2023 Edexcel GCSE History (1HI0) 模擬試題連答案詳解

To score full marks on this question, you must identify two distinct features of the Peabody Estate and provide a supporting detail for each.

**Feature 1:** The estate provided significantly improved, cleaner, and more hygienic housing than the surrounding slums.
*Detail:* Built in 1881 on land cleared of overcrowded tenements, the estate consisted of block dwellings constructed of brick, designed with better ventilation, plaster walls to prevent damp, running water, and shared laundry facilities to improve sanitation.

**Feature 2:** It had strict rules and eligibility criteria for its residents.
*Detail:* Tenants were required to have regular employment to ensure they could pay the rent, and they had to abide by strict regulations, which included a curfew at night, restrictions on hanging out washing on Sundays, and a strict ban on subletting rooms.

For each feature:
- 1 mark for identifying a valid feature of the Peabody Estate (up to 2 marks).
- 1 mark for providing appropriate supporting detail/elaboration for that feature (up to 2 marks).

Maximum of 4 marks in total.

**Acceptable features include:**
- Improved sanitation/living conditions/hygiene.
- The clearance of old slums to build it (following the Artizans' Dwellings Act).
- Strict rules for tenants (e.g., curfew, no subletting, regular employment required).
- Brick block construction/apartment design.
- High rents that excluded the poorest families of Whitechapel.

Source A is useful because it highlights the physical challenges of policing Whitechapel. It mentions narrow, dark alleys, inadequate gas lighting, and overcrowded tenement blocks, which allowed criminals to evade capture easily. The provenance is highly useful as it is an official report by Inspector Edmund Reid, the head of the H Division Detective Department in 1888, meaning he had first-hand, professional experience of these operational difficulties. This is supported by contextual knowledge that rookeries and slums like Flower and Dean Street were maze-like and heavily congested, making police patrols very difficult to coordinate. Source B is useful because it shows the social difficulties, specifically local hostility and lack of public cooperation. It describes a crowd actively obstructing an arrest and helping a suspect escape. The provenance is useful because as a newspaper article from October 1888, it reflects the contemporary perception of the tense relationship between the police and the local working-class and immigrant communities. This is supported by contextual knowledge that locals deeply mistrusted the police, viewing them as representatives of a hostile authority enforcing middle-class standards, and that H Division was heavily understaffed with only around 500 constables to manage a population of over 175,000.

Level 1 (1-2 marks): Simple, generalised comments on utility. Little or no contextual knowledge deployed. Level 2 (3-5 marks): Evaluates utility based on the content of the sources and/or their provenance. Deploys some relevant contextual knowledge to support or challenge the source. Level 3 (6-8 marks): Makes a developed evaluation of utility, considering both content and provenance. Integrates well-chosen contextual knowledge to judge the usefulness of the sources in the context of the enquiry. To reach Level 3, answers must evaluate both sources and consider how the provenance (author, date, purpose) affects their usefulness.

The follow-up enquiry should show a logical connection between each step:
1. The chosen detail from Source A must directly relate to a difficulty faced by the police (e.g., the dark passages/lack of gas lighting or the challenge of searching overcrowded lodging houses).
2. The question must be a historical enquiry directly linked to that chosen detail.
3. The type of source suggested must be realistic, specific, and capable of answering the question asked.
4. The explanation of how it helps must explain how the information in the new source would answer the specific question posed.

Award 1 mark for each of the four elements of the follow-up, provided they are logically connected and relevant:
- Detail in Source A that I would follow up (1 mark): Must identify a specific point from the source about policing difficulties.
- Question I would ask (1 mark): Must be a clear, historical question directly related to the selected detail.
- What type of source I could use (1 mark): Must identify an appropriate primary source from the period (e.g., local council records, police diaries, official correspondence).
- How this might help answer my question (1 mark): Must explain clearly how the identified source will provide the necessary evidence to answer the question.

In the early modern period (c1500–c1700), law enforcement was highly localised and relied on unpaid, part-time volunteers. Citizens took turns serving as parish constables, and towns used night watchmen to patrol the streets. In contrast, the nineteenth century (c1800–c1900) saw the professionalisation and centralisation of law enforcement. Following Robert Peel's Metropolitan Police Act of 1829, policing became a full-time, salaried profession. Uniformed officers were trained specifically to prevent crime, a system made mandatory across the country by the County and Borough Police Act of 1856. This transformed policing from an informal community duty into an organised, state-regulated profession.

Level 1 (1–2 marks): Answers identify a difference but lack detail or only focus on one period. For 1 mark, a valid difference is stated (e.g., early modern police were volunteers, while nineteenth-century police were paid). For 2 marks, some limited supporting detail is provided. Level 2 (3–4 marks): Answers provide a developed explanation of the difference, supported by relevant historical detail from both periods. For 3 marks, the difference is explained with clear detail for one of the periods. For 4 marks, the difference is fully explained with specific, accurate detail for both periods (e.g., contrasting the unpaid parish constables of the early modern era with the professional Metropolitan Police established in 1829).

### Indicative Content

**Introduction**
- Outline the broad shift from a decentralized, largely amateur system of law enforcement (parish constables and watchmen) in the mid-18th century to a centralized, professional, and nationwide police force by the late 19th century.
- Identify key drivers of change: rapid urbanisation, rising fear of crime, social unrest, and the inadequacy of traditional systems under industrial pressure.

**Paragraph 1: The Transition and Early Reforms (The Bow Street Runners)**
- In the mid-18th century, Henry and John Fielding recognized that London's parish constables were insufficient for a growing capital.
- They established the Bow Street Runners (1749), which became a pioneering, paid, and organized group of detectives.
- While they were successful in recovering stolen goods and tracking down criminals, their numbers were small and they were reactive rather than preventative.
- This represented the first major step away from local amateur law enforcement towards a professionalised force, proving that organized crime-fighting was more effective.

**Paragraph 2: Urbanisation and the Need for Preventative Policing (The Metropolitan Police Act 1829)**
- By the early 19th century, rapid industrialisation had led to massive urban migration. Cities were overcrowded, and traditional watchmen could not maintain order. There was also a growing fear of political protests (e.g., Peterloo Massacre) and large-scale riots.
- Home Secretary Robert Peel introduced the Metropolitan Police Act in 1829, establishing the first modern, uniformed, and centralized police force in London.
- The key shift here was from *detecting* crime to *preventing* crime through regular patrols (the 'peelers' or 'bobbies'). This represented a fundamental change in the philosophy of law enforcement.

**Paragraph 3: Expansion and Standardization (Own Knowledge)**
- The success of the Metropolitan Police led to demands for similar systems across the country. Initially, the Rural Constabulary Act (1839) made police forces optional for counties.
- However, the major change came with the County and Borough Police Act (1856), which made it compulsory for all counties and boroughs in England and Wales to have a professional police force overseen by central government inspectors.
- Technological changes also shaped law enforcement during this period (e.g., the introduction of the telegraph, national criminal databases, and later, fingerprinting in the late 19th century).

**Conclusion**
- Summarize that the change in law enforcement was driven by the challenges of a rapidly industrializing society. It moved from a localized, amateur, reactive system (like parish constables) to a national, professional, preventative, and government-regulated system.

### Marking Scheme

**Level 1 (1–3 marks)**
- Simple or generalised statements showing limited understanding of the question.
- Little or no analysis. The answer lacks specific historical detail.
- *Example:* Police forces changed because cities got bigger and there was more crime, so they needed more police like the bobbies.

**Level 2 (4–6 marks)**
- Some explanation is given, but it may lack depth or direct focus on the analytical aspect of the change.
- Mostly descriptive narrative with some relevant knowledge, incorporating one or both stimulus points but with limited expansion.
- *Example:* The Bow Street Runners were established by the Fielding brothers to catch criminals. Later, Robert Peel set up the Metropolitan Police in 1829 because London was too big for parish constables.

**Level 3 (7–9 marks)**
- An explanation is given, showing analysis of the key features/factors.
- The answer is structured and mostly analytical, addressing the transition over time.
- Good historical knowledge is deployed, integrating the stimulus points and some external knowledge (such as the 1856 Act or urbanisation).

**Level 4 (10–12 marks)**
- Analytical explanation is consistently directed at the focus of the question, showing a clear, logical, and sustained argument.
- Excellent knowledge and understanding of the period is shown, fully integrating both stimulus points and detailed, accurate personal knowledge.
- Covers the chronological span (c1750–c1900) effectively, showing how and why the nature of policing shifted fundamentally.

### Model Essay Response

There is a strong case to support the view that the desire to deter potential criminals was the primary driver of changes in the nature of punishment during the early modern period (c1500–c1700). However, deterrence was not the sole factor. Other significant drivers included growing concerns over social stability due to inflation and population growth, religious changes following the Reformation, and the early emergence of rehabilitative punishment.

On one hand, the desire for deterrence was arguably the main reason for changes, as seen in the dramatic expansion of capital offenses known as the 'Bloody Code'. From the late seventeenth century, the number of crimes carrying the death penalty increased significantly. The execution of criminals was designed to be public, highly theatrical, and brutal to send a clear message to the population. Public hangings at Tyburn served as a physical warning to others. Furthermore, the continuation and adaptation of older physical punishments, such as branding and the pillory, were designed to humiliate offenders publicly, thereby deterring onlookers from committing similar offenses. This suggests that the authorities believed harsh, visible punishments were the most effective way to maintain order in an era without a professional police force.

On the other hand, some changes in punishment were driven by concerns over social change and economic instability rather than pure deterrence. The sixteenth century saw a massive rise in population, leading to unemployment and inflation. This resulted in an increase in vagrancy (homelessness and wandering in search of work). The response to vagrancy saw the introduction of 'houses of correction' (such as Bridewell, established in London in 1553). The purpose of these institutions was not merely to deter vagabonds, but to reform them through hard work and discipline. This marked a shift towards punishment that aimed to rehabilitate the offender, reflecting a Protestant work ethic that viewed idleness as a sin to be cured.

Additionally, religious and political instability during the Reformation and the English Civil War heavily influenced changes in punishment. The introduction of harsh punishments for heresy and treason was not just about deterring crime, but about enforcing religious conformity and protecting the monarch's power. For example, the use of burning at the stake for heresy during the reign of Mary I was intended to cleanse the soul and protect the realm from divine wrath.

In conclusion, while deterrence was a central and highly visible motivation behind the intensification of physical punishments and the growth of the Bloody Code, it was not the exclusive cause of change. Economic pressures forced the state to develop reformative measures like houses of correction, while religious turmoil reshaped punishments to defend state security and spiritual conformity. Therefore, while deterrence was a major factor, the overall transformation of early modern punishment was a complex response to social, economic, and religious anxieties.

### Marking Scheme

#### AO1 (6 marks) - Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the key features and characteristics of the periods studied.
- **Level 4 (5–6 marks):** Demonstrates detailed, highly relevant, and accurate historical knowledge. Accurate chronological understanding of the early modern period (c1500–c1700).
- **Level 3 (3–4 marks):** Demonstrates mostly accurate and relevant knowledge, though there may be some omissions or minor inaccuracies.
- **Level 2 (2 marks):** Demonstrates some knowledge but lacks depth or specific detail.
- **Level 1 (1 mark):** Demonstrates limited or very basic knowledge.

#### AO2 (10 marks) - Explain and analyse historical events and periods studied using second-order historical concepts (causation, change/continuity).
- **Level 4 (8–10 marks):** Analytical and balanced argument that directly addresses the prompt. Evaluates the significance of deterrence alongside other factors (such as economic, social, or religious changes). Shows strong historical reasoning and reaches a logical, well-supported conclusion.
- **Level 3 (5–7 marks):** Explains both sides of the argument (for and against the prompt). Some analysis is present, though the conclusion may be less developed or rely on assertion.
- **Level 2 (3–4 marks):** A narrative of changes in punishment with some attempts to link to the question, but lacks deep analysis or a balanced evaluation.
- **Level 1 (1–2 marks):** Simple description of punishments (e.g., hangings, Bridewells) with little or no attempt to address 'how far' or analyze the causes of change.

#### Spelling, punctuation, and grammar (SPaG) (4 marks)
- **High performance (4 marks):** Learners spell and punctuate with consistent accuracy, use rules of grammar with effective control, and use a wide range of specialist terms precisely.
- **Intermediate performance (2–3 marks):** Learners spell and punctuate with considerable accuracy, use rules of grammar with general control, and use a good range of specialist terms.
- **Threshold performance (1 mark):** Learners spell and punctuate with reasonable accuracy, use rules of grammar with some control, and use some specialist terms.
- **No marks awarded (0 marks):** Severe errors preventing meaning from coming through, or response is completely blank/irrelevant.