To see the other types of publications on this topic, follow the link: English Parliamentarism.
Journal articles on the topic 'English Parliamentarism'
Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles
Consult the top 21 journal articles for your research on the topic 'English Parliamentarism.'
Next to every source in the list of references, there is an 'Add to bibliography' button. Press on it, and we will generate automatically the bibliographic reference to the chosen work in the citation style you need: APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver, etc.
You can also download the full text of the academic publication as pdf and read online its abstract whenever available in the metadata.
Browse journal articles on a wide variety of disciplines and organise your bibliography correctly.
1
Pashentsev, Dmitriy A., and Lyubov B. Sitdikova. "On the First European Parliament: The Development of Estate Representative Authorities in England and Spain in the XII to the XIII Centuries." History of state and law 12 (December 3, 2020): 55–60. http://dx.doi.org/10.18572/1812-3805-2020-12-55-60.
Full textAbstract:
It is almost a commonplace that the first European Parliament was the English one. England is a recognized homeland of parliamentarism, democracy, human rights and constitutionalism. These qualities are attributed to England since the adoption of the Magna Carta. But is it a true? This article provides a comparative analysis of the two European parliaments, the English and the Spanish.
2
Leng, Thomas. "The Meanings of “Malignancy”: The Language of Enmity and the Construction of the Parliamentarian Cause in the English Revolution." Journal of British Studies 53, no. 4 (October 2014): 835–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/jbr.2014.109.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractThis article deconstructs a character that was ubiquitous within parliamentarian pamphlet literature in the English civil war: the “malignant,” whose “party” had been identified in the Grand Remonstrance of December 1641 as conspiring to destroy parliament and the true religion. Thereafter, the existence of this party became central to parliamentarian justifications of the war effort and to the activities of radical extra-parliamentary activists. The malignant thus became bound up in contests within the parliamentarian coalition, something reflected by the issuing of new remonstrances by London's Presbyterians, Levellers, and the New Model Army, each of which hinged on the identification of a new enemy. Despite these efforts, the specter of the malignant continued to haunt parliamentarian discourse after the regicide, although its meaning became increasingly ambiguous, symptomatic of the challenges facing the post-regicidal regimes as they sought to transcend the ideological parameters of the civil war in the name of “settlement.”
3
STOYLE, MARK. "THE CANNIBAL CAVALIER: SIR THOMAS LUNSFORD AND THE FASHIONING OF THE ROYALIST ARCHETYPE." Historical Journal 59, no. 2 (December 9, 2015): 293–317. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0018246x15000266.
Full textAbstract:
ABSTRACTThis article re-examines the career of Sir Thomas Lunsford, one of the most notorious royalist officers of the English Civil War. Drawing on a wide range of contemporary sources, it not only casts new light on the pre-war activities of Lunsford himself but also explores the ways in which his blood-thirsty reputation was exploited by parliamentarian polemicists on the eve of the conflict. The article argues that, following the death of the proto-royalist playwright and plotter Sir John Suckling in 1641, Lunsford inherited Suckling's mantle as the archetypal ‘cavalier’, and that it was in association with Sir Thomas's name, rather than Sir John's, that the hostile caricature of the royalist gentleman-at-arms was first introduced to the English population as a whole. The article concludes by exploring the persistent rumours of cannibalism which have swirled around Lunsford's name for the past 370 years – and by demonstrating that, while the claim that Sir Thomas possessed a taste for human flesh may well have originated in the parliamentarian camp, it was, rather surprisingly, royalist writers who subsequently did most to keep his anthropophagical reputation alive.
4
Chung, Youngkwon. "Puritan Lecturers and Anglican Clergymen during the Early Years of the English Civil Wars." Religions 12, no. 1 (January 9, 2021): 44. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/rel12010044.
Full textAbstract:
During the early years of the Civil Wars in England, from February 1642 to July 1643, Puritan parishioners in conjunction with the parliament in London set up approximately 150 divines as weekly preachers, or lecturers, in the city and the provinces. This was an exceptional activity surrounding lectureships including the high number of lecturer appointments made over the relatively brief space of time, especially considering the urgent necessity of making preparations for the looming war and fighting it as well. By examining a range of sources, this article seeks to demonstrate that the Puritan MPs and peers, in cooperation with their supporters from across the country, tactically employed the institutional device of weekly preaching, or lectureships, to neutralize the influence of Anglican clergymen perceived as royalists dissatisfied with the parliamentarian cause, and to bolster Puritan and pro-parliamentarian preaching during the critical years of 1642–1643. If successfully employed, the device of weekly lectureships would have significantly widened the base of support for the parliament during this crucial period when people began to take sides, prepared for war, and fought its first battles. Such a program of lectureships, no doubt, contributed to the increasing polarization of the religious and political climate of the country. More broadly, this study seeks to add to our understanding of an early phase of the conflict that eventually embroiled the entire British Isles in a decade of gruesome internecine warfare.
5
Chung, Youngkwon. "Puritan Lecturers and Anglican Clergymen during the Early Years of the English Civil Wars." Religions 12, no. 1 (January 9, 2021): 44. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/rel12010044.
Full textAbstract:
During the early years of the Civil Wars in England, from February 1642 to July 1643, Puritan parishioners in conjunction with the parliament in London set up approximately 150 divines as weekly preachers, or lecturers, in the city and the provinces. This was an exceptional activity surrounding lectureships including the high number of lecturer appointments made over the relatively brief space of time, especially considering the urgent necessity of making preparations for the looming war and fighting it as well. By examining a range of sources, this article seeks to demonstrate that the Puritan MPs and peers, in cooperation with their supporters from across the country, tactically employed the institutional device of weekly preaching, or lectureships, to neutralize the influence of Anglican clergymen perceived as royalists dissatisfied with the parliamentarian cause, and to bolster Puritan and pro-parliamentarian preaching during the critical years of 1642–1643. If successfully employed, the device of weekly lectureships would have significantly widened the base of support for the parliament during this crucial period when people began to take sides, prepared for war, and fought its first battles. Such a program of lectureships, no doubt, contributed to the increasing polarization of the religious and political climate of the country. More broadly, this study seeks to add to our understanding of an early phase of the conflict that eventually embroiled the entire British Isles in a decade of gruesome internecine warfare.
6
DOWNS, JORDAN S. "THE CURSE OF MEROZ AND THE ENGLISH CIVIL WAR." Historical Journal 57, no. 2 (May 8, 2014): 343–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0018246x13000381.
Full textAbstract:
ABSTRACTThis article attempts to uncover the political significance of the Old Testament verse Judges 5:23, ‘the curse of Meroz’, during the English Civil War. Historians who have commented on the printed text of Meroz have done so primarily in reference to a single edition of the parliamentarian fast-day preacher Stephen Marshall's 1642Meroz cursedsermon. Usage of the curse, however, as shown in more than seventy unique sermons, tracts, histories, libels, and songs considered here, demonstrates that the verse was far more widespread and politically significant than has been previously assumed. Analysing Meroz in its political and polemical roles, from the outbreak of the Irish Rebellion in 1641 and through the Restoration of Charles II in the 1660s, sheds new light on the ways in which providentialism functioned during the Civil Wars, and serves, more specifically, to illustrate some of the important means by which ministers and polemicists sought to mobilize citizens and construct party identities.
7
White, William. "Parliament, print and the politics of disinformation, 1642–3." Historical Research 92, no. 258 (October 9, 2019): 720–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-2281.12289.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract This article explores the political uses of disinformation during the English civil war. It argues that forged and falsified publications formed part of a sophisticated propaganda strategy employed by the parliamentarian war party, aimed at discrediting Charles I during the first months of the conflict. It therefore offers an important corrective to traditional emphases on the anxieties that partisan print engendered. Furthermore, by showing that this strategy drew on both the practices and texts associated with early Stuart scribal opposition to Caroline rule, the article suggests an important link between pre-war manuscript culture and the print practices of the sixteen-forties.
8
EDWARDS, P. R. "The Supply of Horses to the Parliamentarian and Royalist Armies in the English Civil War." Historical Research 68, no. 165 (February 1, 1995): 49–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2281.1995.tb01269.x.
Full text
9
Hopper, Andrew. "‘The Popish Army of the North’: Anti-Catholicism and Parliamentarian Allegiance in Civil War Yorkshire, 1642–46." Recusant History 25, no. 1 (May 2000): 12–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0034193200031964.
Full textAbstract:
By the time of the outbreak of the Civil Wars, may educated British Protestants considered Roman Catholicism to be an anti-religion; indeed, the Cambridge divine William Fulke went so far as to equate it with devil worship. Wealthy and powerful English Catholics attracted extreme hostility in moments of political crisis throughout the early modern period, but in 1642, fear of Roman Catholicism was even used to legitimate the terrible act of rebellion. Keith Lindley has emphasized the civil war neutrality of English Catholics, while many current historians, nervous of displays of religious prejudice, have portrayed the anti-Catholic fears of parliamentarians as cynical propaganda. Michael Finlayson has condemned anti-Catholicism as ‘irrational paranoia’, to be compared with anti-Semitism, which might, had it not been for the growth of liberal traditions in nineteenth-century England, have led to some sort of ‘Final Solution’.
10
WOOD, ANDY. "BEYOND POST-REVISIONISM? THE CIVIL WAR ALLEGIANCES OF THE MINERS OF THE DERBYSHIRE ‘PEAK COUNTRY’." Historical Journal 40, no. 1 (March 1997): 23–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0018246x96006991.
Full textAbstract:
This essay challenges the established interpretation of the political allegiances of the miners of north-west Derbyshire. It shows that, far from being dominated by parliamentarian and puritan ideas in 1642, the miners were deeply divided in their response to the war. Both the king and the parliament were able to recruit troops from amongst the miners throughout the first civil war. From this, a broader critique of recent historical work on popular politics and popular allegiances before and during the English Revolution is mounted. It is argued that ‘post-revisionist’ and Marxian historians have deployed overly schematic and deterministic models of allegiance which frequently fail to reflect the complexity of popular responses to war and revolution in England in the 1640s.
11
LITTLE, PATRICK. "THE IRISH ‘INDEPENDENTS’ AND VISCOUNT LISLE’S LIEUTENANCY OF IRELAND." Historical Journal 44, no. 4 (December 2001): 941–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0018246x01001972.
Full textAbstract:
This article examines the influence of a distinct Irish Protestant faction on parliamentarian policy-making in the mid-1640s – the Irish Independents. These men were not merely clients of parliament’s lord lieutenant, Viscount Lisle, but formed a group with consistent personnel and policies, which can be traced back to the ‘Boyle group’ in the Irish council of the 1620s and 1630s. In the 1640s they came into an alliance with the English Independents, based on common hostility to the Presbyterian party, the Scots, and the supporters of Ormond and Inchiquin in Ireland. This coalition was, however, inherently unstable. Faced with equivocation at Westminster, where Ireland had always been low on the list of priorities, from December 1646 the Irish Independents were forced to take charge of parliament’s Irish policy, and many of the initiatives previously attributed to Lisle in 1646–7 can more properly be laid at their door. In conclusion, it is suggested that the Irish Independents represent a radical strain in Irish Protestantism, which supported Ireland’s closer integration into an ‘English Empire’, and which would see its fulfilment in the unionist agenda developed in the 1650s.
12
PEACEY, J. T. "JOHN LILBURNE AND THE LONG PARLIAMENT." Historical Journal 43, no. 3 (September 2000): 625–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0018246x99001302.
Full textAbstract:
This piece reinterprets the career of the Leveller, John Lilburne, during the English Civil War, by re-examining the official sources pertaining to him, and the multitude of pamphlets written by himself and his enemies. The article recovers the chronology of Lilburne's story, by stripping away the layers of propaganda with which he later surrounded himself. It shows that he had powerful friends at Westminster, and that his tribulations were caused by political rivalries within Westminster rather than his development of a radical political theory. He is shown to have formed part of the ‘Independent alliance’ during the mid-1640s, although his protected position was eventually imperilled by the fracturing of this group after the end of the first Civil War. The aim is to improve not just our understanding of Lilburne, but the complexity of parliamentarian politics during the 1640s.
13
Brownlees, Nicholas. "“He tells us that”." Journal of Historical Pragmatics 18, no. 2 (December 31, 2017): 235–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/jhp.00004.bro.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract In this paper, I examine a form of argumentation employed by one of the most prominent parliamentarian news pamphlets of the English Civil War (1642–1649). The pamphlet in question is Mercurius Britanicus. It was founded to counter through its pages the news that was being published in Mercurius Aulicus, the foremost royalist publication. In its animadversion of Aulicus’s news, Britanicus first repeated the royalist text, and then responded to it. In my study, I shall focus on instances where the not wholly faithful reporting of Aulicus’s text leads to (socio)pragmatic meanings. I have taken into consideration both the wider social context in which the pamphlet writers were writing as well as the immediate situational context – the pamphlet as a genre. In my analysis of Britanicus’s animadversion, I examine titles of courtesy and the omission and substitution of words.
14
CHAMPION, J. A. I. "ENLIGHTENED ERUDITION AND THE POLITICS OF READING IN JOHN TOLAND'S CIRCLE." Historical Journal 49, no. 1 (February 24, 2006): 111–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0018246x05005078.
Full textAbstract:
The dense marginal annotation made by freethinker, John Toland (1670–1722) and republican author and parliamentarian, Sir Robert Molesworth (1656–1725) on a copy of Martin Martin's Western Islands (1716) is an exceptional source for exposing the relationship between elite sociability and intellectual conversation. As an example of collaborative serial reading the case-study is unique, and allows a number of historical enquiries. Contextualizing Toland's and Molesworth's collaborative reading of the Royal Society sponsored work with the political and anticlerical projects both men pursued, the article argues that the surviving annotations are emblematic of the erudite, but still politically engaged, republic of letters of the period. Establishing the polemical engagement with clerical discourses about superstition, credulity, and ‘natural’ knowledge, by examining the literary, intellectual, and personal rhetoric at work in the marginalia, the article explores a case-study of cultural and intellectual debate at work in the early English Enlightenment.
15
Hughes, Ann. "The King, the Parliament, and the Localities during the English Civil War." Journal of British Studies 24, no. 2 (April 1985): 236–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/385833.
Full textAbstract:
Debate over the nature of central-local relationships has played an important part in recent discussion of the origins and course of the English Civil War. It is an oversimplification, but not a caricature, to say that two distinct sets of views are current. The first, and in many ways the most consistent and coherent, arguments are those found in the work of the local historians who have developed the idea of the county community as the most important focus for the activities of the provincial gentry and, in more general form, in Morrill's The Revolt of the Provinces and Hutton's The Royalist War Effort. In this work a clear separation is seen between local and national issues or preoccupations. The majority of the county gentry, and still more the ranks below them, were ill informed about national developments and concerned with the activities of central government mainly as they affected the stability of their local communities. Only a small minority of activists were genuinely committed to the Royalist or the Parliamentarian side in the Civil War; the most characteristic provincial response to the divisions of 1642 was reluctance to become involved, as shown both in widespread neutralism among individuals and in collective attempts at local pacification. Gradually the whole of England was drawn, willy-nilly, into the war, but allegiance was determined largely by contingent military factors: the proximity of London or of the king's army or the relative effectiveness of the small numbers of local partisans.
16
Taylor, David Francis. "Discoveries and Recoveries in the Laboratory of Georgian Theatre." New Theatre Quarterly 27, no. 3 (August 2011): 229–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0266464x11000443.
Full textAbstract:
For a four-month period in 2010 David Francis Taylor worked as a research consultant with the Theatre Royal at Bury St Edmunds, the only working Regency playhouse in Britain. In this article Taylor reflects upon the experiences and insights he acquired over the course of this collaboration. In particular, he indicates how the theatre's restaging of the neglected repertory of the long eighteenth century within the Georgian space of performance can aid theatre historians in understanding the intricate dynamics of the period's theatre architecture and, crucially, the position and agency of its spectatorships. David Francis Taylor is Assistant Professor of English at the University of Toronto. His book Theatres of Opposition, which concerns the theatricality of politics in the career of the playwright-parliamentarian Richard Brinsley Sheridan, will be published next year by Oxford University Press. He has published articles in Eighteenth-Century Studies, European Romantic Review, and the Keats-Shelley Review, and is currently co-editing, with Julia Swindells, the Oxford Handbook to the Georgian Playhouse.
17
Cohn, Haim H. "German Christian Contributions to Jewish Law." Israel Law Review 33, no. 4 (1999): 733–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0021223700016162.
Full textAbstract:
I have chosen for my subject some of the contributions made to Jewish law — in its widest sense — by German Christian scholars of the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries. Some sixty years or more ago I became acquainted with the writings of John Selden, the 17th century English lawyer, parliamentarian and antiquarian, whose books on the Uxor Hebraica and De successionibus ad legem Ebraeorum, and De synedriis, were a revelation to me: for a non-Jewish scholar of that period to be capable of delving into biblical, talmudical and post-talmudical sources and to compare them with other ancient systems of law, was an unexpected feat. It is not only the impeccable command of Hebrew and Aramaic that excites wonder: it is also a sincere and genuine endeavour to comprehend and describe the workings of Jewish law objectively and without religious bias. We shall see that not all theologians always succeeded in suppressing their innate prejudices; there were even a good many who conducted their Judaistic research for hostile purposes (and with those I shall not deal). Even of Selden it was said that he had voiced now and then some antisemitic remarks, but there is no trace of any personal animus in his books on Jewish law.
18
Russell, Conrad. "Issues in the House of Commons 1621–1629: Predictors of Civil War Allegiance." Albion 23, no. 1 (1991): 23–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/4050540.
Full textAbstract:
My past attacks on the use of hindsight as a tool for explaining the parliamentary politics of the 1620s were not based on any desire to evade the task of explaining the English Civil War. They were based on the belief that it was necessary to understand what did happen in the 1620s before it could become possible to use those events to shed light on the English Civil War. The argument was that the search for the causes of the Civil War had impeded any attempt to see the 1620s as they actually were. That was why I attempted to find out what had happened in the 1620s as a task in its own right, before going on to investigate the coming and the causes of the English Civil War.It is only because I have already attempted both these questions, and provided answers at least to my own satisfaction, that I now feel free to look back again at the 1620s, and attempt to ask the question what issues, and what attitudes, distinguish a future Royalist from a future Parliamentarian during those years. This is, of course, a very different question from asking what were the key issues of the 1620s. Very often, the issues that transpire to be the best predictors of Civil War allegiance were, at the time, low-priority and poorly reported issues. Attempts to investigate them are not meant to endow them with an importance they did not necessarily possess at the time, nor to suggest any inevitability about the division of England along the lines they suggest. The Civil War was only one of many ways in which the English body politic might have been divided: under a different king, for example, quite different disagreements might have been forced to the surface as the agenda developed. Yet, once it is granted this is not the only way Englishmen might have been divided, it is still worth asking whether the division that actually surfaced corresponds to any visible division in the politics of the 1620s. None of this is an attempt to reopen the debate on “revisionism” in the 1620s. That debate has now acquired a half life of its own, and this article is not intended to take any part in it. It is, though, inevitably informed by thirteen years' work on the politics of the Long Parliament, and so incorporates perceptions of how different the 1620s were from the 1640s, which no other programme of work could have made equally intense.
19
Plassart, Anna. "Parliamentarism: From Burke to Weber." European Journal of Political Theory, February 16, 2021, 147488512093757. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1474885120937574.
Full textAbstract:
William Selinger’s Parliamentarism: from Burke to Weber aims to redefine our understanding of what it means to live in a free state. It displaces the concept of “democracy” as a (supposedly) central concern for a range of canonical nineteenth-century authors, and demonstrates that another concept, that of “parliamentarism”, stood at the core of many European liberal writers’ quest for liberty. Selinger shows that Montesquieu’s description of a “balanced” English constitution protected by a system of checks and balances was challenged by a number of contemporary observers of British politics (including Jean-Louis de Lolme and Edmund Burke), who elaborated rival accounts emphasizing instead the dominant position of a powerful representative assembly which mirrored the nation it represented. The resulting doctrine of “parliamentarism”, the book demonstrates through a series of case studies that include Tocqueville, Mill and Weber, subsequently became the “dominant paradigm of a free state across Europe” (p. 9) in the nineteenth century.
20
Orakhelashvili, Alexander. "Parliamentary Sovereignty – A Doctrine Unfit for Purpose." ICL Journal 9, no. 4 (January 1, 2015). http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/icl-2015-0403.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractParliamentary sovereignty in the British constitutional context is expressive of the utilitarian philosophy which dictates that government is there to gratify the wishes and interests of the majority to the greatest extent possible. This approach, at times cast in more moderate terms as ‘democratic legitimacy’, arguably reflects the majoritarian underpinnings of British parliamentarism. A close look on the workings of ‘parliamentary sovereignty’ reveals, however, that its discrete constitutional relevance is not great. Courts in the English legal system retain their full-fl edged law-making power, and are entitled to balance the legislation-backed public utility by common law constitutional considerations. The examination of the relevant aspects of English law shows that parliamentary sovereignty is neither sufficient nor necessary for properly articulating and giving effect to the demands of public utility.
21
Fullerton, Samuel. "John Pym and Libellous Politics in Early Civil War England." Historical Journal, July 9, 2021, 1–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0018246x21000534.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract This article explores the royalist libels that afflicted the parliamentarian leader John Pym during the early 1640s to argue that the period marked an important turning point in English libellous politics. First, like many of the political libels circulating in early Civil War England, royalist attacks against Pym transitioned unsteadily from manuscript to cheap print and then finally into official court-sponsored publications throughout the period as contemporaries grew more comfortable with openly libellous language. That medial transformation, in turn, was informed by a broader personalization of politics that drew on early Stuart modes of ‘politic thinking’ to frame the nascent military conflict as a battle of rival political personalities. Both contexts informed the creation and dissemination of the most vicious anti-Pym libel of the period: an allegation that Pym's mother had once committed the act of bestiality with a horse, and that Pym himself was the miscegenated result of their illicit union. Rather than a spurious invention, moreover, the horse libel in fact possessed tangible roots in an embarrassing episode of Pym's family history thirty years prior. Consequently, it demonstrates the importance of oral and scribal transmission alike in shaping and sustaining the vitriolic libellous politics of early Civil War England.