2023 marked the centenary of Wallace Notestein's edition of part of Sir Simonds D'Ewes's journal of the Long Parliament. This essay treats the diary's pre‐Notestein emergence as a prime source for the history of the Long Parliament. Thomas Carlyle was first to publicise the diary. He could not read it but paid for a ‘transcript’ of major passages. Though only indirectly useful to Carlyle's project of editing Oliver Cromwell's letters and speeches, the so‐called transcript prompted Carlyle to experiment at the boundary of history and fiction. Carlyle passed the transcript to the antiquary John Bruce and to John Forster. Both praised the diary, touted their paleographical skills, and also relied on the ‘transcript’. Whatever their paleographical limitations, their enthusiasm canonised the text. When Samuel Rawson Gardiner turned to the Long Parliament, D'Ewes's diary joined the Thomason tracts and the State Papers as foundational sources. Though he owed his source‐agenda to Carlyle, Bruce, Forster and J. L. Sanford, Gardiner was determined to supersede them, in large part by correcting their use of D'Ewes's diary. In Forster's case, Gardiner verged on the patricidal. This was a moment in the bifurcation of ‘history’ from ‘letters’, and in the creation of the historical ‘profession’.
2023 年是华莱士-诺特斯坦（Wallace Notestein）出版西蒙兹-德威斯爵士（Sir Simonds D'Ewes）的《长期议会日记》部分版本一百周年。本文论述了这本日记在诺特斯坦出版之前作为长议会历史的主要资料出现的过程。托马斯-卡莱尔最先公布了这本日记。他无法阅读该日记，但却花钱购买了主要段落的 "誊本"。虽然对卡莱尔编辑奥利弗-克伦威尔的信件和演讲稿的计划只是间接有用，但所谓的抄本促使卡莱尔在历史和小说的界限上进行了尝试。卡莱尔将抄本交给了古董商约翰-布鲁斯和约翰-福斯特。两人都对日记大加赞赏，吹捧自己的古文字学技巧，同时也依赖于 "抄本"。无论他们的古文字学能力有多大局限，他们的热情都将这本日记奉为经典。当塞缪尔-罗森-加德纳转而研究长期议会时，达维斯的日记与托马森小册子和国家文件一起成为了基础资料。虽然卡莱尔、布鲁斯、福斯特和 J. L. 桑福德都是他的资料来源，但加德纳决心取代他们，并在很大程度上纠正了他们对达威斯日记的使用。在福斯特的案件中，加德纳近乎弑父。这是 "历史 "与 "文学 "分道扬镳的时刻，也是历史 "专业 "创立的时刻。
{"title":"The Discovery of D'Ewes's Long Parliament Diary","authors":"M. Mendle","doi":"10.1111/1750-0206.12747","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1750-0206.12747","url":null,"abstract":"2023 marked the centenary of Wallace Notestein's edition of part of Sir Simonds D'Ewes's journal of the Long Parliament. This essay treats the diary's pre‐Notestein emergence as a prime source for the history of the Long Parliament. Thomas Carlyle was first to publicise the diary. He could not read it but paid for a ‘transcript’ of major passages. Though only indirectly useful to Carlyle's project of editing Oliver Cromwell's letters and speeches, the so‐called transcript prompted Carlyle to experiment at the boundary of history and fiction. Carlyle passed the transcript to the antiquary John Bruce and to John Forster. Both praised the diary, touted their paleographical skills, and also relied on the ‘transcript’. Whatever their paleographical limitations, their enthusiasm canonised the text. When Samuel Rawson Gardiner turned to the Long Parliament, D'Ewes's diary joined the Thomason tracts and the State Papers as foundational sources. Though he owed his source‐agenda to Carlyle, Bruce, Forster and J. L. Sanford, Gardiner was determined to supersede them, in large part by correcting their use of D'Ewes's diary. In Forster's case, Gardiner verged on the patricidal. This was a moment in the bifurcation of ‘history’ from ‘letters’, and in the creation of the historical ‘profession’.","PeriodicalId":44112,"journal":{"name":"Parliamentary History","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141402372","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"A Liberal Chronicle in Peace and War. Journals and Papers of J.A. Pease, 1st Lord Gainford, 1911–1915. Edited by CameronHazlehurst and ChristineWoodland. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2023. xxiii, 572 pp. hardback. £190.00. ISBN 9780192887054.","authors":"R. Toye","doi":"10.1111/1750-0206.12745","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1750-0206.12745","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":44112,"journal":{"name":"Parliamentary History","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141413697","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The Diaries of Anthony Hewitson, Provincial Journalist. Volume 1: 1865–1887. Edited by AndrewHobbs. Cambridge: Open Book Publishers. 2022. xlix, 673 pp. paperback. £25.95. ISBN 9781800642362.","authors":"Kathryn Rix","doi":"10.1111/1750-0206.12741","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1750-0206.12741","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":44112,"journal":{"name":"Parliamentary History","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141392758","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Late‐Victorian and Edwardian Popular Conservatism is now mainly seen as a cultural‐ideological form, and this article aims to reconstruct one aspect of this ethos by focusing on the use of sport, especially horse racing, as a means of political differentiation and a method of attracting a new mass electorate to the Tory cause. The sporting paper focusing on horse racing was one way of doing this. Weeklies like the Sporting Times and the Winning Post tried to sell high Tory ideals to a mass electorate and thereby to knit together an older aristocratic party with newer urban, white‐collar, and working‐class voters. The political outgrowth of this element of popular conservatism was the Sporting League (established 1894) and also the later National Sporting League (1905). Both of these organisations took aim at Radical Liberals, and especially their attempt to restrict betting, and did so by exerting pressure at national and local elections from 1895 to 1914. Some of those involved with the Sporting Leagues and the racing paper became Conservative candidates. Although it is difficult to estimate the actual electoral impact of both Sporting Leagues, they nevertheless created a political style that might have a broad appeal, especially to a white‐collar class and working people.
{"title":"The Sporting Paper and the Culture of Popular Conservatism in Edwardian Britain*","authors":"H.G. Cocks","doi":"10.1111/1750-0206.12750","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1750-0206.12750","url":null,"abstract":"Late‐Victorian and Edwardian Popular Conservatism is now mainly seen as a cultural‐ideological form, and this article aims to reconstruct one aspect of this ethos by focusing on the use of sport, especially horse racing, as a means of political differentiation and a method of attracting a new mass electorate to the Tory cause. The sporting paper focusing on horse racing was one way of doing this. Weeklies like the Sporting Times and the Winning Post tried to sell high Tory ideals to a mass electorate and thereby to knit together an older aristocratic party with newer urban, white‐collar, and working‐class voters. The political outgrowth of this element of popular conservatism was the Sporting League (established 1894) and also the later National Sporting League (1905). Both of these organisations took aim at Radical Liberals, and especially their attempt to restrict betting, and did so by exerting pressure at national and local elections from 1895 to 1914. Some of those involved with the Sporting Leagues and the racing paper became Conservative candidates. Although it is difficult to estimate the actual electoral impact of both Sporting Leagues, they nevertheless created a political style that might have a broad appeal, especially to a white‐collar class and working people.","PeriodicalId":44112,"journal":{"name":"Parliamentary History","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141411215","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article examines the oral and physical disruption of ‘public’ meetings in England in the spring of 1886, when such activity formed part of broader contests over the legitimacy of extra‐parliamentary responses to the Liberal government's Irish Home Rule Bill. Disruption is an important example of the diverse ways in which home rule energised politics outside Westminster and of the heatedness of grassroots responses to it. For those who engaged in it, disruption offered forms of political interaction and participation that, additionally, made claims to representation and opinion. However, disruption was a practice of contestation that was itself the subject of contention and it was decried as transgressing the bounds of appropriate political conduct. Disruption could be seen, in both intent and effect, as a permissive or subversive, inclusive or exclusionary, behaviour. It could therefore legitimise or undermine claims that popular feeling was on the side of or opposed to the policy. The ‘politics of disruption’ both reflected and generated intense debate about the state of politics in an age of ‘mass democracy’ – of which home rule was the first major crisis – and about the sanctity of political rights and liberties. This article argues that our understanding of political disruption is enhanced by examining its practice and reception at historical moments, outside the episodic election cycle, when contemporaries believed that it was critically important that ‘public opinion’ on a political issue be ascertained and voiced, and when the validity of such opinion was disputed.
{"title":"‘Shut Up! Sit Down!’: The Politics of Disruption and the 1886 Home Rule Crisis in England*","authors":"Naomi Lloyd‐Jones","doi":"10.1111/1750-0206.12748","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1750-0206.12748","url":null,"abstract":"This article examines the oral and physical disruption of ‘public’ meetings in England in the spring of 1886, when such activity formed part of broader contests over the legitimacy of extra‐parliamentary responses to the Liberal government's Irish Home Rule Bill. Disruption is an important example of the diverse ways in which home rule energised politics outside Westminster and of the heatedness of grassroots responses to it. For those who engaged in it, disruption offered forms of political interaction and participation that, additionally, made claims to representation and opinion. However, disruption was a practice of contestation that was itself the subject of contention and it was decried as transgressing the bounds of appropriate political conduct. Disruption could be seen, in both intent and effect, as a permissive or subversive, inclusive or exclusionary, behaviour. It could therefore legitimise or undermine claims that popular feeling was on the side of or opposed to the policy. The ‘politics of disruption’ both reflected and generated intense debate about the state of politics in an age of ‘mass democracy’ – of which home rule was the first major crisis – and about the sanctity of political rights and liberties. This article argues that our understanding of political disruption is enhanced by examining its practice and reception at historical moments, outside the episodic election cycle, when contemporaries believed that it was critically important that ‘public opinion’ on a political issue be ascertained and voiced, and when the validity of such opinion was disputed.","PeriodicalId":44112,"journal":{"name":"Parliamentary History","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141390751","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The National Covenant and the Solemn League and Covenant 1660–1696. By JamesWalters. Woodbridge: The Boydell Press. 2022. 232 pp. hardback. £75.00. ISBN 97810783276042.","authors":"P. Seaward","doi":"10.1111/1750-0206.12742","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1750-0206.12742","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":44112,"journal":{"name":"Parliamentary History","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141404097","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Edmund Sexten Pery: The Politics of Virtue and Intrigue in Eighteenth‐century Ireland. Edited by David A.Fleming. Dublin: Four Courts Press. 2023. 310 pp. hardback £60.00. ISBN 9781801510875.","authors":"D.W. Hayton","doi":"10.1111/1750-0206.12738","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1750-0206.12738","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":44112,"journal":{"name":"Parliamentary History","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141396023","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"English MPs: Legislators and Servants of their Constituents, 1750–1800. By MichaelMcCahill. London: Bloomsbury. 2023. xi, 271 pp. hardback. £85.00. ISBN. 9781350332270.","authors":"Maria Tauber","doi":"10.1111/1750-0206.12739","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1750-0206.12739","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":44112,"journal":{"name":"Parliamentary History","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141404114","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article represents the transcript of a 2022 witness seminar on the theme of members of the British public writing to politicians. Collectively, the witnesses have experience of this issue dating from the early 1970s through to the present day. Angie Williams shares her experience of handling correspondence for Ed Miliband and Jeremy Corbyn as leaders of the Labour Party. Lord Kinnock (Neil Kinnock) describes what it was like to receive correspondence both as an MP and as Labour Party leader. David Beckingham relates his experience working in the Number 10 Political Office under Theresa May and Boris Johnson. Lord Parkinson (Stephen Parkinson) also gives a perspective on May, for whom he worked both at the Home Office and in Downing Street. Camilla Jequier explains her role dealing with correspondence for two Conservative MPs. The issues explored include attempts to use correspondence to measure public opinion, the shift from letters to email, gifts enclosed with letters, correspondents with mental health issues, death threats, and the emotional dimensions of correspondence. The witnesses had similar or overlapping experiences. There was agreement that correspondence is often misdirected or phrased in ways that are unlikely to be productive. This may point to a failure of citizenship education.
本文是 2022 年证人研讨会的记录，主题是英国公众给政治家写信。从 20 世纪 70 年代初至今，见证人在这一问题上积累了丰富的经验。安吉-威廉姆斯（Angie Williams）分享了她为工党领袖埃德-米利班德（Ed Miliband）和杰里米-科尔宾（Jeremy Corbyn）处理信件的经验。金诺克勋爵（尼尔-金诺克 Neil Kinnock）讲述了作为国会议员和工党领袖接收信件的感受。戴维-贝金汉姆（David Beckingham）讲述了他在特雷莎-梅和鲍里斯-约翰逊领导下的第 10 号政治办公室的工作经历。帕金森勋爵（斯蒂芬-帕金森 Stephen Parkinson）也讲述了他在内政部和唐宁街为梅工作的经历。卡米拉-杰基尔（Camilla Jequier）解释了她为两名保守党议员处理信件的职责。探讨的问题包括试图利用信件来衡量民意、从信件到电子邮件的转变、随信附上的礼物、有精神健康问题的通信者、死亡威胁以及信件中的情感因素。证人的经历相似或重叠。大家一致认为，信件往往被错误地引导，或以不可能有结果的方式措辞。这可能是公民教育的失败。
{"title":"Witness Seminar: Writing to Politicians","authors":"Kit Kowol, R. Toye","doi":"10.1111/1750-0206.12749","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1750-0206.12749","url":null,"abstract":"This article represents the transcript of a 2022 witness seminar on the theme of members of the British public writing to politicians. Collectively, the witnesses have experience of this issue dating from the early 1970s through to the present day. Angie Williams shares her experience of handling correspondence for Ed Miliband and Jeremy Corbyn as leaders of the Labour Party. Lord Kinnock (Neil Kinnock) describes what it was like to receive correspondence both as an MP and as Labour Party leader. David Beckingham relates his experience working in the Number 10 Political Office under Theresa May and Boris Johnson. Lord Parkinson (Stephen Parkinson) also gives a perspective on May, for whom he worked both at the Home Office and in Downing Street. Camilla Jequier explains her role dealing with correspondence for two Conservative MPs. The issues explored include attempts to use correspondence to measure public opinion, the shift from letters to email, gifts enclosed with letters, correspondents with mental health issues, death threats, and the emotional dimensions of correspondence. The witnesses had similar or overlapping experiences. There was agreement that correspondence is often misdirected or phrased in ways that are unlikely to be productive. This may point to a failure of citizenship education.","PeriodicalId":44112,"journal":{"name":"Parliamentary History","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141407876","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：