Through much of the nineteenth century, Great Britain avoided the kind of social upheaval that intermittently plagued the Continent between 1815 and 1870. Supporters of Britain claimed that this success derived from a tradition of vibrant parliamentary democracy. While this claim holds some truth, the Great Reform Bill of 1832, the landmark legislation that began extending the franchise to more Englishmen, still left the vote to only twenty percent of the male population. A second reform bill passed in 1867 vertically expanded voting rights, but power remained in the hands of a minority--property-owning elites with a common background, a common education, and an essentially common outlook on domestic and foreign policy. The pace of reform in England outdistanced that of the rest of Europe, but for all that remained slow. Though the Liberals and Conservatives did advance different philosophy on the economy and government in its most basic sense, the common brotherhood on all representatives in parliament assured a relatively stable policy-making history.
Sorry it's so long but that's the answer toy your question...Hope this helps:)
Answer:
B. He was an explorer sponsored by the French settlements on the Mississippi River.
Explanation:
Louis Joliet was the first person, who wasn't a Native, to explore the Mississippi River. He also discovered numerous other things and was a well known explorer in North America.
Answer:
king; lords; vassals; serfs
Explanation:
The order from most powerful to least powerful is the following...
king; lords; vassals; serfs
The King was the ultimate power and the person in charge of the entire continent. Lords were the next most powerful individuals who were in charge of individual countries/kingdoms. Vassals were basically special servants of the lords who were granted privilages in exchange for their services. Lastly, would be serfs who were of the lowest social class, they were basically citizens who had to work to survive and could own property as opposed to slaves.
Technically, it is true that the national government can try to compel states to obey national laws using fiscal federalism, even in areas where the national government has no <span>authority over the states, since states receive a great deal of funding from the federal government. </span>
Answer:
Explanation:"Ay ay my homie we gotta reform my hood bro"
"No thank you black man, amen"
"Alright mannnn (hits joint), whateva you say"
