‘Particular Businesses’ in the Long Parliament: The Hull Letters 1644–1648
One of the least studied aspects of the Long Parliament is its role in addressing the legislative needs of private or sectional interests such as trading companies and borough corporations. In the field of parliamentary studies, the dissolution of the 1628–9 Parliament represents a major watershed. The pioneering work of Geoffrey Elton, Conrad Russell and others has allowed us to appreciate a long-overlooked facet of Parliaments before 1629 – their function as a ‘market-place of legislative business’. But the Parliaments called after the collapse of the Personal Rule tend to be scrutinised in a very different light. Understandably, perhaps, the focus is almost exclusively upon the debates and factionalism that attended the nation's slide into civil war and subsequent endeavours to restore peace. The general assumption among historians of the civil war period is diat the two Houses were so preoccupied with the great issues of the moment that they had little time to devote to any business of a more private nature. There is certainly no denying that the Long Parliament was often consumed with ‘greate & weightie affaires’, nor diat many of the MPs who remained at Westminster after the outbreak of war were under little pressure to promote the interests of their constituents or indeed of any private individuals. Even so, where the relationship between a serving Parliament-man and those who had elected him remained strong, it is unlikely diat he could have ignored entirely his obligation to act as their spokesman and lobbyist. One of the best and yet most neglected sources for examining the role of MPs as promoters of ‘particular businesses’ in the Long Parliament is the Hull letters.