捏造意见:诺森伯兰公爵向议会请愿反对1831年改革法案的捐款运动

Q2 Arts and Humanities
David Zaret
{"title":"捏造意见:诺森伯兰公爵向议会请愿反对1831年改革法案的捐款运动","authors":"David Zaret","doi":"10.1080/02606755.2022.2084292","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT During the first five months of the new Grey administration (22 November to the 22 April 1831 dissolution), parliament received more petitions over the contentious issue of parliamentary reform than in any prior episode of mass petitioning. This case study uses unusual records with granular evidence from the professional management of a reactionary campaign for petitions against the 1831 Reform Bill. The records are from the law firm that managed the campaign, underwritten by the Duke of Northumberland, one of the realms richest magnates. The duke’s initiative proceeded despite negative assessments by local Tory leaders, who correctly predicted the petitions would get few signatures and be a public relations disaster. The duke’s initiative received more derisive publicity than any other petition campaign in this first phase of the Reform Bill’s political odyssey. This study of a failed petition campaign does not alter what we know about the substance or progress of legislation that became the 1832 Reform Act. Instead, it sheds new light on the broader issue of change and continuity in public petitioning with regard to 1) the credibility of opinion represented in petitions and 2) professional management of mass petition campaigns as routine legal practice.","PeriodicalId":53586,"journal":{"name":"Parliaments, Estates and Representation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Fabricating opinion: the Duke of Northumberland’s subscription campaign for petitions to parliament against the 1831 Reform Bill\",\"authors\":\"David Zaret\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/02606755.2022.2084292\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT During the first five months of the new Grey administration (22 November to the 22 April 1831 dissolution), parliament received more petitions over the contentious issue of parliamentary reform than in any prior episode of mass petitioning. This case study uses unusual records with granular evidence from the professional management of a reactionary campaign for petitions against the 1831 Reform Bill. The records are from the law firm that managed the campaign, underwritten by the Duke of Northumberland, one of the realms richest magnates. The duke’s initiative proceeded despite negative assessments by local Tory leaders, who correctly predicted the petitions would get few signatures and be a public relations disaster. The duke’s initiative received more derisive publicity than any other petition campaign in this first phase of the Reform Bill’s political odyssey. This study of a failed petition campaign does not alter what we know about the substance or progress of legislation that became the 1832 Reform Act. Instead, it sheds new light on the broader issue of change and continuity in public petitioning with regard to 1) the credibility of opinion represented in petitions and 2) professional management of mass petition campaigns as routine legal practice.\",\"PeriodicalId\":53586,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Parliaments, Estates and Representation\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-05-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Parliaments, Estates and Representation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/02606755.2022.2084292\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Parliaments, Estates and Representation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02606755.2022.2084292","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在格雷新政府的前五个月(11月22日至1831年4月22日解散),议会收到的关于议会改革的请愿比以往任何一次大规模请愿都要多。本案例研究使用了不同寻常的记录和细致的证据,这些证据来自反对1831年改革法案的请愿运动的专业管理。这些记录来自管理竞选活动的律师事务所,由诺森伯兰郡公爵(Duke of Northumberland)赞助,他是英国最富有的大亨之一。尽管当地保守党领袖做出了负面评价,公爵的倡议仍在继续,他们正确地预测到请愿书将获得很少的签名,并成为一场公共关系灾难。在改革法案的政治旅程的第一阶段,公爵的倡议比任何其他请愿活动都受到了更多的嘲讽。对一次失败的请愿运动的研究并没有改变我们对1832年改革法案的实质或立法进展的了解。相反,它揭示了公众请愿的变化和连续性这一更广泛的问题:1)请愿所代表的意见的可信度和2)大规模请愿运动作为常规法律实践的专业管理。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Fabricating opinion: the Duke of Northumberland’s subscription campaign for petitions to parliament against the 1831 Reform Bill
ABSTRACT During the first five months of the new Grey administration (22 November to the 22 April 1831 dissolution), parliament received more petitions over the contentious issue of parliamentary reform than in any prior episode of mass petitioning. This case study uses unusual records with granular evidence from the professional management of a reactionary campaign for petitions against the 1831 Reform Bill. The records are from the law firm that managed the campaign, underwritten by the Duke of Northumberland, one of the realms richest magnates. The duke’s initiative proceeded despite negative assessments by local Tory leaders, who correctly predicted the petitions would get few signatures and be a public relations disaster. The duke’s initiative received more derisive publicity than any other petition campaign in this first phase of the Reform Bill’s political odyssey. This study of a failed petition campaign does not alter what we know about the substance or progress of legislation that became the 1832 Reform Act. Instead, it sheds new light on the broader issue of change and continuity in public petitioning with regard to 1) the credibility of opinion represented in petitions and 2) professional management of mass petition campaigns as routine legal practice.
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
Parliaments, Estates and Representation
Parliaments, Estates and Representation Social Sciences-Sociology and Political Science
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
28
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信