Scripts for speeches by Francis Rous and John Pym in the Short Parliament on 17th April, 1640? (Copyright: Christopher Thompson)

 

Scripts for speeches by Francis Rous and John Pym in the Short Parliament on 17th April, 1640?

In their accounts of proceedings in the House of Commons in the Short Parliament, Conrad Russell and Kevin Sharpe suggested in 1991 and 1992 respectively that Francis Rous and his step-brother, John Pym, delivered two important speeches in succession on 17th April, 1640 setting out the religious and secular grievances of those inside and outside the House opposed to Charles I’s regime.[1] Both speeches were preserved in varying forms in manuscript and printed versions. Sharpe, who cited Rous’s speech from a text held at Harvard, considered that his speech appeared “to have been a script.” Russell, citing the appendix to the edition of the proceedings of the Short Parliament edited by Esther S. Cope and Willson H. Coates, thought that “Pym and Rous both spoke from scripts, which were made available for copying” even though members were not supposed to do so.

These claims were and are puzzling. There is nothing in the Cope-Coates edition in its main text or in its list of speeches to suggest that Francis Rous used a script. Judith Maltby’s later edition of Sir Thomas Aston’s diary does not do so either.[2] If there was or is other unpublished documentary evidence to support this contention, it was left uncited. It is thus suspect.

Admittedly, there is a much longer discussion of Pym’s speech in its surviving versions in the Cope-Coates edition of proceedings. One outline account, it was argued by the editors, might have come from Pym himself but, if not, it was probably the work of someone in the House who had heard the speech and reproduced it from notes taken in the House or who had revised it from such notes or from a summary composed shortly after its delivery. A longer version of Pym’s speech printed later in 1640 was apparently edited and revised before publication. Two other versions circulated in manuscript. Interestingly enough, the editors commented on Pym’s references in these two manuscript texts to Pym’s confusion in memory and lack of time. Subsequently, they argued that “these two manuscript versions seem to have been rewritten, perhaps from the outline or from other rough notes.” Their conclusion was that “whatever additions and revisions may have been made by Pym or others following delivery, the speech itself with its broad scope and skilful arguments must have been carefully prepared.”[3]

It is worth noting that none of the editors – not Cope or Coates or Maltby – suggested that Pym was using a script. There is, indeed, some evidence to the contrary. In one version of his speech, Pym, it was reported, referred to having forgotten about the grievances of the subject over the extension of the forest boundaries.[4] Even if that is questionable, Sir Thomas Aston’s notes taken in the House of Commons itself indicated that, towards the very end of his speech, Pym “recollected one thing formerly forgot”, namely the prospect of impositions on goods to be traded between foreign countries.[5] If Pym had been reading from a script, this observation would not have made sense. More and rather better evidence will be needed before Rous or Pym can legitimately be claimed to have used scripts on this date.


[1] Conrad Russell, The Fall of the British Monarchies 1637-1642 (Clarendon Press, Oxford. 1991), Pp.105-107 and p.107, note 116. Kevin Sharpe, The Personal Rule of Charles I (Yale University Press. New Haven and London. 1992), Pp.864-865 and p.865, note 90.

[2] Esther S. Cope and Willson H. Coates, ed., Proceedings in the Short Parliament of 1640 (Camden Society. 4th Series, Volume 19. London. 1997), Pp.145-148, 298-299. Judith D. Maltby, ed., The Short Parliament 1640) Diary of Sir Thomas Aston (Camden Society. 4th Series, Volume 35. London, 1988), p.7.

[3] Cope and Coates, op.cit., Pp.299-302.

[4] Cope and Coates, op.cit., Pp.153, 301.

[5] Maltby, op.cit., p.10.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Simon Healy has died

Image
  I am extremely sorry to report that Simon Healy, who worked for the History of Parliament Trust's 1604-1629 section for many years,  has died. I remember him as a very cheerful and engaging conversationalist. My condolences go to his widow and their two children.
Read more

Centre and Locality: review reflections

  Quite by chance, I was browsing on Twitter last Friday (9 th April) when I spotted on Edward Vallance’s site a reference to a video conference organised by William Clayton of the University of East Anglia at the end of last month. Further searches led me to William Clayton’s review of the book edited by Chris Kyle and Jason Peacey, Connecting Centre and Locality: Communication in early modern England, which appeared under the auspices of the Manchester University Press in 2020 and which Clayton had reviewed for The Seventeenth Century in its most recent issue. [1] This is a subject which interests me and I did give some thought to responding to William Clayton’s largely laudatory comments. However, I was also conscious that I had not read this collection of essays and was thus less well equipped than I should be for assessing either the book or William Clayton’s review. There was, however, one historiographical issue upon which I did feel qualified to comment. Right at the st...
Read more

Transcribing Walter Yonge's notes on proceedings in the House of Commons between 1642 and 1645

  In the spring of 1967, Professor Hugh Trevor-Roper, then the Regius Professor of Modern History in the University of Oxford, wrote to me to ask if I would assist Dr Pearl in her work by transcribing Walter Yonge’s diaries held (in Additional Mss.18,777-18,780) in the Manuscript Department of the British Museum at that time. I agreed and it was settled that I would be paid £150 per volume by the History Faculty of the University. I duly transcribed the first of these volumes in 1967 and the remaining three by 1973. I was not her “assistant” in this task but undertook it myself. I did not, moreover, keep copies of the first three volumes. In mid-1975, I read in The Times Higher Education Supplement that she was preparing the Yonge volumes for publication. But nothing happened. By 1984, seventeen years after I had transcribed the first volume and eleven years after finishing the last one I was puzzled by this failure to proceed and, having asked several academic friends if they th...
Read more