Seminar tomorrow at the IHR on 'Petitioning and Parliamentary memory in the Long Parliament 1640-1642' (pasted from the IHR's site)

 

Narratives of the early years of the Long Parliament have been dominated by considerations of the fiery debates leading to the Civil War and of the political and religious contentions gripping the realm. It has long been recognised that petitioning was crucial in this Parliament, with large-scale supplications for root and branch reform entering both Houses. Overlooked are the torrent of petitions sent by corporations and individuals seeking action from an institution which was seen as a Parliament like any other, with the time and inclination to offer redress. This paper will consider the importance of economic grievances for pushing subjects and corporate bodies to interact with Parliament, driven not by concerns with popery or evil counsel, but by their economic interests. Memory will be shown to have been crucial to petitioners, as some subjects pursued causes introduced in previous Parliaments, whilst others skilfully manipulated parliamentary memory in their appeals. Petitioners thereby contributed to the perception of Parliament not as an event, but as an institution. 

Ellen Paterson is the CMRS Career Development Fellow in Early Modern History at Keble College, Oxford. Her research examines the intersection between politics and economics in the early Stuart period, with a particular focus on the ways through which issues of monopoly and corporatism pushed subjects to engage in the public sphere. Her first monograph, titled Bloodsuckers of the Commonwealth: Monopolies, Petitioning, and the Public Sphere in early modern England, is under contract with MUP. She is currently embarking on a new research project looking to the participatory nature of economic policy making and the politics of trade and corporations in early Stuart England.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Finding out about what is going on in early modern history beyond this country

One of the puzzles I face most days concerns what is going on in early modern history in English-speaking countries beyond these shores. I have a reasonable understanding of the seminar papers being offered here and of the conferences being or about to be held. Most of the websites of relevance are known to me and I am, broadly speaking, aware of the names of historians working in the areas I am interested in. Google alerts and social media help to fill in the gaps. Where I am much less well informed arises from the activities of early modern historians in north America, in Australia and New Zealand. Despite having some regular contacts on the other side of the Atlantic, I have to work hard to search the myriad history departments and learned societies of the U.S.A. and Canada. Oddly enough, this does not appear to be so large an issue with countries in Europe where I conduct regular searches for publications and theses, conferences and seminars of potential interest. It would be good ...
Read more

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