| Abstract: | The name of William Stubbs will forever be associated with the birth of modern scholarship on the late medieval English parliament. At the core of his Constitutional History, a three‐volume work published in the 1870s, is a brilliant synthesis of the development of the early parliament. Since its publication, however, Stubbs's work has generated varied reactions, as scholars have positioned themselves at different points on a sliding scale of praise through to criticism; that is, between praising the Constitutional History for its depth of scholarship and pioneering methodologies, on the one hand, to criticising the work for its present‐minded approach and whiggish agenda, on the other. The aim of this discussion is to strike a balance between these two extremes. While it acknowledges the undoubted flaws of Stubbs's narrative, it also argues for a more nuanced and holistic approach to his work. It suggests that the taint of whiggism has for too long acted as a barrier to a true appreciation of the scholarly merit of the work, merit that extends beyond simply acknowledging its ambition, originality and legacy. The discussion considers some key areas of parliamentary development between c.1290 and c.1406 and notes the continued synergies that exist between what Stubbs wrote 140 years ago and current interpretations and understandings. |
