Resultado de búsqueda
14 de feb. de 2022 · The Short Parliament met in April 1640 for only three weeks and achieved nothing except upsetting the king when John Pym made a speech on 17 April calling for more powers for Parliament and the protection of MPs' privilege of independence, a defence of the Anglican Church, and an end to illegal taxation (taxes raised without the authority of Parliament).
3 de feb. de 2021 · The book scoped out the power of John Pym, but also its limitations, and introduced to scholarly debate a categorisation of political groupings in 1642–3 that held sway for 40 years. The first direct attacks on Hexter's work, beginning in the 1980s, were weakened by overstatement.
issues in Pym's intellectual makeup', and asserts that he 'was not much interested in the privileges of Parliament, and even the rule of law perhaps mattered to him more because it guaranteed the true religion in England than for any other reason'.2 I. Conrad Russell, 'The Parliamentary Career of John Pym, I62I-I629', in TheEnglish Commonwealth,
John Pym (aliejus, 1640, dailininkas E. Boweris) 1641 J. Pymas buvo vienas iškiliausių Parlamento deputatų, remiančių Didžiąją remonstraciją , kurioje reikalauta valstybės valdymo reformos (dėl to J. Pymas buvo vienas iš Karoliui I labiausiai nepriimtinų penkių deputatų, kuriuos jis veltui siekė suimti).
John Pym, who was born in 1584 and died in December 1643, was one of the most important Parliamentary figures in the years leading up to the outbreak of the Civil Wars.. He earned a reputation as a parliamentary revolutionary, leading opposition to the arbitrary rule of Charles I. Throughout this time, Pym’s leadership in the Commons was vital for the Parliamentary cause and as a result ...
Historians give John Pym due credit as a successful Parliamentarian; rhetorical critics examine Pym's prowess as an orator. Both perspectives focus on Pym's management of issues of the day and do not account for his masterful appropriation of
8 de jun. de 2009 · Abstract. Historians give John Pym due credit as a successful Parliamentarian; rhetorical critics examine Pym's prowess as an orator. Both perspectives focus on Pym's management of issues of the day and do not account for his masterful appropriation of political language.
