腐败、阴谋与勾结:1621年国会中的反垄断请愿*

IF 0.1 3区 历史学 Q3 HISTORY Parliamentary History Pub Date : 2023-10-01 DOI:10.1111/1750-0206.12704
Ellen Paterson
{"title":"腐败、阴谋与勾结:1621年国会中的反垄断请愿*","authors":"Ellen Paterson","doi":"10.1111/1750-0206.12704","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In the Jacobean period, monopolies were central to crown financial policy. Through petitions, subjects protested the effect of these grants on their trades and livelihoods. In the parliament of 1621, the Commons’ standing committee for grievances emerged as an important recipient of anti‐monopoly petitions. Moving beyond the current historiographical focus on institutional and procedural developments in parliamentary petitioning practice, this article offers a close rhetorical analysis of anti‐monopoly petitions and counter‐petitions in 1621, highlighting the dialogic nature of petitioning disputes. An emerging language of corruption and modes of politic reasoning will be shown to have shaped petitionary appeals, as subjects used the concepts of faction and conspiracy to oppose and defend monopolies. The article argues for the need to consider the close interrelation between the economic and political in 1620s England.","PeriodicalId":44112,"journal":{"name":"Parliamentary History","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Corruption, Conspiracy and Collusion: Anti‐Monopoly Petitioning in the Parliament of 1621*\",\"authors\":\"Ellen Paterson\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/1750-0206.12704\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract In the Jacobean period, monopolies were central to crown financial policy. Through petitions, subjects protested the effect of these grants on their trades and livelihoods. In the parliament of 1621, the Commons’ standing committee for grievances emerged as an important recipient of anti‐monopoly petitions. Moving beyond the current historiographical focus on institutional and procedural developments in parliamentary petitioning practice, this article offers a close rhetorical analysis of anti‐monopoly petitions and counter‐petitions in 1621, highlighting the dialogic nature of petitioning disputes. An emerging language of corruption and modes of politic reasoning will be shown to have shaped petitionary appeals, as subjects used the concepts of faction and conspiracy to oppose and defend monopolies. The article argues for the need to consider the close interrelation between the economic and political in 1620s England.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44112,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Parliamentary History\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Parliamentary History\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/1750-0206.12704\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Parliamentary History","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1750-0206.12704","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在詹姆士一世时期,垄断是王室财政政策的核心。臣民通过请愿抗议这些补助金对他们的贸易和生计的影响。在1621年的国会中,下议院的申诉常设委员会成为反垄断请愿的重要接受者。超越了当前对议会上访实践的制度和程序发展的史学关注,本文对1621年的反垄断上访和反上访进行了细致的修辞分析,强调了上访纠纷的对话性质。一种新兴的腐败语言和政治推理模式将被证明已经形成了请愿上诉,因为主体使用派系和阴谋的概念来反对和捍卫垄断。本文认为有必要考虑1620年代英国经济与政治之间的密切联系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Corruption, Conspiracy and Collusion: Anti‐Monopoly Petitioning in the Parliament of 1621*
Abstract In the Jacobean period, monopolies were central to crown financial policy. Through petitions, subjects protested the effect of these grants on their trades and livelihoods. In the parliament of 1621, the Commons’ standing committee for grievances emerged as an important recipient of anti‐monopoly petitions. Moving beyond the current historiographical focus on institutional and procedural developments in parliamentary petitioning practice, this article offers a close rhetorical analysis of anti‐monopoly petitions and counter‐petitions in 1621, highlighting the dialogic nature of petitioning disputes. An emerging language of corruption and modes of politic reasoning will be shown to have shaped petitionary appeals, as subjects used the concepts of faction and conspiracy to oppose and defend monopolies. The article argues for the need to consider the close interrelation between the economic and political in 1620s England.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
50.00%
发文量
69
期刊最新文献
‘Shut Up! Sit Down!’: The Politics of Disruption and the 1886 Home Rule Crisis in England* 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. Law and the Idea of Liberty in Ireland from Magna Carta to the Present. Edited by PeterCrooks and ThomasMohr. Dublin: Four Courts Press. 2023. 244 pp. hardback. £50.00. ISBN 9781846827402. 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. The Political Thought of the English Free State, 1649–1653. By MarkkuPeltonen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2023. ix, 263 pp. hardback. £75.00. ISBN. 9781009212045.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1