Later Stuart age, as has been recently noted, saw the emergence (if not the birth) of the public in England. Starting from the methodological assumption that the evolution of political institutions may be stud-ied by exploring either the structural changes in government or the values circulating among the public, this paper chooses the second option, therefore aims to analyse the emergence of the premiership in the public discourse. Here I consider primary sources produced in the context of post-1689 England which show the commentators’ – i.e. political writers, officeholders, journalists, etc. – reactions provoked by this ground-breaking institutional innovation. Much has been written about Robert Walpole’s rise to premiership, though much less about the rise to power of Sidney Godolphin and Robert Harley in the early seventeenth-century, mainly because they are not fully considered yet as Prime Ministers. The emergence of premiership in later Stuart institutional context caused different reactions from contemporaries, not all positive. In fact, part of the public did not welcome the newly formed figure of the Prime Minister. At a time when change was not seen in a particularly favourable light, such a constitutional change shows anyway an important symptom of the beginning of a new political era in which Parliament was becoming more and more entitled to define from time to time what the public interest was.
Nella tarda Età degli Stuart, com’è stato recentemente notato, si assisté all’emersione (se non proprio alla nascita) del pubblico in Inghilterra. Questo saggio cerca di far luce sull’emersione della premiership nel discorso pubblico. A tal proposito prende in considerazione fonti primarie prodotte nel contesto inglese successivamente al 1689, dalle quali emergono le reazioni dei commentatori – scrittori politici, funzionari, giornalisti, e così via – provocate da questa innovazione istituzionale. Molto è stato scritto sull’ascesa di Robert Walpole alla premiership, ma molto meno su quella di Sidney Godolphin e Robert Harley nel primo Settecento, principalmente perché la storiografia di lingua inglese non li considera ancora pienamente come Primi ministri. L’emersione della premiership nel contesto istituzionale della tarda Età Stuart causò reazioni differenti da parte dei contemporanei, non tutte positive. Una parte del pubblico infatti non accolse con favore la figura del Primo ministro che andava delineandosi. In un’epoca in cui il cambiamento non era considerato favorevolmente, questa innovazione costituzionale costituisce ad ogni modo un importante sintomo dell’inizio di una nuova epoca in cui il Parlamento si sentiva sempre più legittimato a definire volta per volta che cosa fosse (o dovesse essere) l’interesse pubblico.
«Who is or who is to be the prime minister»? Premiership e pubblico nell’Inghilterra del primo Settecento
GIURATO, Rocco
2017-01-01
Abstract
Later Stuart age, as has been recently noted, saw the emergence (if not the birth) of the public in England. Starting from the methodological assumption that the evolution of political institutions may be stud-ied by exploring either the structural changes in government or the values circulating among the public, this paper chooses the second option, therefore aims to analyse the emergence of the premiership in the public discourse. Here I consider primary sources produced in the context of post-1689 England which show the commentators’ – i.e. political writers, officeholders, journalists, etc. – reactions provoked by this ground-breaking institutional innovation. Much has been written about Robert Walpole’s rise to premiership, though much less about the rise to power of Sidney Godolphin and Robert Harley in the early seventeenth-century, mainly because they are not fully considered yet as Prime Ministers. The emergence of premiership in later Stuart institutional context caused different reactions from contemporaries, not all positive. In fact, part of the public did not welcome the newly formed figure of the Prime Minister. At a time when change was not seen in a particularly favourable light, such a constitutional change shows anyway an important symptom of the beginning of a new political era in which Parliament was becoming more and more entitled to define from time to time what the public interest was.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.