Petitionary Negotiation in a Community in Conflict: King’s Lynn and West Norfolk \nc.1575 to 1662
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines petitions which originated in Norfolk during the first half of the seventeenth century. It asks three questions: How and by whom were petitions used? What do those petitions reveal about power relations and social values? What was the impact of the civil war and the interregnum on petitionary negotiations? Detailed research focuses on Norfolk in general and King’s Lynn in particular. \nPetitioners sought places and advancement, as well as redress for ills and injustices. Petitions were indicators of where authority and responsibility were perceived to lie, but also of the status of the petitioners and their right to be heard. Petitions also helped to reflect and generate socio-political expectations and values. The persistence of petitioning, even in times of greatest conflict, indicates the high value placed on this form of interactive negotiation. \nThe background to individual petitions is shown by a review of the political environments of petitioning and the process of petitioning examined for the period c.1600-1640. The study identifies a network of Norfolk arbitrators to whom the crown and petitioners turned for assistance. \nPetitions to Norfolk Quarter Sessions from 1629 to 1660 provide evidence of social values and accountability, while a study compares the varied impact of the civil wars on petitioners to Quarter Sessions in Norfolk, Warwickshire and Essex. \nTwo printed petitions are put into a local context. The first, called here the Merchants’ Manifesto, was published on behalf of the Borough of King’s Lynn in 1642 and reflects the concerns of the borough over the previous ten years. This is followed by an exploration of the town’s continued use of petitioning in its negotiations with Parliament in the years to 1662. West Norfolk women who signed a national anti-tithe petition, published in 1659, are identified and the impact of the petition on the Norfolk political community is discussed. A further case study looks at the complex issues underlying a comparatively straightforward petition against marshland enclosure.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".