Both SO and 3 contrast with SSL as they seem to remark that Wholes allowed there to be and introduced unfair laws and treated poor peep el unfairly and he did not see them to be equal. Source 1 writes about how whilst the King may have acted within the law whew n it came to trialing and punishing people, those people may not have been trialed just Y’ The source may be suggesting that the law was outdated and furthermore that is why Henry brought Wholes in to take charge Of the Court Of Chancery. The King ought of r his royal ignite and prerogative”, this quote highlights how Henry may have only brow get Wholes in to handle to court of justice in order to keep the general public onside. Ho waver, the source itself is written by Wholes and therefore would be biased towards him self and the King. Of course Wholes is going to say he will make the law more “just” an d “equal”, otherwise the judges will doubt him. Source 2 is written by bakers in London in 1526. This means that the source s would give the general opinion of the working public in London at the time.

The sour CE is a petition written to Wholes appealing for some form of compensation for been g punished by the Mayor for them refusing to buy moldy Wheat at a higher price when s wet wheat can be bought cheaper. At face value it may seem that Wholes has allowed the e Mayor to do this but, the fact that the bakers wrote a petition to Wholes may suggest that they feel he will give them the justice they deserve, illustrating that they trust him to do something about it.

Hire a custom writer who has experience.
It's time for you to submit amazing papers!

order now

Source 3 states that the poor recognized the fact that Wholes was targeting the rich when it came to enforcing laws and making everything more equal. And so the eye began to complain a lot more about unjust things the rich were doing, as they were aware that Wholes was more likely to take action.