something missing from the other occupations. Ashley
disagrees on the grounds that factory work is cruel for women, although he is careful to say he is
talking of 13-18 year olds, not those regulated by the 1833 Act. Ashley doesn’t mention female
education in the factories but does refer, in general, to nothing having been done to address 1318 year old females. Jameson does, citing the Factory Commissioners who comment on the
particular neglect of girls’ education in the factory schools. Jameson also stresses the
independence that factory work can provide, something significantly not mentioned by Ashley.
The provenance is similar. Both are writing/speaking in the context of the 1846 10 Hour Bill.
Both appear to want to protect family life. Ashley was known to dislike independent women who
demanded the same as men and neglected traditional female roles. Yet neither seems to want
equality. There are differences in their backgrounds. Ashley was an aristocrat, a social
conservative and one of the key parliamentary factory reform leaders. He was mainly concerned
with men and the issue of 10 hours, especially whilst introducing the 10 Hour Bill in this
parliamentary speech. His audience was a male one, although the speech would be widely
reported. Jameson in Source D was a middle class female and early feminist writing in a journal
of memoirs and essays. Her audience was probably more intellectual, middle class and perhaps
female. As such she is more accepting of the independence available for some. Nonetheless she
too is concerned with morality, family and traditional roles.
In terms of judgement both are equally valid in the points they make. Source D provides a
middle class female and early feminist slant (the attack on the lack of education for factory
women and the awareness of independence), Source E gives a paternal, male, Tory and
aristocrat reformer’s view. Jameson may be the more informative and perceptive of the two but
she shares a conventional and middle/upper class view of working women, seemingly unaware
that work was, usually, not a matter of choice.
8
June 2013
Marks
Guidance
30
Focus: Comparison of two
Sources
No set answer is
expected, but
candidates need to
compare the contents,
evaluating such matters
as authorship, dating,
utility and reliability, so
using the Source ‘as
evidence for…..’ The
Headings and
attributions should aid
evaluation and
reference to both is
expected in a good
answer.
F963/02
Question
(b)
Mark Scheme
Answer
The Sources provide a variety of views on whether the Factory Acts (1833 and 1844) did more
harm than good. Most of the sources are capable of being interpreted either way as they contain
a variety of perspectives. Sources A and C, McCulloch and Hyde, are pro factory, an economist
and mill owner, but both are worried about the harm that will be done. Sources D and E are
factory reformers but can also see the negative aspects, especially on women, and they continue
to push for reform. Source B is from a respected and formidable factory inspector, Leonard
Horner, who is convinced that the 1833 Act is sensible and doing good. Generally sources B, D
and E are more convinced of some good, the ones from the employer perspective still uncertain
and resentful at the unprecedented interference. However even the Inspector and the reformers
are aware of loopholes and problems, the latter (Ashley and Jameson), especially aware of the
negative impact on women.
The view that the Acts did more harm for children can be found in Sources A and C, whilst
Sources D and E argue that some harm has been done to women. McCulloch in Source A
considers that the restrictions on children under 9 will have resulted in them being thrown onto
the streets and, by suggesting that factories are places of misery, confinement and ill treatment
will have harmed the competitiveness and employment opportunities offered by factories. He
angrily refutes the image painted by Sadler’s Report. However as an economist his was a more
abstract view, although there is much evidence to suggest that the report and its evidence was
deliberately slanted against the factory. Knowledge might suggest that parents, children,
campaigners and employers alike would conspire to render it ineffective unless it was properly
enforced. Such points are borne out by the reports of the factory inspectors, like that of Horner in
Source B, who refers to prosecutions of those who broke the new rules (usually for failing to
register child workers and their hours or a failure to provide education) and to a stubborn minority
of employers. Here other developments such as registration of births did gradually ensure more
‘good’ came of the act and it became more difficult to evade its educational, safety and working
hour clause. Nonetheless it could be pointed out that the 1844 Act actually adversely affected the
very young, bringing 8 year olds back into employment. Greg in Source C is convincing
evidence. It comes from a noted employer with a firm but sound reputation at Styal Mill in
Cheshire. He opposed 10 hours and in this pamphlet, written to refute factory reform, he argues,
as McCulloch did, that the consequence of 1833 has been to throw children into a worse
situation, either onto the streets, or into the mines where nothing was done until 1842. He also
alludes to the educational effects of this. Such children would receive none and he asks the
rhetorical question - are they better physically and mentally than before? He assumes not,
although it is worth pointing out that he can only be talking of those below 9, or those whose
9
June 2013
Marks
Guidance
70
Focus: Judgement in
context, based on a set
of Sources and own
knowledge.
Successful answers will
need to make use of all
five Sources, testing
them against contextual
evidence and
evaluating their
strengths and
weaknesses, any
limitations as evidence.
A range of issues may
be addressed in
focusing upon the
terms of the question
but no set conclusion is
expected.
The sources can be
read / analysed in
different ways and as
part of their judgement
candidates will need to
appreciate this.
F963/02
Question
Mark Scheme
Answer
restricted hours above 9 had led to dismissal. He would be in a position to know, at least in the
North. Sources D and E both consider that the factories and acts have harmed young poor
women. Jameson in D argues that the attraction of regular factory work encourages girls and
women to go into it at the expense of morality and the nation’s domestic life. They become too
independent and have no idea how to manage a home. Ashley makes a similar point but the
thrust of his point on the existing factory acts is that too many loopholes exist and little has been
done for the 13-18 age groups. Both sources are making a point with a view to change. The
variety of viewpoints here might suggest that the Factory Acts did little good and, in the case of
those sacked and women, much harm.
The view that stresses the good can be seen partially in Source A, but particularly in
Sources B, C and D. The key source for ‘good’ is Horner in B. As the most influential and hard
working of the 4 inspectors set up by the 1833 Act, active in its enforcement, his evidence is
especially telling. He is convinced that it has changed attitudes for the better. He argues that
most employers accepted the moral and practical points of the act in relation to children, their
health and education. He also comments that workers also did – important given that deception
about age, given the reliance on children’s wages, was a key element in undermining the Act.
The fact that he was actively prosecuting demonstrates that the Act had teeth when it came to
age and hours worked. However candidates may point to his lack of typicality and to his vested
interest in pushing for more reform. McCulloch in Source A usefully points out, in an otherwise
negative source, that no one under 9 is now employed, although it might be argued that most of
those employed before were already 9-14. He is supported in this by Greg in Source C who
points to the general satisfaction that any child aged 9-13 would now only be working an 8 hour
day. Both McCulloch and Greg point out that the bad had been exaggerated by Sadler and they
are convinced that factories ‘are our best schools’ in the sense of training children that would
otherwise be on the streets. Knowledge would suggest that the educational provisions of the
1833 Act were, at least, something (2 hours a day, after work, for 9-13 year olds). Both
McCulloch and Greg seem to accept the point about very young children and possibly the
educational aspects of the Act. Their worry is the extension to older children and particularly
adults. Jameson in Source D points out factories are now regulated and preferred places of
work. Both 1833 and 1844 stated hours for children and the latter extended these to women, so
much so that they were attractive to young girls. Source D is also a useful corrective to the grim
view similarly refuted by A and C, as it compares factories to other sources of employment and
finds their regulated nature, by comparison with domestic service, potteries, sweatshops et al,
attractive to workers. Knowledge of the two Acts and the inspectorate could also be used to
argue either way.
10
June 2013
Marks
Guidance
F963/02
Question
2 (a)
Mark Scheme
Answer
The context for both sources is Bruce’s proposed 1872 Licensing Bill which sought to achieve a
balance between two powerful but opposed liberal interests, the Nonconformists and the Brewing
industry. The Nonconformists wanted a variety of restrictions put on alcohol but particularly
wanted the local option that would allow local voters and thus local councils to close down pubs
and off licences in a locality (local prohibition). The Brewers opposed restrictions, preferring
instead a few closures where there were too many.
Both sources dislike this particular licensing reform proposal – in B a ‘wretched bill’; in C ‘the
strongest dislike’. Both agree that sobriety is desirable and both come from a religious
background, one nonconformist, one Anglican. They are similar in that both see the importance
of Licensing reform as an issue, agreeing that it raised issues of freedom and social reform. The
Advocate in B puts it at the top of Nonconformities reform priorities.
However there are considerable differences in attitude but their dissatisfaction arises from
different grounds. The Nonconformist Advocate in B wants society protected from the evils of
alcohol and sees licensing reform as the key to tackling society’s ills – health, poverty and crime.
Society needed to be protected from itself. This is not the issue for Bishop Magee in C. The
issue for him is freedom, the principle of minimal intervention in adult choice. Individuals should
not be compelled by the State. He ventures the opinion that, through freedom and persuasion,
individuals might be led to sobriety but, if compelled, they would lose freedom and would be more
likely to find consolation in now illegal drink. The Bishop doesn’t mention the Brewers or indeed
any vested interest. The basis of his attitude is the principle of choice. The Advocate does refer
to them, scathingly, and would not accept that the poor are free agents given that the Brewers
devote themselves to the ‘demoralisation of the people’. For the Advocate society is not a level
playing field. It believes that Bruce has been ‘got at’ by the Brewers
As regards provenance the key lies in their respective political positions. Source B is from a
liberal and nonconformist perspective, specifically a temperance newspaper pushing a particular
line (the local option). Its tone makes it plain that the bill is an unwelcome compromise that
clearly satisfies the Brewers more than the ‘religious and virtuous’ part of the community. It
ignores any of the other arguments against – class, local unfairness if one area was to proceed
and another not, and the issue of freedom. It seeks to persuade, particularly amongst its own
community and wishes to apply pressure to a Liberal government where it had more influence
than usual. Source C is a very different context, a Conservative and active political Bishop
speaking in the House of Lords where nonconformist arguments would rarely be heard. He
considers any form of compulsion to be wrong. Potentially he is speaking to the converted but he
could expect his speech to be reported and taken up by opponents of the Bill, as indeed it was.
11
June 2013
Marks
Guidance
30
Focus: Comparison
of two Sources.
No set answer is
expected, but
candidates need to
compare the contents,
evaluating such matters
as authorship, dating,
utility and reliability, so
using the Sources ‘as
evidence for …’. The
headings and
attributions should aid
evaluation and
reference to both is
expected in a good
answer.
F963/02
Mark Scheme
Question
Answer
Although a friend of sobriety and morality (his final line points to the potential incongruity of his
position) for him the principle of freedom is absolute and he puts it eloquently and with some wit.
In terms of judgement candidates may consider both equally useful on the issues and attitudes
to licensing reform. The Advocate in B may be better for the wider social issues and attitudes
towards vested interests like the Brewers, but Bishop Magee in C is telling on the political and
freedom issues raised by licensing reform. Both represent particular constituencies of opinion.
(b)
The sources support three possible interpretations – that Disraeli’s 1874-80 2nd Government
did more for living and working conditions , either in terms of legislation or rhetoric and in the
extent and focus of their reforms; that Gladstone’s 1st Government did more or that both were
very similar, differing only in emphasis. Candidates may focus on arguing for either government,
although some may consider the third option.
The argument for Disraeli’s Government doing more is to be found in Sources B, C D and E.
Sources B and C both focus on criticising liberal licensing legislation. That they come from
different political and religious agendas is telling. Source B opposes, on the grounds that, merely
to limit quite extensive opening hours and close down some pubs where there were too many,
was a compromise too far. It would continue to expose the working class to the ‘evils of alcohol’.
As far as it was concerned the working classes had been betrayed by the Liberal government.
Source C opposes compulsion and knowledge would suggest that the measure was indeed
disliked by the working class, who considered it to be unfair in every sense (upper class clubs
were immune; middle class magistrates would close down the working man’s pub and control his
only pleasure ). They would agree with Bishop Magee. The Conservatives would reverse the
measure in the Intoxicating Liquors Act of 1874, which increased pub opening hours with
compensation for landlords who had lost their licences, a popular act amongst the working
classes. Cross in Source D focuses on insanitary housing, arguing that the State had a right to
interfere and compel in this area, one where there ‘was much to be done to take the working
class out of miserable conditions’. His Artisans Dwelling Act of 1875 allowed local councils to
devise improvement schemes and compel slum owners to sell to them with cheap loans from
government to demolish and allow commercial rebuilding. Source E appears to confirm the
effectiveness of this, the slum landlord in the cartoon (Bumble) drowning his sorrows at the
‘regular cross’ (burden) he now has to bear (a pun on Disraeli’s Home Secretary Richard Cross)
and at the prospect of more ‘harassing legislation’. Mention could also be made to Conservative
legislation on Factories (1874 and 1878), Public Health (1875), Food and Drugs (1875), Pollution,
12
June 2013
Marks
70
Guidance
Focus: Judgement in
context, based on the
set of Sources and
own knowledge.
Successful answers will
need to make use of all
five Sources, testing
them against contextual
knowledge and
evaluating their
strengths and
weaknesses, any
limitations as evidence.
A range of issues may
be addressed in
focusing upon the
terms of the question
but no set conclusion is
expected.
F963/02
Question
Mark Scheme
Answer
Agricultural Holdings, Trade Unions and education, although candidates should remain focused
on the sources.
The view that Gladstone’s 1st Government did more can be found in Sources A, D and E.
Bright in Source A publicly contrasted the different approach to reform of working and living
conditions between the Liberal and Conservative governments. As an old middle class radical
liberal and mentor of Gladstone it is unsurprising that he considers Gladstone especially to be
concerned with ‘measures for the good of the people’. In contrast Disraeli and the Conservatives
are said to see social reform purely as a matter of token gesture rather than genuine reform. To
Bright this is patronising, treating the workers not as responsible and equal adults but as
‘indulged children’, voting fodder for a condescending conservative aristocracy. Bright’s liberal
stress is upon helping the working class to achieve justice and civil equality in a society based on
mutual respect. He argues that what they really want is – protection of Trade Union property, the
right to strike and equal liability for employers. Bright’s Liberal emphasis is on institutional and
legal reforms rather than health and housing, and mention could be made of the Trade Union
Reforms (the Act of 1871 and the Criminal Law Amendment Act) to support this. However
candidates may point out that it was the Conservatives that allowed peaceful picketing and, in
1875, achieved employer liability in the Employers and Workmen’s Act. Cross in Source D could
also be said to be more Liberal than Conservative in approach. The emphasis of his introductory
speech on the Artisans Dwellings Act is on the limits of State responsibility and the importance of
not impinging on private building or allowing charities or local government to undercut market
rents. He does not see the job of government as the provision of necessaries like housing and
education for the working class. As a statement of conservative principle on working class social
reform this is effective evidence of limitations and the importance of liberal type moves on legal
equality for the working man. His legislation was permissive, the burden falling on local
authorities. The Punch Cartoon in Source E suggests that the Liberals had struck at drink and
landlords – the ‘harassing legislation’ of the last session, although by implication they had been
less inclined to pursue slum landlords. Candidates could point out that this may have been
because of nonconformist pressure. They might also point out that this particular landlord seems
none the worse for wear.
A third view can be constructed, that both governments were similar in their approach to
working and living conditions. Sources D and E strongly suggest this. In Source D Cross
merely carries on from where the Liberals had left off. Torrens Act of 1868, allowing local councils
to demolish slum houses, had been weakened and Cross’ Act strengthened it. Both were
permissive and neither saw much of a take-up of powers. Gladstone’s 1872 Public Health Act
13
June 2013
Marks
Guidance
F963/02
Question
Mark Scheme
Answer
created sanitary authorities, recognised as a legitimate area by Cross in D. His 1875 Act merely
gave clearer statements of what local authorities were expected to do. Source E’s overall thrust
is that vested interests were under attack from both – ‘it was our turn last session and now it’s
yours’. However, which of these interests harmed the working class more is a moot point.
In terms of judgement candidates may find any one of these convincing, depending on their
evaluation of the sources and the contextual use of their own knowledge. All, except possibly
Cross in D, are partial in their approach. Thus Bright in A takes a particular liberal slant before
any legislation is underway, although his emphasis is borne out by what ensued. Source B is
also liberal but outraged at betrayal, seeing licensing from a middle class viewpoint. Sources C
and D are conservative, arguably C touching a working class chord, albeit of the sort that Bright
condemns (token gestures, in this case the freedom not to be sober). Cross in D is more matter
of fact and could be said to provide convincing evidence of limitations and similarity. Source E
exaggerates but clearly vested interest was under attack in the social reforms of both
governments in the 1870s.
14
June 2013
Marks
Guidance
F963/02
Question
3 (a)
Mark Scheme
June 2013
Answer
Marks
Guidance
The sources share some common ground but also differ. In general terms they agree the reforms 30
Focus: Comparison
did bring benefits. With the words ‘every improvement’ Source C accepts the reforms as positive
of two Sources.
but emphasises the limitations of them. Source D is more effusive about the impact of the
No set answer is
reforms and makes great claims for them without any reservations. More specifically, both regard
expected, but
pensions as a benefit albeit Source C does so grudgingly with the words ‘at least’ and the
candidates need to
complaint that workers are only eligible at 70 years whereas Source D considers them to be ‘on
compare the
higher ground’ which ‘will help millions’. Similarly, Source C seems, in theory, to support
contents, evaluating
insurance. Source D is convinced that insurance will address the problem of an unemployed
such matters as
father being unable to feed his children and will ‘abolish that state of things for ever’. However,
authorship, dating,
Source C is critical of the costs attached, complaining of ‘the irritating conditions and a
utility and reliability,
burdensome payment’ of which Source D makes no direct mention although the reference to the
so using the Sources
opposition of the Tory Press who regarded ‘the Insurance Bill as an act of tyranny’ obliquely
acknowledges the compulsion involved and, by implication the contributions that workers will
‘as evidence for …’.
have to make. Source C refers to the introduction of the minimum wage which he seems to imply
The headings and
had a negative impact as the prices charged to consumers were increased to cover the extra
attributions should aid
expense incurred by employers: indeed, that it was the capitalist class’ that gained not the
evaluation and
workers. Source D makes no mention of the minimum wage.
reference to both is
The critical and rather disappointed view of Source C might be considered to be typical of Keir
expected in a good
Hardie, a radical socialist, who favoured the redistribution of wealth illustrated by his preference
answer.
for the cost of insurance to be met by ‘a small addition to income or land tax’. Equally,
unsurprising is the optimistic and positive stance of Source D as the author was the architect of
the reforms and who had battled hard to implement them. Reference might be made to the
struggle of Lloyd George with the House of Lords and the Budget of 1909 to pay for pensions.
The industrial context against which these speeches were made could be evaluated. The
remarks of Source C are presented as a contribution to a debate on the causes of industrial
unrest and in doing so suggests that the strikes and disruption of the time indicate the failure of
the social reforms. In contrast, Source D is convinced that the reforms are a means of protecting
workers at a time of hardship which given the context implies that the Insurance Bill offering help
for those out of work at a time when the level of unemployment was high was less a cause of
unrest than a remedy for it. The audiences addressed by the two speakers could be assessed.
Hardie was talking in the House of Commons and although his remarks were meant to persuade
and were recorded in Hansard his purpose was limited to making a contribution to a motion
asking for an investigation into unrest. By contrast, Lloyd George was addressing the public and
it would be odd for him to adopt anything other than a positive note on the impact of reform. He is
15
F963/02
Question
(b)
Mark Scheme
June 2013
Answer
Marks
clearly intent on persuading people to support the reforms because of their intrinsic value but also
their political benefit to the Liberals. The final line illustrates his lofty, perhaps idealistic, vision of
the way ahead.
In judgement candidates may emphasise the contrast in the political positions of Hardie and
Lloyd George (in terms of policies and power) to explain the difference between them yet despite
that highlight the general similarity of their ambition for social reform.
The sources provide evidence that show support for the Liberal reforms but also that they
aroused opposition. Arguably, each source presents evidence of opposition and only three
sources show the support they enjoyed. However, the evaluation of the quality of the evidence
will be important in reaching a judgement.
Reforms concerning child welfare is confined to Source A which is critical of the Children Act.
Opposition is based on the denial of shelter (at times of bad weather) and a place of rest (the
name of the refuge) as well as the termination of one strand of the way of life that had been long
accepted. There is little doubt that this restriction was unpopular and created problems, not least
the abandonment of children at home when their parents went to the local public house. Many
parents objected to their liability to prosecution for dereliction of care for their children. Many did
not consider it the business of the State to interfere in the affairs of families. However, this was
only one of several parts of the Act many of which were applauded, for example, in treating child
offenders differently to adults, the registration of children’s homes and so on. The poster ignores
this. Further, as a Conservative Party poster it is clearly designed to inflame opposition to the
Liberals as the dialogue in the corner makes clear. The poster appears to be aimed at the middle
class woman (given the clothes worn by the women), perhaps on holiday at the seaside, who had
time and money to spend on leisure and in contrast to working class women who were either at
work or too poor to spend money on themselves. Candidates might broaden the discussion by
consideration of other reforms affecting children: school meals, medicals.
Reforms to improve the lives of the elderly are assessed in Sources B, C and D. Opposition to
pensions based on principle is registered in Source B which explains that some argued that
pensions would ‘dishearten the thrifty ... and encourage the idle’. Such attitudes were consistent
with the ‘self-help’ and ‘laissez-faire’ philosophies of the 19thC and were widely held, not least
amongst many of the poor who were too proud to accept support and the tax payers who
resented paying for pensions. This suggests the view that there was opposition ‘from both middle
16
70
Guidance
Focus: Judgement in
context, based on the
set of Sources and
own knowledge.
Successful answers will
need to make use of all
five Sources, testing
them against contextual
knowledge and
evaluating their
strengths and
weaknesses, any
limitations as evidence.
A range of issues may
be addressed in
focusing upon the
terms of the question
but no set conclusion is
expected.
F963/02
Question
Mark Scheme
Answer
and working classes’ could be reliable. Further, some believed the consequences could be even
greater and ‘might even deal a blow at the Empire which could be almost mortal’. This might be
dismissed as the view of one man, Lord Rosebery, and a very rich one too, albeit a Liberal, but at
a time of increased economic competition and international rivalry this view was widely shared. In
Source C the opposition to pensions is not based on principle but the mean scale of them.
Hardie considers them to be a distraction from the real issue of low wages and the age of
eligibility to be too late.
However, Source C backs pensions as a matter of policy as do Sources B and D and also that
pensions enjoyed considerable support. Source B confirms that ‘the small sums involved meant
life itself for many elderly poor’. Indeed, so welcome were they, many recipients regarded Lloyd
George ‘as if he were a saint’. As the author was a small boy at the time pensions were
introduced and able to recollect his mother’s assessment of the response to them the evidence of
Source B might be considered reliable especially as it conceded that others thought differently.
Source D might be considered less reliable as it outlines the views of Lloyd George who
introduced the pensions but cross reference to Source B and the reverence with which Lloyd
George was held could be made to support his claims and his dismissive views of the Tory Press
are perhaps not unreasonable given the nature of the poster in Source A.
Reforms designed to help workers are also assessed. On insurance the evidence would appear
to be divided. Source C believes the contributions workers have to pay are ‘a burdensome
payment’. Candidates could expand on the details of the insurance schemes and the efforts the
government made to convince workers their contributions were small in return for the benefits.
However, the author fails to acknowledge the contributions that employers and the State were
also to make. The political views of Hardie might be assessed and the context in which the
scheme was being introduced to explain his critical position. Source E opposes Part II of the
Insurance Act as ‘workers who come within its scope are obliged to register with the exchange’.
The author objects to this on two counts. He seems to think individuals should have the freedom
to decide if they want to register with the labour exchange and by tying a worker to the exchange
he was condemned to a system of exploitation. This is explained by the tendency of the
exchanges to place non-union labour in jobs rather than unionised workers. In assessing these
charges candidates might judge the language of the piece as indicative of a rather prejudiced
attitude: phrases like ‘shackles of slavery’, ‘exploited wage-slaves’ and the ‘venomous’ nature of
the system, for example. The author was a spokesman for a left-wing group. On the other hand,
the exchanges had been in place for four years and his views could reflect practice. Source D is
17
June 2013
Marks
Guidance
F963/02
Question
Mark Scheme
Answer
June 2013
Marks
clearly supportive of the Insurance Acts. Again, the claims made might be tested against
knowledge. Lloyd George is right to claim that the OAPs and Insurance legislation ‘will help
millions’ as at least 15 million were covered by them. However, given the limits of the benefits
and the time within which it was possible to claim them it is debatable as to whether they were
enough to prevent them ‘from stumbling into wretchedness’. The fact that people in the audience
cheered Lloyd George specifically by saying the reforms ‘will win many more (elections)’
suggests popular support: election wins in 1906 and twice in 1910, albeit with lower margins,
might be considered a fair reflection of the support in the country for the Liberal reforms.
Comments on the problem of low wages might be addressed using Source C. The minimum
wage might be considered to be counter-productive but was he right to ascribe the rise in the
price of coal to that alone?
At face value the sources might lean more to the view that the reforms attracted more opposition
than support. However, certain sources are blatant ‘propaganda’ such as Source A or they
represent the views of the more radical left like Sources C and E. Although in support of the
reforms Sources B and D do allow that there was opposition. Candidates’ judgement will depend
on how they view the quality of the evidence and how representative it is of the nation as a
whole.
18
Guidance
F963/02
Question
4 (a)
Mark Scheme
Answer
The main difference is in the optimism of Source A and the pessimism in Source B about
Britain’s military ability to meet a threat from Germany. Churchill in 1948 thought that Britain
could have created a strong enough air force in 1933 or 1934 to restrain Hitler. The Chiefs of
Staff in B thought that there was not a time which could be foreseen in which Britain’s defences,
including her air force would have been strong enough to even defend British interests against
Germany. Churchill in A sees an enhanced military capacity as allowing effective international
action against Germany; the Chiefs of Staff in B see the state of Britain’s armed forces as not
empowering active diplomacy to restrain Hitler but rather forcing Britain into making concessions.
Churchill does not consider the whole context of Britain’s imperial defence, whereas the Chiefs of
Staff do. Churchill is concerned with air power, but the Chiefs of staff are considering British
Imperial defence as a whole, including the army and navy. There is some similarity in that both
Churchill and the Chiefs of Staff value France as a source of military support for the armed forces
(A: based on superior air power Britain and France could have invoked the aid of the League; B
without overlooking the assistance we might obtain from France)
The difference can be explained by the nature of the Sources. Churchill in A had raised the issue
of air power repeatedly in the 1930s and in 1948 he was looking back and was anxious to show
how right he had been and if his advice had been followed, war could have been prevented. As
the war had been won by a grand alliance based on superior air power then it was easy to project
this back to the 1930s. B on the other had had no benefit of hindsight and was concerned with
the wider responsibilities of Empire – something that Churchill does not refere to here. The cuts
that Churchill had actually begun in the 1920s left British armed forces in a weak position to meet
the triple threat from Germany, Italy and Japan – Churchill in A makes no reference to Britain’s
Far East responsibilities.
In terms of judgement, the military chiefs in B were doing their job – to warn government about
the actual situation; they were in a position to know the state of the armed forces, but may have
been cautious. Churchill in A was not in this position and could therefore speculate, and crucially
at a much earlier date than B where Britain can act if she were to have undertaken large scale air
rearmament. It is not likely that in the Depression climate of the 1933-4 period there would have
been much chance of a massive increase in air power to meet a threat from a Germany which
had not yet massively re-armed, so this is really being wise after the event. However, the Chiefs
of Staff may be naive to suggest ‘reducing the number of our potential enemies’ given the
militaristic and ambitious nature of the leadership Italy, Japan and Germany in place of a rapid
expansion of armed forces. Nonetheless, this is what Chamberlain tried to do in the case of
Germany through appeasement in 1938.
19
June 2013
Marks
Guidance
30
No set answer is
expected, but
candidates need to
compare the contents,
evaluating such matters
as authorship, dating,
utility and reliability, so
using the Source ‘as
evidence for…..’ The
Headings and
attributions should aid
evaluation and
reference to both is
expected in a good
answer.
F963/02
Question
(b)
Mark Scheme
Answer
The support for the realism of gaining international support comes from the two Sources from
Churchill, A and C, one looking back after the war and the other in 1938 and in part from
Churchill’s US appeal in E. The case against the realism of international support is put by
Chamberlain in Source D, though it was a policy that he had considered and had confirmed by
Source B. The evidence in Source E is not conclusive, and candidates could use it either to
suggest that there was some public support in the US for support for collective action and thus
realistic, or that there was little unanimity in the US.
A like C assumes that France was a firm ally and that war was preventable by an alliance of
nations with the moral authority of the League of Nations. Both link this to the build up of forces –
A postulates the effects of a British air build up and C refers to forces being marshalled, but
essentially the policy is to deter Germany by international agreement. A might be influenced by
what actually did happen, when Germany was defeated by a sustained alliance – the ‘united
nations’ of the second world war. However, this is a post-war justification for the type of policy
Churchill is seen to be advocating in C. It is easy to see C as relying on a great many ‘ifs’ – if
states assembled; if France were a firm ally; if there were sufficient forces to be marshalled; if
there were a ‘moral sense’ in the world. By 1938 it was clear that Germany was a threat and
clear that Britain was not likely to resist, so Churchill was proposing the best policy in difficult
circumstances which did not involve appeasing Hitler rather than a very realistic alternative.
Candidates may use contextual knowledge of the Anschluss with Austria. Troops had entered
Austria on 12 March. In context, with British rearmament in its relatively early stages, with a prime
minister committed to appeasement, with France weakened by internal disputes, with Russia
undergoing domestic turmoil, the USA committed officially to isolation and a League weakened
by the Ethiopian crisis, all this did not seem very realistic. The key point in the speech was the
warning about approaching war and the need to take some sort of proactive policy, but the reality
was that no such policy would emerge.
The counterview Churchill’s unrealism, is neatly expressed by Chamberlain in D. In a personal
letter he had no need to offer any false optimism, as was the case in the case of the public
utterance by Churchill in C. The Chiefs of Staff had rejected the idea of a Grand alliance,
probably considering the limitations of France as an ally and the problems faced by Russia
whose leading generals were being purged by Stalin and whose military equipment was seen to
be weak, The foreign office was sceptical of any agreement with the USA or Russia. The
divisions in Eastern Europe with the Poles resentful of the territorial boundary of Czechoslovakia,
for instance, would have made effective allies in the east difficult and geographical reality, now
that Germany had taken Austria, would indeed have made a campaign to save the Czechs
problematic. However, what is not considered here is the alternative – that proposed by the
20
June 2013
Marks
Guidance
70
Focus: Judgement in
context, based on a set
of Sources and own
knowledge.
Successful answers will
need to make use of all
five Sources, testing
them against contextual
evidence and
evaluating their
strengths and
weaknesses, any
limitations as evidence.
A range of issues may
be addressed in
focusing upon the
terms of the question
but no set conclusion is
expected.
F963/02
Question
Mark Scheme
Answer
Chiefs of Staff in B of international agreements with potential enemies. Was this any more
realistic, given the volatility of the Hitler regime, the alienation of Mussolini over Ethiopia and the
pressures to expand to gain raw materials and markets that were affecting Japan, already at war
with China? C’s plea for alliances to contain Germany seems to be supported by B’s expressed
hope in the final line that action needs to be taken to reduce potential enemies, presumably by
alliances or by appeasing Germany and Italy. C seems to be supported by B. If British imperial
commitments were too great for Britain’s armed forces, then what could it bring to any proposed
Grand Alliance and why should other nations take a role in defending Britain’s Empire? A grand
alliance would have had to have had some military ‘teeth’ and it was clear from B that this was
not the case. It may be that the Chiefs of Staff, anxious to get more resources and fearful of
being drawn into a conflict prematurely were exaggerating the situation and overestimating
Germany’s strength and any possibility of coordinated action by the Axis powers. However in the
context of economic difficulties and constraints in spending dating from the 1920s, their view
could be seen as realistic.
Much turned on the possible attitude of the USA and E shows Churchill after Munich appealing
directly to its people in the hope of engendering support for cooperation in defence of democracy.
Chamberlain, however, had little faith in the USA and given the Neutrality Acts and the strength
of feeling against another European conflict, this may have been wishful thinking on Churchill’s
part. However the letters do show some support; but they were mixed. There is a telling point
about Britain having betrayed her friends by the appeasement policy, something about which
Churchill agreed but could not really refute. The letters do not offer sufficient evidence to draw
conclusions about the chances of US intervention; but Roosevelt had to bear in mind the USA’s
economic problems, the need to maintain the New Deal and the dangers from the Pacific as well
as a mass of isolationist opinion. The limited aid given in 1939-41 may be seen as evidence for
Churchill’s lack of realism here.
21
June 2013
Marks
Guidance
OCR (Oxford Cambridge and RSA Examinations)
1 Hills Road
Cambridge
CB1 2EU
OCR Customer Contact Centre
Education and Learning
Telephone: 01223 553998
Facsimile: 01223 552627
Email: [email protected]
www.ocr.org.uk
For staff training purposes and as part of our quality assurance
programme your call may be recorded or monitored
Oxford Cambridge and RSA Examinations
is a Company Limited by Guarantee
Registered in England
Registered Office; 1 Hills Road, Cambridge, CB1 2EU
Registered Company Number: 3484466
OCR is an exempt Charity
OCR (Oxford Cambridge and RSA Examinations)
Head office
Telephone: 01223 552552
Facsimile: 01223 552553
© OCR 2013