Based on a large array of petitions from the National Iranian Archives, the paper offers a historiographic revision of the constitutional revolution in a thorough attempt at history from below. The general historiography considers expansion of the public sphere, freedoms and rights, secularization, institutionalization of parliamentarianism, elections, and constitution writing as that movement’s greatest democratic achievements. Intellectual history, the contemporary erudite press, and the global discourse of Enlightenment are central to the construction of this narrative. Analysis of petitions complements this narrative in a radical new way. Attending to the public practices of petitioning and organization through associations (anjumans), the study offers an expanded definition of the public sphere, rights, agency, and political freedoms in practice. Furthermore, it tackles a question never answered adequately: why was the Iranian public in awe of the Assembly? The movement originated in the public call for the houses of justice throughout Iran, a demand that resulted in a parliament after intelligentsia’s intervention. Yet, the public continued to treat the Assembly as a house of justice and a place where the petitioners addressed the source of justice for redress of grievances. This institution, better known as the majlis-i mazalim within Islamic history, was now addressed collectively and not individually. Furthermore, petitions everywhere carried a remarkably consistent message: an end to the onerous local taxes. The Assembly, despite initial reluctance to assume a traditionalist role, soon went along out of fear of losing public trust. Its compliance provided the public with an astonishingly direct communication line with the highest civil authorities in the land such as the ministers and Prime Ministers. The petitions thus initiated intense bargaining and negotiations between the cabinet, the local officials, the Assembly, the public, and the local associations resulting in an untold number of small and large local victories. Beyond managing to moderate the taxes, the public replaced many hostile local officials (e.g., the governors, tax collectors) with favorable ones and checked the notorious local elites’ activities, among other gains. In the process, the public attained a new sense of agency often in cooperation with the local associations and their national networks. The practice of collective petitioning, and national exposure of demands through multiple venues (the Assembly, the popular press, other associations, etc.) signaled an alternative public sphere in the making. The study exposes a new democratic culture of politics that emerged ironically by recourse to traditional means.