“And in London they gathered menacing clouds. On the day when the king was transported to Unidzor, the lower house was deciding the question: should the king of England be put on trial?
Under pressure from the army, parliament was forced to break with the king; in December 1647, the so-called “four bills” were presented, which made the king even more powerless, and when, at the same time, new attempts by Charles to escape were revealed, parliament decided to stop all relations with him.
During the period from the end of 1647 to the end of 1648, there were many clashes between royalists - adherents of the king - and their opponents - adherents of the Roundheads.
Towards the end of 1648, Ayrton prepared a document demanding the king's trial and execution for treason.
When this manifesto was read at the officers' council, the officers reacted unsympathetically to it; even officers such as Fairfax, who fought against Charles, insisted on an agreement with the king. And the lower house tried as much as possible to delay the discussion of the manifesto, because among the members the majority consisted of moderate Presbyterians who did not sympathize with it. But the army supported the demand for execution.
In the end, an agreement was worked out between the grandees and people's party Levellers, and in November 1648 it was decided to put the king on trial. This decision had to be passed through parliament, but this was not easy to do, since the composition of parliament was very diverse. 
On December 2, the army entered London and occupied all the exits to Parliament. After the “purge”, which removed one hundred and thirty people from parliament, about a hundred members remained in it, who were an obedient tool in the hands of the army. Then the trial of the king began. It was first decided that on January 20 the king should appear before the court in Westminster Hall.
Cromwell lived in Whitehall from December 7, in former chambers king. He hardly ate, did not sleep, and studied all day; From morning to evening he was besieged by visitors on urgent business. He almost never showed up in the family, who continued to live in a house near the Church of St. Pavel.
Karl's office now took on an unrecognizable appearance. All decorations were removed from the table; the carpets are rolled up; on the tables and chairs, in the window niche, there were piles of papers lying everywhere. Only from the walls, from the gilded frames of old portraits, they looked in surprise arrogant faces former monarchs.
The candles on the work table burned dimly. Cromwell wrote hastily, and a poorly dressed old woman stood in front of him.
- So, tomorrow you will repeat again in front of the parliament bars what you said today in the square?
“I’ll say so, Mr. Cromwell: “By the testimony of God himself, I tell you that the path chosen by your favors is the path of truth, to the glory of God!”
She extended her hand forward and, shaking it, suddenly shouted in a shrill voice:
- The Lord showed me his grace by revelation! The sky opened and a menacing voice was heard: “My will be done!” May the head of the traitor, Charles Stuart, fall.
Cromwell listened attentively.
“Okay, Idonia,” he said, “go, you will stay in Whitehall until tomorrow, and tomorrow I will take you to parliament.”
He opened the door for her. The old woman crossed the threshold with a shuffling nervous gait and disappeared.
Eleven days have passed. From early morning, people began to gather in front of Whitehall, but the cavalry soon occupied the entire square, all the neighboring streets and entrances to Whitehall, drove out the crowd and surrounded the platform, covered with black cloth.
On the main avenue, infantry lined up in two rows full form. The snow in the alley was trampled; Frost fell from the trees onto the shoulders and heads of the soldiers; Everyone's gaze was directed to the end of the alley, where the open doors of St. James's Palace faintly darkened.<...>
In the park, the soldiers did not drive the people away, but they did not answer a word either: their superiors ordered them to remain completely silent.
Hours passed in agonizing anticipation; at last the drum beat loudly; a detachment of halberdiers appeared at the palace; They walked along the alley with even, long steps, their banners unfurled. Karl appeared behind them.
The king walked with his head held high. He was wearing a formal dress, and his head was carefully combed.<...>
The king walked with a firm step to the sound of drums, next to Bishop Jackson; on the other side of him, with his head bare, followed Colonel Tomlison, the chief of the guard.
Karl slowly looked around the square; he expected to see the people for whom he had prepared his last word. After all, this is all that is now left for this man, who so loved the external effect, loved to play a role, to be the center of attention. He played last time in life and wanted the role to be majestic and beautiful. But all around the scaffold only the guards were visible. At the scaffold, high above the crowd, two gloomy masked figures rose. One of the executioners was leaning on an ax, and it sparkled with a dazzling brilliance in the winter sun.
The king stepped onto the scaffold.
“You alone can hear me,” he said to Jackson and Tomlison, “that’s why I’m turning to you.”
Karl did not speak for long; his speech was important and cold. He went to his death, sincerely considering himself a martyr, and even at this terrible moment he was not aware of his mistakes; he thought that the real reason people's disasters were disrespect for the rights of the sovereign; that the people should not participate in government and that only under this condition can peace and freedom be established in England.
During his speech, one of the officers standing at the scaffold touched his axe. Karl shuddered; his face shook.
“Don’t spoil it,” he said quietly, “it will hurt me more.” Then he calmly finished his speech.
At last word It seemed to him that someone behind him again moved the ax. He quickly turned around and his pale lips sternly whispered a reproach to the one who decided to joke with death:
- Be careful! Beware!
At a sign from Karl, Colonel Tomlison handed him a silk cap. In deep silence, he put it on his head and simply addressed the executioner:
- Doesn't hair get in the way?
The executioner bowed.
- I ask Your Majesty to match them to your cap.
Jackson helped me pick out the hair well.
Karl unbuttoned his camisole slowly; asking him into Tomlison's arms, he looked at the block.
“Put it firmly,” he told the executioner.
- She stands firm, Your Majesty.
- I'll say a little prayer, and when I stretch out my hands, then...
Karl knelt down, then slowly laid his head on the block.
“Wait for a sign,” he said.
- I will wait as long as our Majesty pleases.
The king held out his hands. An ax flashed in the air; Karl's head rolled off after the first blow. The executioner lifted her high into the air shouting:
- Here is the head of a state traitor!
// Altaev Al. Great Mutiny: historical novel from the time of Oliver Cromwell.
There are few processes in history that would have such an impact strong influence not only on contemporaries, but also on subsequent generations, like the trial and execution of the English king Charles I.
During his reign, Charles I did everything to embitter and turn his people against himself. For more than eighteen years no Parliament was convened in England. Karl surrounded himself with new advisers, very unpopular among the people. Westword was a friend of Spain and Rome, Laud was such a zealous Catholic that Pope Urban offered him the cardinal's hat.
Charles ruled England with fear and force. Prison, corporal punishment, and hard labor reigned everywhere. Obedient courts forced the people to accept Catholicism. Horse detachments were sent to the provinces to collect taxes. On Karl's orders, people were grabbed, flogged, their noses and ears were cut off, and their cheeks were burned out.
Even before this, monarchs were often forcibly overthrown from the throne, many of them ended their lives under the executioner’s ax, but they were always declared usurpers of the throne - they were deprived of their lives, but on the orders of another, declared legitimate sovereign.
When Charles I's grandmother, Mary Stuart, was tried, it was impossible to find suitable judicial precedents, although we were not talking about the reigning queen, who, moreover, was tried in another country and at the behest of the monarch of the country, where she spent almost two decades in prison.
The trial of Charles I amazed the imagination by the strength of character of the enemies who faced each other in this case. Charles could be accused of many things: in the desire to establish royal absolutism of a foreign type on English soil, and in complete unscrupulousness in means, and in readiness for any perjury, for cynically trampling on the most solemn promises, for conspiring with the enemies of the country and for betraying his most important people. loyal supporters.
But one cannot deny Karl his indomitable energy, his conviction in the justice of his grandfather, and the fact that the evil means he used serve a good purpose. Already in his dying speech from the scaffold, he declared to the assembled crowd: “I must tell you that your liberties and freedom are contained in the presence of a government, in those laws that best ensure your life and the safety of property.
This does not stem from participation in management, which in no way belongs to you. Subject and sovereign - this is completely various concepts" A few minutes before his execution, Charles continued to defend absolutism with the same stubbornness as in the years of the greatest heyday of his power.
The revolutionaries had to mature for the struggle and for triumph over such a convinced enemy, behind whom stood centuries-old traditions, habits and customs of many generations. There is no doubt that only pressure from below, from the people, prompted the leaders of the parliamentary army - Oliver Cromwell and his like-minded people - to deepen the revolution, to eliminate the monarchy and proclaim a republic.
The London crowd was also irritated by the selfish policies of Parliament. Discontent was caused by the growing burden of taxes and the ruin associated with many years of civil war. A large number of parliamentary politicians were afraid of the people and were ready to cling to the monarchy as a possible ally.
The House of Lords refused to decide whether to bring Charles to trial. The House of Commons, purged of supporters of the agreement with the king, appointed 135 persons as judges. Their loyalty, it was believed, could be relied upon. But 50 of them immediately refused the appointment, most of the rest, under various pretexts, did not sign the verdict.
The iron will of Cromwell and his inner circle was needed to overcome the fears of some, the objections of others, the intrigues and selfish calculations of others and decide on an emergency measure that struck Europe.
However, to conduct a trial of the king in accordance with constitutional principles, which specifically included the lack of accountability of the monarch to his subjects for his actions, was a hopeless task in advance.
Moreover, for Charles I, who was also trying to essentially change the form of government in England following the example of continental absolutism, the constitutional ground was the most convenient for challenging the competence of the court.
Chief Justice Braidshaw announced to “Charles Stuart, King of England” that he would be tried by the decision of the English people and their Parliament for treason.
Charles was charged with the fact that, having been recognized as King of England and therefore endowed limited power and the right to govern according to the laws of the land, maliciously sought unlimited and tyrannical power, and for this purpose treacherously waged war against Parliament.
For his part, Charles demanded to know to what legal authority he was obliged to give an account of his actions (knowing full well that such authority does not exist according to the constitution). “Remember that I am your king, the rightful king,” Charles insisted. - England has never been a state with an elected king.
For almost a thousand years it was a hereditary monarchy." The king further announced that he stands for the “correctly understood” right of the House of Commons, but that without the House of Lords it does not form a parliament. “Show me,” added the king, “legal authority, confirmed by the word of God, the Holy Scriptures, or the constitution of the kingdom, and I will answer.” Karl tried all the constitutional arguments and all the arguments from Holy Scripture, with which his opponents operated, to turn against them.
The results of the verbal duel on the first day were not very encouraging. The “constitutional” argumentation of the prosecution immediately revealed its weaknesses, and this gave additional grounds for the hesitant to express their doubts. But it also strengthened the resolve of people like Attorney Cook, who said: “He must die, and the monarchy must die with him.”
On Monday morning, 62 judges met in private to discuss how to respond to the king's challenge to the court's authority. And again it was decided to maintain the appearance of constitutionality of his actions, compliance with traditional law. The king's further refusal to answer the question of whether he pleads guilty was decided to be considered an affirmative answer.
The second regular court session opened in the afternoon. Braidshaw told the king that the court would not allow its authority to be questioned. Charles again raised objections of a constitutional nature: according to the law, the monarch cannot be a criminal, the House of Commons does not have judiciary. The debate began again. On Tuesday, at a private meeting, it was again decided to give the king another opportunity to answer the charge if he agreed to accept the authority of the court. IN otherwise The verdict will be pronounced on the morning of January 24.
The political situation did not allow the court and the independent army leadership behind it to neglect the opportunity to prove the king’s guilt. For this purpose, in the absence of the defendant, a hearing was held of witnesses who revealed Charles’s role in waging the civil war, his violation of the agreements concluded, and the king’s intercepted correspondence was cited, which testified to his intention to deal with his opponents at the first opportunity.
On January 27, Karl was brought into the courtroom again. The king, knowing full well that everything was prepared for the verdict, tried to disrupt the planned course of the meeting with a speech addressed to the judges. Braidshaw forbade him to speak. Since, he said, the accused refuses to answer the question of whether he pleads guilty, it remains for the court to pronounce a sentence. The accused may be given the floor if he does not resume the dispute about the powers of the court. Without entering into a discussion, the king, however, confirmed that he denied the right to judge him. Again, some judges doubted the legality of their actions. But Cromwell managed to rally the overwhelming majority of the court members.
When the meeting resumed, Charles, taking into account the situation, demanded that parliament listen to his new proposals. Braidshaw rejected this latest maneuver by the king. In his final speech, the chairman of the court again recalled Charles’s crimes against the English people, his violation of the treaty that binds the monarch with his subjects, and inciting a civil war.
The verdict, read by the clerk of the court, read: “The said Charles Stuart, as a tyrant, traitor, murderer and public enemy, will be put to death by cutting off the head from the body.”
The few days that separated the verdict from the execution were filled with feverish activity by royalists and foreign diplomats trying to obtain a reprieve or review of the sentence. Rumors spread in London that even the executioner refused to perform his duties and that Cromwell himself would play his role.
The executioner and his assistant were indeed wearing masks, obviously so that later they would be able, if necessary, to deny their participation in the regicide, but for now, to avoid a blow with a dagger, which could always be delivered from around the corner by the hand of some gentleman. On January 30, Charles I ascended the scaffold.
Parliament immediately passed a law prohibiting the proclamation of the heir of an executed monarch as king. The order to carry out the death sentence directly stated that the person to be executed was the “King of England.” And the executioner, even on the scaffold, referred to Charles only as “Your Majesty.”
The desire of kings to absolute power undermined the authority of the British crown, as during the government Charles I, and during the reign of his father James I. declared the divine right of monarchs to answer only to God. This caused concern in the House of Commons (English Parliament), which then consisted mainly of Puritans (Calvinists) who did not want to lose their independence.
Due to confrontation with parliament did not convene it for 11 years and ruled alone. At this time, fleeing persecution, the country left big number Puritans, many of whom moved to New England and other regions of North America.
Since England's finances were controlled by Parliament, the king was forced to raise money on his own. He pawned the crown jewels, sold government positions, restored a number of archaic feudal duties and introduced many new taxes, which caused indignation among the population.
The sole reign of the king ended when he tried to spread the so-called creed he professed. high church (a movement of the English church that retained many features of Catholicism) to Scotland. The king's decision led to an uprising of the Scots, who managed to capture part of Northern England. Charles did not have the financial ability to pay for military actions against them and was forced to create a parliament, providing in exchange for the money he needed almost all the powers required by parliament.
Karl was not a man of his word and soon broke the agreement. The last straw was the king's refusal to transfer promised control over the army to parliament. In August 1642, a civil war broke out between the royalists, or “Cavaliers,” and the supporters of Parliament, the “Roundheads.” After several years of fighting, the parliament was victorious and the king was captured.
Execution of Charles I
In December 1648, one of the leaders of parliament, Oliver Cromwell, held the so-called. purge, leaving only 67 people there, after which he accused Charles of treason and “other grave crimes against England.” The remaining members of parliament are the so-called. "rump", formed a court before which the king had to appear. Although by this time the king was hated by many of his subjects, his trial was perceived as a violation of justice, because not all members of parliament were present at the trial.
The king's supporters were deliberately excluded from participating in the process. Charles refused to recognize the legality of the court, declaring that on Earth the king was not subject to the jurisdiction of anyone. Therefore, he refused the defense, declaring that he thereby stood for “the freedom of the people of England.” This answer was perceived as an admission of guilt, and on January 27, 1649, Judge John Bradshaw announced the death sentence: to execute Charles I as a tyrant, traitor and enemy of the people.
The order to hold it was signed by 57 members of parliament. King Charles I of England was beheaded on the scaffold on Whitehall Street in London on the morning of Tuesday, January 30, 1649. According to eyewitnesses, the king accepted death without fear. The day was cold, there was snow on the ground, and before his execution, Karl asked for warm clothes - “in this weather I can shake from the cold, and people will think that I am shaking from fear. I wouldn't want that." The blow of the ax was followed by a loud groan from the crowd; it seemed that people believed until the last that the execution would not take place.
This term has other meanings, see Charles II. Charles II Charles II ... Wikipedia
King of England and Scotland from the Stuart dynasty, who reigned from 1625 to 1648. Son of James 1 and Anne of Denmark. J.: from June 12, 1625 Henrietta Maria, daughter of King Henry IV of France (b. 1609, d. 1669). Genus. November 29, 1600, d. 30 Jan 1649… … All the monarchs of the world
King of England and Scotland from the Stuart dynasty, who reigned from 1660 to 1685. Son of Charles I and Henrietta of France. J.: from 1662 Catherine, daughter of King John IV of Portugal (b. 1638, d. 1705). Genus. 29 May 1630, d. 16 Feb 1685 In the very… All the monarchs of the world
Charles I of Anjou Charles I d Anjou Statue of Charles of Anjou on the facade of the royal palace in Naples ... Wikipedia
King of Spain from the Bourbon dynasty, who reigned from 1788 to 1808. J.: from 1765 Maria Louise, daughter of Duke Philip of Parma (b. 1751, d. 1819) b. November 11, 1748, d. 19 Jan 1819 Before ascending the throne, Charles lived completely idle... All the monarchs of the world
Wikipedia has articles about other people named Karl. Charles VI the Mad Charles VI le Fol, ou le Bien Aimé ... Wikipedia
This term has other meanings, see Charles II. Charles II Carlos II ... Wikipedia
Introduction
Chapter 1
§1 Personality of KarlI
§2 Economic development of England at the endXVI- beginningXVIIcenturies
§3 Charles's contradictionsIwith parliament
§4 Second and third parliament
§5 “Parliamentary” rule of CharlesI
§6 Karl's RelationshipsIwith Scotland. "Short" parliament
Chapter 2
§1 “Long” Parliament
§2 Earl of Strafford
§3 Karl's struggleIand parliament
§4 First Civil War
§5 KarlIcaptive of parliament
§6 Second Civil War
Introduction
The history of mankind knows dates that are raised high above a series of not only years, but also centuries, dates that mark the battles of peoples for freedom. One of them is the Great English Revolution of the mid-17th century.
This work is dedicated to English Revolution XVII century and in particular the personality of Charles I, the king of England, who reigned from 1625. to 1649 In my opinion, this topic is relevant because events of this kind, such as the war between the king and parliament, the dictatorship of the latter, as well as the execution of the monarch himself, Europe in the 17th century. I didn't know yet. The experience of the English state became a legislator on the issue of revolution for most European states. Of course, no one doubts the role and significance of Karl himself in all these events. Both foreign and domestic historians tried to assess these events, understand what was happening in England and relate it to the personality of Charles I.
Francois Guizot saw in Karl a decent, honest and good-natured person, inclined towards art rather than politics.
In British historiography, there are several traditional models regarding the understanding of the causes, nature and consequences of the English Revolution of the 17th century. At the heart of the constitutional-political explanation is a focus on the confrontation between Parliament and the Crown, as well as on the strengthening of the role of the House of Commons. This approach, in turn, is divided into “Whig” and “functionalist” directions. The religious direction includes a conviction in the growing influence of Puritanism or, on the contrary, the Lodo-Armenian “counter-revolution”. The socio-economic explanation is traditionally followed by Marxists (A. Morton, B. Manning, early K. Hill). There is also an eclectic trend characteristic of L. Stone and the late K. Hill.
The 50s – 70s were marked by a departure from traditional political-religious-economic approaches to the study of the history of the English Revolution at the “macro” or national level 1 .
Around the same time, the “revisionist” trend appeared. It is characterized by a statement about the absence of any long-term social or economic changes, any social division between the parties during the civil war is denied. From this it is concluded that there are no deep reasons revolution, which in turn did not have its own “nature” and consequences.
To achieve the goal of my work, I set myself the following tasks:
Personality characteristics of Charles as a person, politician, monarch.
Studying the reasons for Charles's struggle with parliament.
To trace the formation of Karl’s personal views under unparliamentary rule.
Karl's policy is the path to revolution.
The reasons for the defeat of Charles I in the political struggle.
1 J. E. Aylmer. Questions of history. – 1998. No. 6. – P.142, 143
ChapterI
Absolutism in English.
§1. Charles I was born on November 19, 1600. at Dumfernline Castle, his parents were the Scottish King James I and Queen Anne of Denmark. Charles was the third surviving royal child. The elder brother, Henry, born in 1594, was the heir to whom all attention was given: he was prepared to worthily take his place by right of birth. The second was sister Karl-Elizabeth, born in 1596.
From birth, Karl was a weak and sickly child. Until he was two and a half years old, he could not walk at all, and later, until four years moved only with outside help. This was a consequence of rickets.
Karl also had another physical disability. He stuttered severely all his life, and this made it difficult for the ruler to communicate so important, because... more often he preferred to remain silent when a strong word from the monarch was required. 2 Perhaps because of this, some modern researchers are inclined to believe that it is psychological condition Carla played key role in the revolution that happened.
In March 1603 Queen Elizabeth I died, and James inherited the throne, but Charles did not dare to take him to London and he remained in Scotland for more than a year. But even after that, already in England, he was rarely brought to court. 3
As a child, he was a meek and submissive child, and in his youth he was distinguished by his diligence and penchant for theological debates. All this time, he persistently tried to overcome the alienation that he felt in his family. Only his mother was attentive to him, the older children reacted politely but coolly to his assurances of devotion, and his father practically ignored Karl. The prince devoted his time to collecting coins and medals,
2 A.B.Sokolov. Charles I Stuart // Questions of History, 2005, No. 12, P. 124
3 K. Ryzhov. Monarchs of the world. – M., 1999. - P.228
acquiring a taste for collecting. Everything changed in 1612, when Henry died unexpectedly; all hopes were now concentrated on Charles.
They began to prepare him for the upcoming reign, but Charles believed that neither the king nor the court had the proper dignity, and James I, comparing Charles with Henry, preferred the second.
Mention should also be made of Charles’s relationship with the Duke of Buckingham. At first, Karl had an extremely negative attitude towards the duke for his relationship with the king, but then this relationship changed dramatically. It is difficult to understand the reasons for this: either Karl realized that in order to be closer to Jacob, he had to be friends with the Duke, or he fell under the latter’s charm. However, the fact remains. Already the trip of Charles and Buckingham in 1623. V
Madrid for the purpose of concluding the marriage between Charles and the Infanta Maria speaks volumes. The marriage was never consummated, but this visit was serious step in Charles's rapprochement with the Duke. Perhaps it is not without reason that the prevailing opinion in historiography is that Karl strove in everything, consciously or not, to act contrary to the will of his father. This is already evident because with the accession of Charles the court changed: jesters and dwarfs disappeared, instead of not too hidden vices, marital virtues were exalted, the requirements of court etiquette became law. Also, the newly made king did not forget his favorite hobby and continued to patronize art and collecting. He spared no time, no money, no energy for this. Karl created one of the best collections of Renaissance art at that time, numbering about 1,760 paintings. The famous Flemish painter Anthony Van Dyck worked at the court of Charles I for many years, and the gallery of portraits he created of the king and the nobility perfectly reflects the appearance of an aristocrat of that time. 4 Karl himself has repeatedly participated in theatrical productions. This man was completely spineless from a young age, needing constant
___________________________________
4 L.E.Kertman. Geography, history and culture of England. – M., 1979. – P. 77
“reinforcement” of determination on the part of the wife, then favorites and associates. No, this character was petty, his mind was narrow-minded, his energy was sluggish. From head to toe, Karl was and remained a poser. His majestic posture hid his short stature (only 162 cm), his slightly absent-minded manner of speaking - the lack of his own opinion, quiet voice- unbalance and hot temper, and finally, impartiality - an almost incredible passion for intrigue, including against people from the immediate environment. Secret letters, codes and just gossip - that’s what ignited his imagination and completely captivated him. 5
As noted above, Charles was very religious, which, however, did not stop him from marrying the French Catholic Henrietta Maria. A woman with a pleasant and lively mind, she soon gained control over the young king. However, the bliss of home life, so dear to the sedate Charles, could not appeal to the frivolous, restless and insensitive Henrietta Maria: she needed dominion and universal recognition. The queen intervened in state intrigues, vouching for their success, demanded the same from the king and even wanted him to consult with her in all cases. 6
To summarize the above, it should be noted that Karl was not a strong, charismatic person, and, therefore, was easily subject to pressure from other people. Such, for example, for a long time there was Buckingham, who was then replaced by Strafford and Laud. We should not forget about Henrietta Maria, who had a great influence on Charles and played an important role in the king’s further clashes with
parliament.
___________________________________
5 M.A.Barg. Charles I Stuart. Trial and execution // New and recent history. – 1970. No. 6. – P. 153
6 F. Guizot. History of the English Revolution. - vol.1, Rostov-on-Don., 1996. - P.159
§2. In the economic life of England in the 16th and early 17th centuries. There was an intensive process of formation of capitalist relations, which were quite clearly expressed in all spheres of life in English society. Thus, in its social essence, English industry presented a motley picture in the forms of its organization, in which small-scale production in various industries either still completely dominates, then intertwines with various forms of capitalist manufactures, then, finally, increasingly gives way to
capitalist manufacture. The forms of capitalist production were also different. To the main industries
include the following: mining, metallurgical and the so-called “new manufactories” (glass, paper, weapons, etc.). 5 The transition to manufacturing production resulted in a significant increase in production volume. For example, coal production increased 14 times from 1560 to 1680, lead, tin, copper, and salt production increased 6-8 times, and iron production increased 3 times.
The lion's share of the capital accumulated in the country was still directed
into trade and usury. English economists of the 17th century. viewed world trade as the only sources of wealth and money. 7
By the beginning of the 17th century. internal exchange has long gone beyond local markets, forming a single national market, promoting further specialization of individual regions. Gradually, the figure of a buyer, an intermediary between small producers and consumers, appears.
The following figures can give an idea of the increase in the capacity of the domestic market: from 1534. to 1660 London's population increased 8 times ________________________________
7 V.M. Lavrovsky, M.A. Barg. English bourgeois revolution. - M., 1958. - P. 62,
(from 60 thousand to 460 thousand). Instead of 150 thousand quarters of wheat, he needed 1150 thousand quarters. The population also grew in other parts of the country. 8
English foreign trade made especially great strides after the destruction of the Invincible Armada in 1588. for the first 40 years of the 17th century. Turns of the English foreign trade increased by 2 times. Foreign merchants were finally driven out of it. Special place Foreign trade was dominated by the relationship between Great Britain and India. Trade with India increased not only merchant navy, but also the wealth of England. True, it turned out to be possible to sell only a very limited amount of English cloth in hot climates Far East. The enemies of the East India Company have always based their accusations against it on this. But Queen Elizabeth very wisely allowed the company to export from England a certain amount of English state coin, provided that the same amount of gold and silver would be returned after each voyage. Around 1621 100 thousand pounds sterling, exported in bullion, returned in the form of oriental goods of five times the value, of which only a quarter was consumed in the country. The rest was sold abroad at a large profit, which sharply increased the wealth of the state. 9
Long-distance trading companies became a serious socio-economic and political element of English society under the Stuarts. Their wealth and influence were widely used against the crown during the Civil War - partly on religious grounds, and partly because the merchants were dissatisfied with the policies of James I and Charles I towards them.
England XVII century still continued to be an agricultural country with
the sharp predominance of agriculture over industry, villages over
________________________________
8 V.M. Lavrovsky, M.A. Barg. Decree. op. - P.63
9 J.M.Trevelyan. Social history of England. – M., 1959. – P. 239
city. At the end of the 17th century. of its 5.5 million population, three quarters, i.e. 4 million lived in the countryside and were associated with agriculture. 10 The bulk of the peasants were freeholders (free holders) and copyholders (ordinary land holders). Their holding was called freehold and copyhold, respectively. Freehold is a free form of holding land, close to private property. A copyhold was a hereditary or lifelong holding, for which the copyholders were obliged to pay the lord a fixed cash annuity, pay tithes, etc. Copyholders could neither sell nor rent out their allotment 11.
A prominent specialist in the English revolution, K. Hill, also believed that England in the 17th century. was predominantly an agricultural country. But unlike other authors, he noted that the Great Geographical Discoveries had a great influence on the development of agriculture in England. In particular, the discovery of America gave England new markets for the sale and processing of agricultural products. Hill also attached great importance to the English Reformation,
as a result of which vast lands of the church were confiscated. All these circumstances, of course, changed the structure of the English rural
society. Land was becoming a tempting area for investing capital. 12 People who had money wanted to buy land with it. In England, land was inherited from father to son and cultivated for the family's consumption needs. But with the development of capitalist relations, many farmers began to sell to the market that part of the products of their estates that they could not consume. It should be noted that rents and
other levies from peasants were significantly increased. It's on its own
10 S.I. Arkhangelsky. Agrarian legislation of the great English revolution. – M., 1935. – P. 75
11 Essays on the history of England. / ed. Assoc. G.R.Levina M., 1959. - P.109
12 K. Hill. English revolution. – M., 1947. – P.57
was not only an economic, but also a moral “revolution”, because meant
a break with everything that people had previously considered decent and correct. IN
feudal society was dominated by custom and tradition, money had no
special meaning. But now everything has become different. Many of the peasants could not pay all these taxes, and they had no choice but to become vagabonds who fled from their masters.
As for industry, Hill says that the Industrial Revolution of the 16th century. was largely accelerated by the secularized property of the church and the treasures brought from America. With the development of industry, a great leap occurred in trade. Now England ceases to be just a supplier of raw materials and begins to export finished products.
The state tries to bring industry and trade under its control on a national scale through monopolies, i.e. sale to a person of exclusive rights to any activity. But all these attempts failed, because... did not reflect the basic interests of the country's population, which were represented by the bourgeoisie.
As for the political life of the country, during the reign of the Tudor dynasty, a certain balance was maintained between the interests of the bourgeoisie and the progressive nobility, on the one hand, and the feudal lords, on the other 13. At the beginning of the 16th century. the monarchy actively used the bourgeoisie to fight other feudal families, and already at the end of the 16th century. all enemies
The bourgeoisie was defeated, it ceased to rely on the patronage of the monarchy and over time began to get out of its control. At this time, the crown had already begun to feel the dangers that the growing power of the commercial class promised it, and it tried, before it was too late, to strengthen its position, but the moment was already lost.
Miscalculations in Tudor policy led to aggravation and further
____________________________________
13 K. Hill. Decree. op. - P.59
the confrontation between the bourgeoisie and the Stuarts, which was not so pronounced under James, but in many ways worsened under Charles.
So, the position of the country at the time of Charles’s accession was unenviable. Surely, it was also affected by the fact that after the death of Elizabeth, Jacob inherited a very meager treasury (which he tried to replenish by any means) and a huge debt equal to the country’s annual income. Moreover, until his death in 1625, he was in constant conflict with parliament. Charles I further aggravated this conflict, almost always over money. Whenever the king needed money, he called parliament, but it always ended in a quarrel.
The steady rise in prices, caused mainly by the influx of silver and gold into Europe from the Spanish-American mines, made it impossible for James I and Charles I to "subsist on their own
revenues,” and Parliament showed no desire to make up the deficit except on certain religious and political terms, which the Stuarts were unwilling to accept. 14
§3. Charles's contradictions with parliament were a peculiar pattern. The conflict itself arose at the beginning of his reign, and it reached its apogee in connection with the filing of the famous “Petition for Right” (June 2, 1628).
Already the first parliament of Charles (1625) expressed distrust in the government. Ton and pound taxes are given to the king only for a year, whereas under the Tudors and James they were received for life 15 . The government hopes to receive the subsidy without giving any explanation about its foreign policy, and to silence the shameful failure with
____________________________________
14 J.M.Trevelyan. Decree. op. – P. 249
15 A.N.Savin. Lectures on the history of the English Revolution. - M., 1937. - P.140
German expedition of 1625 Commoners (members of parliament) began to blame the all-powerful favorite of the king, the Duke of Buckingham, for all political crises. Buckingham's unpopularity grew day by day. However, on June 15, 1626. Charles's first parliament was dissolved. And Lord Arundel and Lord Bristol, Buckingham’s main accusers, were captured and imprisoned. The Duke of Buckingham breathed more freely, and Charles felt like a king. But their joy did not last long. Having started a devastating war with Spain and Austria, Charles did not have a sufficient army that he could use at the same time against both the enemy and his subjects. His ground troops, small in number and poorly trained, cost him very dearly. Puritanism reigned among the sailors; he did not dare to rely on the police, because... the townspeople and nobles of the counties had much more influence on her, and not the king. Karl eliminated his opponents, but did not get rid of difficulties and obstacles 16. Meanwhile, Buckingham's insane pride gave rise to new difficulties. Wanting to take revenge on Cardinal Richelieu, who did not allow him to enter Paris, he persuaded his sovereign to start a war with France. The pretext was the interests of Protestantism: it was necessary to save the besieged La Rochelle and prevent the ruin of the French Reformed. A general loan was assigned, equal to the amount of those subsidies that were promised, but not approved by Parliament. The regiments passed through the counties or were stationed in them, to the burden of the inhabitants. The inhabitants of ports and coastal districts received orders to deploy armed ships with crews - the first experience of ship taxes. However, relying on the passions of the people was wrong: the people did not agree to renounce freedom for the sake of faith. Many citizens refused to cooperate with the loan, but, in spite of everything, the expedition was still sent under the personal command of Buckingham. But the general's inexperience was the reason
____________________________________
16 F. Guizot. Decree. op. - P.137
failures of this event: he was unable to capture the island of Re, or even retreat without losing soldiers and officers. There was general indignation. The people blamed only the Duke and the King for everything that happened. Robert Cotton, to alleviate discontent, suggested that Charles reconvene parliament and also release everyone political prisoners, planted behind last period time. The king followed this advice without delay and already on March 17, 1628. Parliament was assembled.
§4. The convening of Charles's second parliament was marked by many events, the most important of which was the famous “Petition of Right” (June 2, 1628). Referring to the Magna Carta of the 13th century. and other statutes and
laws of the kingdom, the House of Commons, in the “Petition of Right” presented to the king, protested against a number of abuses and violence committed by the crown and agents of royal absolutism 17 . The authors of the “Petition for Right” set out their demands on behalf of the entire English people, but in fact, they represented the interests of only two classes: the bourgeois-noble and commercial-industrial. It is not difficult to guess that when speaking about the security of land ownership and the inviolability of income from internal and external trade with the political rights and liberties of all Englishmen, the commoners primarily meant the nobles and merchant merchants, and not peasants and small landowners. Thus, Savin identified four main issues that the “Petition ...” touched on: 1) illegal taxation, 2) illegal arrests, 3) military billets, 4) military justice 18. For each issue, the petition sets out the law currently in effect as well as government abuses. Every statement
_____________________
17 V.M. Lavrovsky, M.A. Barg. Decree. op. - P.186
18 A.N.Savin. Decree. op. - P.146
ends with the legislative wishes of members of parliament.
Particularly great disagreements between parliament and the king arose over the per-ton and per-pound fees that Charles needed to maintain financial balance. Therefore, Charles continued to levy these taxes, despite the protests of Parliament. Wanting to somehow influence the king, the Commoners on June 25, 1628. submitted to Karl a “Remonstration against tonnage and poundage taxes.” Its essence lies in the fact that members of parliament refuse the king to satisfy his demands regarding tax revenues: “the House of Commons cannot currently fulfill this desire...”. At the end of the remonstration, the commoners remind the king of his duties, with
which he agreed to by adopting such a document as the “Petition of Right.” “The levying of tonnage, poundage, and other imposts not authorized by Parliament is a violation of the fundamental liberties of this
kingdom and is contrary to your Majesty's royal answer to the said "Petition of Right" 19 .
Based on the above, we can state the following: the communities thought that the petition took away the king’s right to levy any taxes, including customs duties, without their consent. The king argued that the petition was valid only for those taxes that had previously been levied with the consent of parliament, and that duties were not one of them. Ton and pound dues shall be charged as before 20 . Parliament continues to accuse the king of violating the petition and begins to prepare a second remonstration. In order to prevent the opportunity to submit it, the king hastily closes the session on June 26 and reproaches the communities for their treacherous abuse of the petition. “Everyone knows that the House of Commons recently
____________________________________
19 V.M. Lavrovsky. Collection of documents on the history of the English bourgeois revolution of the 17th century - Moscow, 1973. - P.156
20 A.N.Savin. Decree. op. - P.134
presented me with a reconstruction... now I have information about what is being prepared
a second remonstration in order to deprive me of the per-ton and per-pound collection... This is associated with such damage for me that I am forced to end this session several hours earlier...” (“The King’s Speech at the Dissolution of Parliament at the End of the Session, 1628”) 21. In his speech, Charles gives the rationale for the dissolution of parliament, and also points out that the “Petition of Right” was misinterpreted by the chambers. He gives it his interpretation and at the end indicates that without his consent, none of the chambers is competent to interpret the laws, thereby, as if hinting at the absolute, comprehensive power of the king. Parliament was dissolved until the fall, but it met again only on January 20, 1629.
During the break between the sessions of the second and third parliaments, an event occurred that further aggravated the conflict between parliament and the crown. The day after Parliament was prorogued on the streets of London
a proclamation appeared:
“Who rules the country? - King.
Who rules the king? - Duke.
Who rules the Duke? - Crap.
Let the Duke not forget this."
The people still continued to blame Buckingham for everything and longed for trial and reprisals against him. As a result, on August 23, 1628, Officer Felton killed Buckingham in Portsmouth. Charles himself became his first minister. The opposition could no longer shift responsibility for the mood in the state onto the mediastinum separating the monarch from the people.
In 1629 The third Charles Parliament was convened, in the short session of which the religious dispute took up a lot of space. The communities differed with the crown on the constitutional issue, insisting that parliament also had supremacy in the religious sphere. These disputes were
____________________________________
21 V.M. Lavrovsky. Right there. - P.157
colored by hatred of papism and Arminianism, distrust of bishops. The king, for his part, declared that convening a church council was now his prerogative, and also that he declared himself above the decisions of the church council. As is known, Charles I reserved the right to interpret the laws themselves and his closest advisers - the judges. 22 The members of parliament were clearly dissatisfied with these speeches of the king
and continued to insist on the illegality of his decisions.
From then on, any rapprochement between Charles and parliament was impossible. March 10, 1629 the monarch entered the House of Representatives and made a speech, the essence of which was the dissolution of parliament. He also declared himself the sole ruler and since then began to rule without parliament.
§5. So, from 1629 the time began, which in historiography is called “the parliamentless reign of Charles.”
Although he had previously tried to govern together with parliament, he was constantly convinced and continually repeated that if parliament was too unyielding, he would be able to manage without it. With obvious frivolity, he entered the field of autocracy, declaring that he would follow this path in the future, although, probably, he secretly assumed that if circumstances became too tight for him, he would always have time to resort to parliament. The smartest of his advisers believed so too 23 . Neither Charles nor anyone around him had any plans to abolish the old laws of England forever. They assumed that Parliament wanted to subjugate the king by taking him under its guardianship so that the king would cease to be a king. When the sovereign and parliament could not agree, the advisers believed that parliament should yield, because only the king is the supreme ruler of the entire country. But the chamber did not want to give in,
____________________
22 V.M. Lavrovsky. Decree. op. - P.160
23 F. Guizot. Decree. op. - P. 155
and therefore it was necessary to rule without her. This need was obvious. Sooner or later, the people had to understand this, and then the king, seeing that the parliament had become more modest, could convene it again.
The views were even more short-sighted royal court, who believed that the dissolution of parliament would further untie his hands. Indeed, as soon as Parliament was dissolved, all barriers to the court disappeared: petty greatness began to shine as before, and lackey ambition again received its former freedom. The court did not demand more: it cared little about whether the mode of government would change to please it. 24
The people judged differently: the dissolution of parliament was correct in their eyes
a sign of a deeply thought-out, firm intention to completely
destroy parliament.
After the dissolution of the “people's government,” Charles began to rule the country alone, relying only on his closest advisers. The protests of the House of Commons did not find adequate support in the country and therefore in the future, Charles managed to cause discord in the ranks of the parliamentary opposition itself, calling its members rebels and troublemakers. The king's first step was to neutralize his main opponents - the initiators of the Petition of Right. So, for example, Count Elliot, who did not want to compromise with the crown, was imprisoned in the Tower. He was followed by Sir Edward Coke, a commentator on the Magna Carta in the spirit of the demands of the bourgeoisie. Another prominent opposition figure, Wentworth, who had previously acted with Elliott, Coke and Hampden, not only went over to the king’s side, but also became his closest adviser during the period of unparliamentary rule. Only Pym survived his political beliefs in the years of timelessness 25.
____________________
24 F. Guizot. Decree. op. - P. 157
25 V.M. Lavrovsky, M.A. Barg. Decree. op. - P.190
Finally all these processes ended. Accused
tried to intimidate or deceive, some of them paid a fine. They were allowed to live no closer than ten miles from the royal residence.
The most important advisers to Charles Stuart during his reign without parliament were: Earl Straffort (Wentworth) - on secular affairs and Archbishop Laud - on religious affairs. 26
It seemed that the resistance of the king’s “revolutionary” opponents
broken. He ruled alone, relying on his closest advisers, implementing the principle of complete unity of state and church,
ensuring order and discipline in the country. It's easy for Karl for a while
was to rule. But at the same time, a fundamental question for absolutism arose about the financial basis of the autocracy, which had to be created in conditions when the main material resources of the country were in the hands of the bourgeois classes - the enemies of the king and absolutism. The steady rise in prices, caused chiefly by the influx of silver into Europe from the Spanish-American mines, made it impossible for James I and Charles I to "subsist on their own incomes," and Parliament was unwilling to supply the deficit except on certain religious and political terms, which The Stuarts did not want to accept. 27 It is possible to trace what the resources of the royal treasury were in the period from 1629 to 1640. Chancellor of the Exchequer Richard Weston (Earl of Portland from 1633) had difficulty making ends meet. In 1631 - 1635. the kingdom's income was 600 pounds. Art. in year. The Treasury's debt reached £1,000,000. Nobody wanted to pay the pound and ton tax, which was not approved by Parliament, and forced measures to collect it only caused protests and displeasure.
____________________________________
26 V.M. Lavrovsky, M.A. Barg. Right there. - P. 215
27 J.M.Trevelyan. Decree. op. – P. 249
To replenish the treasury, it was necessary to resort to old measures that had been used under James I: the distribution and grants of crown lands, the sale of monopolies and titles. Attempts were also made to invent new taxes based on precedents. The greatest results in terms of increasing the crown’s income were achieved through the collection of “ship money”. In this case, the crown could refer to an old precedent - the obligation of coastal cities to equip ships for the royal fleet. However, being the supreme interpreter of laws in the kingdom, Charles decided to give a broader interpretation to this precedent.
In 1634 he demanded that the City of London build a certain number of ships, citing the need to fight pirates who constantly raided English merchant ships. And already in the next 1635. the king also demanded “ship money” from the inland counties lying far from the sea coast. In connection with this, the high-profile case of Squire Hampden played out, who refused to pay this tax, and as a result was convicted. The verdict in this case stated that the king has the right, in case of danger threatening the kingdom, to tax his subjects to raise funds necessary for the defense of the country. The court's decision in this case acquired fundamental significance, creating a precedent for the king to impose taxes on the maintenance of permanent armed forces. We should not forget that this verdict in the Hampden case also had another side: it contributed to the growth of opposition sentiment in the country. Indeed, the old tax made it possible to collect money only from those counties that had access to the sea. This tax was not levied on the internal counties, and Charles, breaking the old custom, found only enemies for himself, because the Hampden case was one of the most high-profile cases, while there were many similar cases.
At this time, two parties are formed around the royal throne: the queen and ministers, the court and the council of state. They are the ones who entered
into the struggle for newly acquired power. As noted above, the queen, as soon as she arrived in England, began to actively interfere in the domestic and foreign policies of the state, as well as put pressure on her husband. The king's most servile advisers submitted to her whims with difficulty and not without resistance. Two of them, intelligent people, independent in their convictions and, moreover, devoted to the king, wanted to serve him differently than required by the whims of a woman or the unfounded claims of the court.
One such person was the Earl of Strafford, who did not sacrifice any specific beliefs and did not betray his conscience. 28 Ambitious, passionate, he was formerly a patriot more out of hatred of Buckingham, out of a thirst for glory, out of a desire to fully develop his talents and strengths, than out of an honest and deep conviction. He set to work with great enthusiasm, overcoming all rivalry, destroying all resistance, ardently spreading and establishing royal power inseparable from his own. At the same time, he tried to restore order, eliminate abuses, weaken private interests, which he considered illegal, and serve the general interests, which he did not fear.
A devoted servant of the king and a friend of Strafford was Archbishop Laud, animated by less earthly passions, more disinterested enthusiasm, he brought the same feelings, the same intentions to the state council. Distinguished by the severity of his morals and the simplicity of his lifestyle, he was a fanatical defender of power, whether it was in the hands of himself or others. To prescribe and punish meant, in his opinion, to restore order, and he always took order for justice. His activity was tireless, but narrow, violent and cruel.
Charles didn’t need better advisers like these under his new,
___________________
28 G.I.Zvereva. History of Scotland. – M., 1987. – P. 75
position Aliens to the court, they cared little about pleasing him, but rather tried to serve their master. They were persistent, courageous, hard-working and loyal. 29
Charles's reluctance to live within his means led to a constant financial crisis in domestic politics. It was previously noted that in order to increase treasury revenues, the crown had to resort to grants and distributions of land, but even the royal land funds were not so huge - there were not enough plots for everyone. Therefore, diligent searches for “hidden” crown land began, which led to clashes between the crown and the largest land lords. 30 Land rights, considered indisputable for 3.5 centuries, are recognized as void. Huge fines (from £10,000 to £60,000) are being imposed on land lords for the “seizure” of royal lands. Charles “made” enemies among the common people by levying a “ship tax” and did not stop there, coming into conflict with large land holders who were the unshakable pillar of absolutism.
Charles constantly tried to find support for himself in the person of the highest aristocracy by suppressing the common nobility, whose influence was feared in London. But all attempts were unsuccessful, partly because their uselessness was soon noticed, and partly because the memories of the old barons inspired the king with some distrust of their descendants. But it was important for the king to find support for himself in the person of some strong class in order to strengthen his precarious position. Already with for a long time The Anglican clergy sought such significance - and finally gained it, thereby losing its independence, which did not prevent it from introducing its own rules in secular life and, of course, affected the country's economy.
____________________________________
29 F. Guizot. Decree. op. - P.160
30 A.N.Savin. Decree. op. - P. 154
Thus, French, Dutch, and German manufacturers transferred their industry to England and received charters that ensured them the free exercise of their national worship. These certificates were taken away, and most of immigrants left their new homeland. One Norwich parish lost 3,000 of these hardworking newcomers 31 .
In 1634 - 1637 in England, the vicar general of Archbishop Laud carries out an audit of the entire Canterbury province; he introduces uniform rituals everywhere, monitors their implementation, and also conducts a general economic audit. The cruelty and methods with which he carried them out: all the priests of this
provinces, for the slightest offenses they were punished not only with imprisonment, but, sometimes, with the death penalty.
Affairs foreign policy situation was as follows: first of all, he made peace with France (April 14, 1629) and Spain
(November 5, 1630) and was left without external enemies. Foreign ambassadors, who were in London, gave reports about everything to their sovereigns, and soon, despite the well-being of England known to everyone, the opinion spread that Charles’s rule was weak, unreasonable and fragile.
The reign of Charles was marked by the expulsion of English sectarians to the continent, who usually fled to Holland, where they mostly hid. The wealthier ones sold their property, bought a small ship, food supplies and some agricultural implements and, led by a minister of their faith, went to North America, where the beginnings of colonies were already being formed. According to the State Council, these resettlement were prohibited. At that moment, 8 ships were anchored on the Thames, ready to sail. One of them already had Paim,
____________________________________
31 F. Guizot. Decree. op. - P. 176
Hampden, Geslrig and Cromwell. 32
Charles and his advisers realized that colonial policy could bring considerable profit to the state, and already in April 1636. A commission on colonial affairs was established with Code at its head. She had to revise colonial charters, establish new laws in case of need, introduce the Anglican Church everywhere, and control governors. Thus, Charles wanted to establish a strict system of subordination of the colonies to England for the economic security of his country.
Despite the fact that the years of Charles's reign without parliament were not
too successful, we can say that the period from 1629 to 1637
was the most successful for the king and the kingdom.
§6. Already in 1637, Charles made several fatal mistakes for him, and the first among them was an attempt to plant the Anglican Church in Scotland, which, although governed by him, remained a completely independent state from England with its own laws, religion, army and monetary system. The Scots perceived this as a threat to their rights and rebelled: July 23, 1637. in Edinburgh Cathedral they solemnly wanted to introduce Elizabeth's prayer book and the Anglican liturgy, but instead caused the first explosion of a revolution that quickly spread throughout the island. 33
In response to the king's demands to suppress the rebellion by force, the Scottish Privy Council declared that the royal order could not be carried out, since there were not sufficient forces in Scotland to carry out this order and that the rebels were stronger than the government.
The government and Charles in particular made a serious mistake at this stage by not suppressing the beginnings of the uprising. During this period it was possible
____________________________________
32 F. Guizot. Decree. op. – P.186
33 G.I.Zvereva. Decree. op. – P. 87
not even resort to military force, promising the rebels the granting of political and religious freedoms. But this moment was irretrievably missed and already in October, in order to restore order, the Privy Councilors turned to the help of the rebel lords and gentlemen who then gathered in the city and were thinking about organizing a revolutionary movement. In November of the same year they elect commissioners, who at the beginning of 1638. allocate a closer estate committee, which leads the movement and also becomes the true Scottish government. The demands of the commissioners are constantly growing: for example, if at the beginning of the rebellion they only demanded the abolition of innovations, then already at the end of 1637. they demand the removal of bishops from the Privy Council. In 1638 the movement takes the form of a covenant - private military agreements in the fight against a common enemy.
In this struggle for the king, only the Aberdeeners and north-eastern highlanders - the Gordons - with the Marquis of Gently at their head 34 stand firmly. In this situation, Karl was forced to make concessions in order to gain time. He agrees to the convening of the assembly and parliament. The Assembly meets in November 1638. and immediately takes the side of the Covenanters. Royal Commissioner Hamilton declares this meeting illegal due to the illegality of the elections and dissolves it in the name of the king. But the assembly did not disperse until December 20, 1638. and carries out a number of revolutionary acts: abolishes the Perth articles, canons and prayer book of 1636, the High Commission and the episcopate, and instead introduces pure Presbyterianism.
War becomes inevitable, and it comes in 1639. Karl did not dare to enter the battle and immediately begins negotiations with the rebels. They end with the Treaty of Berwick in June 1639, and, consequently, the inevitable fall of absolutism in Scotland. According to the Treaty of Berwick, the rebels undertook to hand over the fortresses to the royal
_______________________________
34 A.N. Savin. Decree. op. - P. 164
officers and disband illegal organizations.
The king’s concessions were undoubtedly more significant:
he promises amnesty;
undertakes to submit all religious matters to the resolution of the assembly;
undertakes to transfer all secular affairs to parliament.
But neither party wanted to fulfill their part of the agreement, and
This suggests the conclusion that this treaty is not peace, but rather a forced truce, which was so necessary for Charles and his government.
In August 1639 the assembly confirms the previous resolution on the abolition of the episcopacy.
August 31, 1639 a meeting of the parliament was held in Scotland, at which it was decided that parliamentary peers, gentlemen, and townspeople would elect 8 “article lords” each, i.e. a local body of people's representation is being created.
From the beginning of 1640 Intense preparations are underway for a new war. At Edinburgh Castle, a skirmish occurs between the Covenanters and the royal garrison, and the royal cruisers capture Scottish merchant ships. But previous military failures and a constant lack of funds forced Charles to convene a parliament, called “short” (from April 13, 1640 to May 5, 1640). At a parliamentary meeting, the government read out the secret correspondence of the Scots with the French king, hoping that their patriotic feelings would awaken, but this step did not have the desired effect.
Commoners demanded reforms from the government. Government promises reforms, but insists on pre-voting subsidies
to continue the war 35. Karl, as always, was dissatisfied with the actions
________________________________
35 M.A. Barg. The lower classes in the English bourgeois revolution of the 17th century - M., 1967. - P. 79
parliament and Once again dismissed him.
Meanwhile, the Scottish Parliament, having gone on vacation, meets ahead of schedule and elects a Grand Committee to conduct the war. But in Scotland there is no longer the unity that was inherent in it before the first campaign. The Highland Scots refused to act together with the Lowland Scots and the latter had to help military force ensure their obedience. Also among the covenanters a moderate wing formed, which was part of a secret agreement to prevent the derogation of the prerogative, to reconcile the covenant with loyalty. However, Scottish strife did not help Charles achieve success. Campaign of 1640 (August - September) led to the complete military collapse of the English crown. The royal army was unable to defend the English borders, and the Scots easily pushed back the British, occupying the northeast of the country, as well as Northumberland and Durham. The king was again forced to begin negotiations. However, this time the Scots agreed only to a truce, which was concluded on October 14, 1640. and which, in its terms, was very shameful: the Scots retain Northumberland and Durham and assign an indemnity of 850 pounds. Art. per person per day 36.
This is how Charles and Laud’s attempt to impose their religious norms in Scotland ended unsuccessfully. In this Anglo-Scottish war, the first, but, in fact, decisive blow was dealt to the royal monarchy,
which largely predetermined the fate of the monarchy and Charles in particular.
Strafford's policy also led to the same result.
Ireland.
However, in historiography there is no consensus regarding this issue. Francois Guizot, for example, believed that as soon as Ireland was entrusted to Strafford, this kingdom, which until then was only a burden for the crown, became a source of wealth and strength. State
_____________________
36 Abstract collection. English Revolution mid. XVII century – M., 1991. – P.124
debts were paid, income previously stupidly collected and plundered
shamelessly, was arranged correctly and soon exceeded expenses.
According to other historians, Charles's policy in Ireland was, in fact, a continuation of the policy of his father. So, after his accession to the throne, Charles promised the Irish not to take away their estates under the pretext of lack of registration documents. However, for this, he subsequently demanded monetary compensation, the amount of which was not specified. And then, in 1628, large Irish landowners were summoned to the King's Privy Council, where they were forced to agree to pay 4 thousand pounds. Art. per year for 3 years. This amount at 12 thousand f. Art. was supposed to be spent on creating a standing army in Ireland, which did not exist in England itself. Under these conditions, Charles I recognized the rights of landowners to their lands as indisputable. But already in 1632. Strafford began organizing a High Commission Court to enforce uniformity. The court sought to obtain maximum revenue from Irish Catholics for the benefit of the royal treasury. Particular attention was paid to taking the statutory oath to the king as head of the church. Such an oath had to be taken by landowners, officials, doctors, lawyers, etc., and, consequently, “indisputable” rights were no longer such.
Strafford organizes plantations in Connaught and other counties, using armed force. So, in 1635 he heads to Connaught with a detachment of 4 thousand cavalry to “assist” in establishing plantations.
With the creation of permanent armed forces in Ireland, Strafford expected to use them not only for the purposes of Irish “land management”, but also to suppress Scottish rebels dissatisfied with the activities of Archbishop Laud. But Strafford's hopes for the Irish army never materialized.
Summarizing all of the above, it can be noted that both historians are right in their own way in understanding Charles’s Irish policy, because this is a policy of two contrasts: on the one hand, Ireland really began to bring more income to the treasury, a regular army was created in it; and on the other hand, all this did not happen without oppression and violence on the part of the royal subjects in the person of Strafford.
ChapterII.
Against the revolution.
§1. After a long delay, parliament was assembled only on April 13, 1640. and went down in history as the “short parliament” due to the very short period of its activity. It was collected because Charles needed subsidies to continue the war with Scotland. However, the king and parliament were like poles of the same name and constantly pushed away from each other: the king wanted the chamber, without starting to consider popular demands, to approve the previous subsidies and then promised to listen to its representations, but the chamber firmly insisted on its own and wanted to discuss the demands first people, and then the question of subsidies.
Karl said that the new parliament was as stubborn as the previous ones, he was already clearly irritated. Soon Charles sends a message to the lower house that if he is given 12 subsidies that can be paid within 3 years, then he gives his word not to collect the ship tax in advance without the consent of parliament. The sum seemed too huge to parliament; moreover, the king’s temporary consent not to collect taxes from ships was not enough: it was necessary to declare the illegality of previous royal decisions.
But it should be noted that the lower house did not want a quarrel with the king. She was convinced that the amount of 12 subsidies was not as huge as they thought. And when it was almost decided to give subsidies without determining their quantity, Secretary of State Henry Wen announced that there was no point in discussing the royal proposal if they did not want to fulfill it in its entirety, because the king would not agree to accept less than what he demanded. Attorney General Herbet confirmed Wen's words. The lower house was amazed and indignant. The most peace-loving members are sad. It was already late and it was decided to postpone the debate to the next day. But the next day the king ordered the members of the lower house to appear in the upper house, and parliament was dissolved, existing for only 3 weeks until May 5, 1640.
By the evening of the same day, Karl began to repent. He said that he had been misrepresented as to the intentions of the Lower House, and that Wen had never received from him the authority to declare that he did not agree to less than 12 subsidies.
Critical circumstances seemed to give the ministers for a moment some self-confidence, and the king's measures some success. It should be taken into account that on April 4, 1640. Strafford arrived from Ireland to England, bringing with him the good news that the Irish parliament had given him everything he needed: subsidies, soldiers, donations. However, this did not affect the course of the war, and England continued to lose ground. From that moment on, Strafford himself was defeated.
As a result, the war with Scotland ended with a truce, as well as with the retention of some English territories by the Scots and the payment of indemnity, for which there was no money in the treasury. Charles did not have time to collect money to pay the indemnity, and he, once again, decided to resort to the help of parliament, which was convened on November 3, 1640. and received the name “long”.
In addition, Charles was prompted to this decision by the violent protests of the population of London and other cities, as well as the peasant movement that swept eastern England.
As you know, the “long” parliament played a significant role in subsequent English history, and therefore it is necessary to consider the composition of that parliament. In October 1640 Parliamentary elections took place, which inflicted a clear defeat on the royal party. In its social composition, the long parliament was an assembly of nobles, and, as you know, Charles
____________________________________
37 F. Guizot. Decree. op. – P.210
always feared the growing influence of the new nobility. The bourgeois deputies were drowned in the mass of noble representatives, who, however, for the most part also represented the interests of the bourgeois part of England. At the very first sessions of the long parliament, the opposition formulated its program, which was designed to satisfy the interests of the gentry and the bourgeoisie, and provided for: the inviolability of private property, personal freedom, the destruction of all monopolies and patents.
In the first period of the revolution, the Long Parliament adopted a number of important decisions aimed at limiting absolutism and establishing supreme power parliament. By decision of parliament, some feudal institutions that were a symbol of absolutism were liquidated: “Star Chamber”, “ High commission", "Chamber of the Chessboard". Also, in order to protect itself from the arbitrariness of the king, parliament established that it could not be dissolved during the first fifty days of its sessions 38 .
Now it becomes clearly visible how the slightest misdeeds and shortcomings of Charles in politics in previous years affected his current position. His constant flirting with parliament only led to the strengthening of the latter and the transformation, in fact, into a new political despot, limited by no one and nothing. And since he had unlimited power, he immediately began to eliminate his opponents, and the first on his path was the Earl of Strafford.
§2. Strafford, foreseeing disaster, begged the king to relieve him of his duty in parliament. To which Karl refused, convincing Strafford that he was not in danger.
On November 9, the count arrived in London, on the 10th a fever kept him in bed, and already on the 11th the lower house ordered the doors to be locked in parliament, and, according to
_____________________
38 Essays on the history of England. / ed. Assoc. G.R.Levina M., 1959. - P.116
at Pame's suggestion, she accused the count of treason. At that moment Strafford was with the king. At the first news of this, the count rushed to the upper house, where, after a long wait, they announced to him that the upper house had approved the accusation made by the lower house and decided, at its request, to imprison him in the Tower. Strafford wanted to speak, but the chamber did not listen to him, and the sentence was immediately carried out. 39 Strafford's accusation was almost immediately followed by Laud's. Several other theologians, two bishops and six judges were accused, but only Strafford's accusation moved forward actively. For this purpose, a special Secret Committee was created. In Ireland another auxiliary committee was established.
The Scots also contributed to Strafford's cause by sending a declaration to Parliament stating that the Scottish army would not leave England until their sworn enemy was punished. Thus, three nations united against one man, who was already in prison at that time.
So, having got rid of its opponents, the chamber finally seized power into its own hands. Then the following transformations followed:
She prescribed subsidies, but very limited ones, which were only enough to cover monthly expenses.
A special commission was formed to manage the country's finances.
New customs duties were approved for two months, with subsequent extension.
A loan was made from the industrialists of the City, thus creating a public loan.
____________________________________
39 F. Guizot. Decree. op. – P.221
January 19, 1641 a bill was proposed, according to which it was prescribed that parliament should convene at least once every three years.
Another equally important issue concerning the Scottish army was resolved. The king constantly demanded its speedy dissolution and the conclusion of a peace treaty, to which parliament did not give a direct answer, constantly avoiding solving this problem, because the commoners were interested in the existing counterbalance royal army. Parliament did not trust Charles' army, believing that its officers could come to the aid of their king at any moment. Parliament made larger payments to Scottish soldiers than to English ones. Thus, Charles remained locked inside his country without any support, the autocrat was alone.
Having finally completed its main reforms, parliament “remembered” Strafford, who was still in prison. His trial began on March 22, 1641. and, it must be said, that the verdict was known in advance. The process was rather demonstrative in nature. The Lower House wanted to be present at the trial in its entirety to support the prosecution. The commissioners of Ireland and Scotland sat with her, thereby further increasing the number of accusers. Bishops, at the insistence of peers, were not admitted because this process was of a criminal nature. Arriving from the Tower at Westminster, Strafford saw that the crowds of people who had gathered were treating him quite respectfully, and considered this a good sign. However, the very next day he realized what his position really was and what difficulties his defense entailed. 40 For 17 days, he defended himself alone against 30 judges, who spoke one by one, replacing each other. Also, permission to have witnesses, Strafford
____________________________________
40 F. Guizot. Decree. op. – P.234
received only 3 days before the start of the process, most of which were in Ireland. But Strafford was a very smart and subtle politician, and he easily “played” on the contradictions of the accusers. Ultimately, the lower house became concerned that a “dangerous state criminal” might escape the hands of justice. Therefore, it was decided to accuse him by an act of parliament, which removed from the judges all dependence on the law. During the trial, forgery of documents was committed, there was frequent pressure on witnesses, but despite this, Strafford continued to fend off all attacks from the prosecution. But, as we know, everything comes to an end and the Strafford trial was no exception. The House of Peers hastened to pass a bill of incrimination of high treason (April 21, 1641).
At this news, the king fell into despair and decided to save the count at all costs. He even offered Sir William Belfort, the Governor of the Tower, £20,000. and Strafford's daughter as a bride to his son for organizing the Earl's escape. But he refused. Every day some new means was invented to save the count. But, as a rule, it ended in nothing.
So, on Strafford's side were the king, and the nobility represented in the House of Lords. It is not surprising that the lords dragged out the case, leaning towards Strafford's acquittal. Members of the House of Commons demanded a death sentence. The masses played a decisive role in the conviction of Strafford. When it became known that the king and lords did not agree to the execution of the hated favorite, crowds of people, several thousand people, gathered near the parliament building. Many were armed with swords, clubs, and daggers. "Justice, justice!" - shouts were heard. Then the crowd followed to the royal palace. The people demanded Strafford's immediate execution. The demonstrations continued for several days. And the lords surrendered. On May 7, 1641, they pronounced their verdict. On May 10, the king, frightened by the crowds of people who raged all night in front of his palace, signed the death warrant for his protege. Two days later, on May 12, Strafford's head was cut off.
§3. After the execution of Strafford, the king did not have proper advisers, and the parliament was opposed. The parliamentarians concentrated in their hands all the power to govern the country, but the most important thing is that the people (especially London) took their side, ceasing to support their king. This is already clearly visible when Charles, on January 3, 1642, tried to arrest five members of parliament (Pym, Hampden, Manchester, etc.), but the rebellious people did not allow him to do this. Seeing that the population of London is against him, Charles, fearing for his life, decides to leave the capital and goes to York, where he could find protection and understanding from the local landlords.
It is worth noting that before the start of the war and especially after its official declaration in 1642, Parliament launched a propaganda campaign. The theory about the duty of every Christian to rebel against non-Christian rulers has long won universal recognition, so the first to be reprinted was “A Brief Treatise on political power» John Ponnet, once Bishop of Winchester. Among the pamphlets were numerous “remonstrations,” “petitions,” and “letters,” as well as what we today call “minority reports.” 41 In 1642, along with widespread reprints of Ponnet's “Elizabeth's Cry,” democratic motives were clearly heard in the writings of two then-living writers: John Goodwin, an Independent clergyman, and Henry Parker, a lawyer. Goodwin's Against Cavalry justified resistance to a king who had ceased to observe the duties of the social contract, and Parker's Remarks on Some of His Majesty's Late Replies and Sayings
____________________________________
41 G. Holorenshaw. The Levellers and the English Revolution. – M., 1947. – P.58
put forward the thesis “power initially belongs to the people.”
The pamphlet war of this period is also interesting because it
took specific place in the history of religious tolerance. The Presbyterians were against toleration, and they wrote many serious objections to the universal freedom of thought demanded by the Independents. Let us not forget that Presbyterians are conservative by nature, and Independents are radicals. However, the demand for religious tolerance was only at first glance a purely religious issue; in reality, it concerned the right to express their views on social and political issues that concern them.
However, it is worth moving on to the civil war, which was an objective pattern in the confrontation between Charles I and parliament.
Officially, war can be considered declared on August 23, 1642, when the king decided to dissolve his banner in Nottingham, i.e. he called his subjects to arms. A rather interesting omen happened already when the banner was hoisted on the tower. On that day there was strong wind, and the banner was torn down, and when Charles ordered it to be installed in an open field, it turned out that the soil was rocky, and deep hole It was not possible to dig, because of which the shaft constantly tilted and fell, and for several hours in a row it was necessary to support it with hands. By many, these signs were interpreted as an omen of great failures in Karl’s endeavors.
In general, the entire war can be represented as a clash of hostile religious and political parties and when assessing the parties in initial period war, one may get the impression that their sphere of influence (according to
territorial basis) was divided evenly between them. However, it is worth paying attention to such features as: level of development, population, prosperity of the counties, and we will see that parliament had a clear advantage. Behind it stood the south and east - the richest and most developed regions of the country. We should also not forget the specifics of Charles’ relationship with Scotland and Ireland. The complete advantage of parliament was also observed at sea, because the sailors went over to his side and forced their officers to do the same. 42 Thanks to naval dominance, the parliamentary troops were very agile and mobile, which allowed them to constantly outpace the king’s not very maneuverable army. Also, due to maritime dominance, London and provincial capitalists, who were directly interested in maritime trade, were on the side of the commoners.
Both sides formed their armies during the war itself, and here the advantage was on the side of the cavaliers. From the very beginning, officers and generals flocked to the royal camp, having received good continental training from the Swedish and Dutch troops. 43 Consequently, in Charles’s army there were professionals who were well trained and knew their craft. As a result, many parliamentary military leaders advocated reforming the army, and when the appropriate measures were taken, the scales finally tipped in favor of the parliament. However, the advantage of the royal army in officers cannot be considered as an absolute advantage, because the army was constantly in need of ordinary soldiers, and not of officers and generals, of whom there was an abundance. Also, there were contradictions and frequent disputes regarding the conduct of the campaign - each of the officers had his own opinion on this issue. It should be noted that from the very beginning of the war the king experienced financial difficulties: there was not enough shells, uniforms, horses, and often weapons. The peasants who came to serve Charles were generally armed with pitchforks and scythes. Since the king had nothing to pay the soldiers, they had to eat at the expense of local residents, which led to a decrease in the authority of Charles himself.
____________________________________
42 S.D. Skazkin. English bourgeois revolution of the 17th century. - M., 1949. - P.124
43 A.N. Savin. Decree. op. - P.233
In the first period of the war, luck was on the side of the cavaliers and they managed to win many battles (not without difficulty), despite all the shortcomings.
The first battle between the king and parliament took place on October 23, 1642. near the town of Keyton, in the county of Warwick, at the foot of Edgegill (Battle of Edgegill). The battle lasted from noon until evening. At first, success accompanied Charles's army: his nephew, Prince Rupert, was able to defeat the parliamentary cavalry and put it to flight, but he became too carried away by the pursuit and pursued the enemy for 2 miles. When he returned, he saw
that the king's infantry was defeated and scattered, and Charles himself was almost captured. When darkness fell, each side remained on its own lines and each attributed the victory to itself. In the morning, Charles's army began to advance towards London. At the Battle of Brentford, which was located 7 miles from London, the king was able to defeat the parliamentary troops and occupied the city. Panic reigned in London. But Charles did not intend to go to the capital alone, he wanted to unite east of London with the army of Lord Newcastle, who won many victories in the County of York. However, at the last moment, Newcastle refused to march on London, and Charles, in turn, did not dare to go alone to the capital. The king only decided to besiege the city of Gloucester, but it was not possible to take it on the move, and at this time, the Earl of Essex was moving from London with an army to help the besieged. On September 5, he approached the city, but the king’s troops were no longer there. After 2 days, Essex went to London, because... there were no troops there. Along the way, the troops of Charles and Essex met near Newbury and on September 20 a battle took place here. Twice Prince Rupert broke through the enemy cavalry, but could not shake the ranks of the London militia. The fighting stopped with the onset of darkness, Essex advanced significantly, but was unable to make a turning point in the battle. He expected that at dawn he would have to go on the offensive again, but to his greatest surprise, royal troops retreated, opening the road to London for Essex.
Based on the results of this battle, one can speak about the shortsightedness of the king’s generals and Charles himself in particular. No doubt they knew that there were no more troops in London and that Essex would not receive reinforcements, but despite this, the Cavaliers retreated without taking their chance to end the war. Moreover, Charles gave parliament the opportunity to gather all its forces. So, September 25, 1643 The solemn league and covenant were made by Parliament with the Scots. And already in 1644. The entry of the Scottish army into the northern counties of England began. It was this circumstance that radically changed the state of affairs in the theater of military operations, tipping the scales in favor of parliament. Already in April 1644. Lord Fairfax and Thomas Fairfax defeated the Earl of Newcastle at the Battle of Selby. The capture of Selby restored communications between Yorkshire and Gul - trade with the northern counties was again restored.
§4. So, Parliament concluded a military alliance with the Scottish Covenanters and, as we see, this brought its advantages. But the weakness of the parliamentary cavalry was obvious and the question raised even earlier about reforming the army arises again. In January - February 1645 An army reform act (“New Model Ordinance”) is passing through both houses. The question arises: who should be appointed commander-in-chief? After many disputes and conflicts, it was decided to appoint Fairfax to this position, who did not belong to any group and was neutral.
The following rules formed the basis of the reform:
1) Parliament abandoned local county militias.,
2) new army recruited from people of different origins and subordinate to one commander-in-chief.,
3) the financial organization is changing - money is not taken from local unions, but uniform taxation is being introduced everywhere.
4) officers now had the right to corporally punish offending soldiers.,
5) introduction of special military courts.,
6) new uniforms were introduced - a red uniform.
7) members of parliament were removed from the administration of the army.
It is worth noting the activity of O. Cromwell in the formation of a new type of army. He carried out a reform in the so-called “eastern association”, i.e. in one of the units of the parliamentary army. Cromwell's main idea was to form an army from among religious and deeply religious people who would fight not so much for money as out of religious beliefs. 44 Besides religious factor, Cromwell also focused on combat tactics, introducing in his detachment
improved continental tactics.
All these innovations and transformations led to the fact that from the army of the king, soldiers began to run over to the army of parliament, because there they paid salaries regularly and there was the opportunity for career growth. The result was obvious.
July 2, 1644 the battle of Marston Moor took place, in which Cromwell’s “ironsides” played decisive role in defeat
royal troops. The battle took place in the evening, both armies stood against each other for several hours and no one dared to attack. And only at the first shots of the muskets did the armies rush to attack. The left wing of the royalist cavalry attacked the Scottish cavalry led by Fairfax with such force that they, without offering any resistance, began to flee. However, upon returning from the chase, the cavaliers found that their right flank had suffered the same fate as the Scots, despite being commanded by Rupert himself. The outcome of the battle was determined by the tenacity and perseverance of Cromwell’s squadrons, as well as their coordinated activities with
____________________________________
44 A.E. Kudryavtsev. The Great English Revolution. – M., 1925. – P.145
Manchester infantry. The results were disastrous for the king: 3 thousand killed and 16 thousand prisoners, as well as the surrender of York to the enemy. The Earl of Newcastle and Prince Rupert fled to the continent with the remnants of their armies. Karl's further struggle became pointless, however, it was not over.
was overtaken by the parliament, and Charles had no choice but to give battle, which we can learn about thanks to the records of an unknown author - a participant in the events who spoke on the side of parliament. 45 The author narrates that the two armies met on June 14 at approximately 9 o’clock in the morning. Success accompanied each side alternately, and at some point in the battle the king’s army was able to push back the central part of the parliament’s army. But thanks to the good training and unity of the soldiers and officers of parliament,
managed to level up the troops and strengthen the defense, and then, completely, begin a general offensive operation the entire army. Charles's troops wavered and were put to flight. Charles's papers were captured, revealing his dealings with Catholics, as well as his appeals to foreign powers and the Irish for help. The result of the battle was the capture of 4 thousand soldiers and the capture of 300 carts. This was not only a military, but also a political collapse of the royalists. In May 1646, Charles appeared at the Scots camp in Kelgham (by mistake) and was taken prisoner by them. He was kept in Scotland almost like a prisoner, maneuvering in his promises between the Puritans and Presbyterians, until in January 1647. was not, for 400,000 f. Art., was handed over to the English Parliament, which placed him in Holmby, under strict supervision. It should be noted that last stronghold The royal army collapsed in March 1647, with the capture of a fortress in Wales.
Thus, a new period begins in the life of Charles - his stay in captivity of parliament.
_____________________
45 V.M. Lavrovsky. Decree. op.- P.172
§5. The king, even in moments of extreme decline of his power, had no doubt that he was the central figure of all of England. This is evidenced by the following facts: the army, Presbyterian peers, independents - they are all trying to conclude an alliance with Charles, to drag him to their side. One has only to remember the king’s return from Scottish captivity and everything becomes clear: upon his arrival, bells were rung, cannons were fired in his honor, crowds of people flocked to the king’s new residence to get rid of illnesses - the king still remained the number one figure in England.
Parliament took this into account and generously allocated money to the king for his personal needs (50 pounds sterling per day). Karl did not give up and was still full of faith in the triumph of his hopes. He thought that he should wait six months and everything would fall into place. His confidence reached such an extent that he even took offense at those who did not seek his mercy at this time 46 . The king hoped either for Scottish, or Irish, or French, or Dutch help.
The winners were not able to look at the king as a simple prisoner; they saw his influence and tried to get him into their hands, and both the army and parliament entered into relations with him. Back in January 1647 Presbyterian peers were ready to make peace with the king and make big concessions if only he agreed to give parliament power over the police for 10 years and introduce the Presbyterian system for 3 years. And Karl gives his consent to these concessions in May of the same year. Simultaneously
with this, he is secretly preparing for a new civil war, flirting with the independents and the army, playing a triple game. In April 1647 Karl from
Some officers received an offer to flee to the army, but refused. Later, the king moved, accompanied by a cavalry regiment, to the main headquarters of the army, in Newmarket, and from then on had his own
____________________________________
46 A.N. Savin. Decree. op. - P. 302
residence with the army. True, he was at the main
army headquarters and had to follow him on all his movements, but he was given more freedom: the king, for example, received Anglican chaplains and saw his children and royalist peers. Charles quickly adapted to new conditions and, while with the army, he began to negotiate with Cromwell and Fairfax. The army began to dream of pacifying the country together with the king. Parliament and the army become alien to each other. It should be noted that from May 1647. the army is developing an active political life. In the army there are rallies, all-army meetings and meetings of the army representative office. The new organized force actively intervened in the political struggle, and the old political organizations had to increasingly take it into account. Cromwell, in the current situation, decided to win the king over to his side, but Charles constantly evaded his proposals, because. concluded a secret agreement with the Scots in December 1647. Under this agreement, the king undertook to confirm the covenant for three years and abolish toleration. The Scots, in turn, promised to support the royal prerogative and
seek the dissolution of the army and the Long Parliament. England and Scotland were to be more closely united, the Scots were promised the opportunity to hold public office in England, and the English could do the same in Scotland. The king and the Scots pledged to stay apart and help each other in every possible way.
To implement his plans, the king escapes to the Isle of Wight, but by doing so he only compromised himself and provoked a new civil war.
§6. Charles's flight was a sign to everyone that the king was not going to join anyone and that he had his own views on the current situation. However, Karl was soon caught again, but now his position was not as stable as before. Now the army sharply opposed the king. Under her pressure, parliament was also forced to break with the king. At the end of 1647 4 bills were presented to the king:
1) the king was deprived of the right to command the country’s military forces for 20 years, and after that, he could dispose of them only with the consent of parliament;
2) the king had to take back his statements against parliament;
3) peers elevated to this dignity by the king during the civil war were deprived of it;
4) Parliament had the right to move its meetings anywhere.
The king refused to accept these proposals; in response, parliament finally decided to stop all relations with the king. Henceforth, parliament, as well as all subjects, should not turn to the king with anything; violation of this decree was punishable as treason. The final break with Scotland was approaching, and general discontent was emerging in the country; royalists began to conduct active propaganda against the army and parliament. Particularly great unrest reigned in London, where on April 9, 1648. A rebellion broke out due to the suppression of a crowd of “rebels” by a cavalry regiment. Relations between London and the army are becoming more and more strained. The city council demands from parliament that the army leave the city and that the Presbyterian General Skippon be appointed head of the London militia. Cromwell advised accepting the demands of the townspeople, in view of the fact that a new war with the royalists was imminent, and it was necessary to enlist the support of the capital. So, on May 9, the Fairfax garrison was withdrawn from London. The unrest was especially severe in the south. The movement began in the navy. The fleet stationed off the Kentish coast was dissatisfied with the resignation of its commander and the appointment of a new one - Rainsburo. The naval unrest so inspired the Kentish royalists that they rebelled. There was even an impostor who called himself the Prince of Wales. It was under his “banners” that people began to gather. The peculiarity of this rebellion is that the people who participated in it turned out to be random. Here you can find peasants, boatmen, and apprentices - there was no strong connection among these groups and therefore, when parliament declared an amnesty for them, all the peasants went home. With this turn of affairs, Fairfax quickly defeated the Kentish rebels.
The naval unrest turned out to be much more serious. The real Prince of Wales came to the fleet and it was around him that the royalist core began to form. The sailors managed to capture several fortresses, which were later recaptured from them with great difficulty. To avoid further advance of the uprising into the interior of the country, Parliament decided to make concessions and removed the unpopular Admiral Rainsbury to the Presbyterian peer Warwick.
The central place in the second civil war belongs to the struggle with Scotland. The Scots hoped to field about 30 thousand people against the English army, but they were able to field only 20 thousand people. However, the British did not have half this number, but they were superior to the enemy in tactics and experience, plus, the English troops were led by Cromwell, who was much more experienced than the Scottish commander-in-chief - Hamilton, who at the very beginning allowed main mistake, splitting his army into 4 parts. At the Battle of Preston on August 17, 1648. Cromwell defeated one of these units, thereby sowing fear in the rest. From that moment on, all he could do was pursue the enemy army. Already at the end of August, Cromwell managed to defeat the enemy army and capture 10 thousand people. However, he still had to pacify northern England and Scotland for a long time, and it should be noted that the second civil war was more bitter than the first. The defeat of Scotland revealed that the Presbyterians did not have any significant forces behind them. 47 However, parliament did not understand this and
____________________________________
47 M.A.Barg. The Great English Revolution in portraits of its leaders. – M., 1991. – P. 156
continued to insist on an agreement with the king, and on August 24 he canceled his previous decree to terminate relations with the king. Parliament
insisted on the recognition of Presbyterianism as the state religion and on the subordination of the police to parliament. Charles at first avoided a direct answer, but ultimately proposed a compromise: he would cede command of the militia for 20 years and propose to introduce something between episcopate and Presbyterianism as the state religion. However, during further negotiations, Charles flatly refused to introduce Presbyterianism. In response to this statement, Parliament makes concessions and on December 5 states that the royal proposals can serve as a basis for continuing negotiations. It is unknown what these negotiations would have led to, but the next day (December 6) the famous “Pride Purge” took place, during which members of parliament who wanted an alliance with the king were eliminated. In the end, about a hundred deputies obedient to the army remain.
Successes in the second civil war greatly raised the spirits of the radicals, who, together with the Levellers, demanded decisive reprisals against all those responsible for civil wars. Of course, it was clear to everyone that they demanded a trial of the king.
It was on this note, not entirely optimistic for Charles, that the second civil war ended, and with it the king’s last chance to restore his former power and absolutism.
§7. So, the people, in the person of Cromwell and the army, demanded a trial of the monarch, seeing in him the cause of all the troubles that happened to England during his reign. And already on December 23, Charles was transferred to Windsor, where the council of officers tried for the last time to enter into an agreement with the king, but he did not make any concessions. Then, on December 28, a proposal was made to the House of Commons to try the king, who was accused of high treason, inciting civil wars, in intercourse with the rebellious Irish and in violation of the laws and liberties of the country. But when this proposal was submitted to the House of Lords, it was unanimously rejected. This refusal made it impossible to convict the king according to constitutional principle. To find a way out, on January 4, the communities passed 3 resolutions that transferred all power to the lower house. And two days later the act of creation was adopted Supreme Court, and it was also established that the king would be tried by 135 commissioners, who were both judge and jury.
However, this process caused great controversy. So, for example, Major White wrote a letter to Fairfax, in which he said that it was impossible to try the king and that the court that was going to try him did not have real judicial powers. 48 White was in favor of killing the king, but not in favor of trial, and therefore advised simply removing the monarch from power by keeping him as a prisoner. This point vision was very realistic and devoid of party ideology, but the judges, and especially the defendant, could not take this path.
So, trial has begun. During his time, Karl was called “before” the Supreme Court three times. On the first day (January 20) he was told the charges against him. These charges were brought on behalf of the people. Legal proceedings were initiated against the king as against a tyrant, traitor, murderer and public enemy of the state.
After reading the charges, Karl was given the floor to give his
explanations for these charges, but he refused. Subsequently, Carla
He was brought to court twice more, and twice he refused to give his explanations about the charges. Already on the basis of this disrespect for the law, the court could make its decision on this case, believing that the king agreed with everything, but he did not, because. decided to examine witnesses under oath and take their testimony into account. After considering all
____________________________________
48 A.N. Savin. Decree. Op. - P. 325
circumstances and facts, the court was convinced that Charles I was guilty of raising a war against parliament and the people, supporting and continuing it, for which he must be punished.
“For all treasonable acts and crimes, this court sentences the said Charles Stuart, as a tyrant, traitor, murderer and public enemy of the people, to death by cutting off the head from the body.” 49 This was the verdict of the Supreme Court over the king, read out on January 27, 1649. The order to execute Charles was announced on January 29, 1649. and sounded like this: “Since Charles Stuart, King of England, is accused, convicted and convicted of high treason and other serious crimes, and a sentence has been passed against him by this court, you are therefore ordered to carry out the said sentence in the open street before Whitehall to-morrow , January 30, between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. the same day.” 50
The executioner and his assistant stood ready on the platform. The latter’s duty was to raise the severed head high, shouting “here is the head of the traitor.” They were wearing half masks and, moreover, made up (they had mustaches and beards glued on), in sailor clothes. 51 On the day of his execution, on the scaffold, Charles decided to make a speech, but the people did not hear it, because... the scaffold was surrounded by soldiers who only heard the speech. Charles blamed parliament for the start of the war and called on the people to return to the old order. He called himself a martyr and said that he was dying for freedom. It is interesting that even before his death, Karl blamed himself for allowing Strafford to be executed and in his speech he mentioned this too.
Thus ended the life of Charles Stewart.
____________________________________
49 V.M. Lavrovsky. Decree. op. - P. 234
50 V.M. Lavrovsky. Right there. – P. 234
51 M.A.Barg. Charles I Stuart. Trial and execution // New and recent history. – 1970. No. 6. – P. 163
Conclusion
Summarizing all of the above, I would like to highlight the reasons for Karl’s implementation of such a policy, and also try to understand the reasons for his failures.
It is believed that the basic qualities of a person are laid down in childhood. Karl was not raised to be a politician with youth, he was not prepared to govern the state. Therefore, he had no idea what could await him when he came to power. He was well versed in music, painting, and theater, often not noticing what was happening around him. Charles's father did not pay attention to him, because he believed that he would never become king.
Karl often relied on the opinions of his associates, asking them for advice. Which means he didn't have an opinion. For example, the Duke of Buckingham, who had a huge influence on the king and his will. His wife Henrietta Maria, who wanted to participate in governing the country and weaved cunning intrigues, had no less influence on Charles. And there is no need to even talk about such a favorite of the king as the Earl of Strafford. After all, until his death he blamed himself for his execution.
When Karl came to power, he immediately came into conflict with parliament, as he felt that his power was not limited by anyone or anything. It seems to me that it was the fight with parliament that was the key reason for all of Charles’s failures, which gave rise to all the others.
It's no secret that throughout almost his entire reign, Charles always needed money, and its constant shortage led to frequent quarrels and contradictions with parliament, which subsequently resulted in the unparliamentary rule of Charles. Money was also needed during the fight against parliament. This was the key to Parliament's victory in the first civil war.
Not a little important role The religious issue also played a role in Charles’s politics. His implantation of the Anglican religion in Scotland led to the Scottish War, which in turn led to Charles’s retreat from his principles and the convening of Parliament.
Charles’s policy itself during the years of unparliamentary rule was not aimed in favor of the people (peasants, bourgeoisie), but boiled down to strengthening the old patrimonial aristocracy, which had lost its former power and was now unable to be the support of royal absolutism.
The consciousness of people who no longer considered royal power so unshakable also changed, but Charles could not understand this and lived in the old way. Already being in captivity, he refused to compromise with the army and parliament.
I would like to note that Charles and his father James were kings of Scottish origin, founding the Stuart dynasty in England, which also played a role.
All this led Charles I Stuart to the death and fall of the monarchy, as it seems to me.
Bibliography.
Charles I de Bourbon Archbishop of Rouen
Biography >> Historical figuresLeague by the King of France under the name Carla X, but really didn’t rule... . Son Carla IV de Bourbon, brother... by marriage of Francis II and Mary Stewart, Philip of Spain and Elizabeth of France. ... the Count of Artois called himself Karl X, not Karl XI. Shortly before death...
Arkhangelsky S.I. Agrarian legislation of the great English revolution. – M., 1935.
English revolution of the mid-17th century. (for the 350th anniversary). Abstract collection. – M., 1991.
Barg M.A. The lower classes in the English bourgeois revolution of the 17th century. – M., 1967.
Barg M.A. The Great English Revolution in portraits of its leaders. – M., 1991.
Barg M.A. Charles I Stuart. Trial and execution // New and recent history, 1970, No. 6.
Gardiner S.R. Puritans and Stuarts (1603 - 1660). – St. Petersburg, 1896.
Guizot F. History of the English Revolution. – vol. 1, Rostov-on-Don., 1996.
Zvereva K.I. History of Scotland. – M., 1987.
Kertman L.E. Geography, history and culture of England. – M., 1979.
Kudryavtsev A.E. The Great English Revolution. – M., 1925.
Lavrovsky V.M. Collection of documents on the history of the English bourgeois revolution of the 17th century - M., 1973.
Lavrovsky V.M., Barg M.A. English bourgeois revolution. - M., 1958.
Essays on the history of England. / ed. Assoc. G.R. Levin M., 1959.
Pavlova T.A. The royal title in this land is useless // Questions of History, 1980, No. 8.
Roginsky Z.I. The trip of the messenger Gerasim Semenovich Dokhturov to England in 1645-1646. – Yaroslavl., 1959.
Ryzhov K. Monarchs of the world. – M., 1999.
Savin A.N. Lectures on the history of the English Revolution. - M., 1937.
Skazkin S.D. English bourgeois revolution of the 17th century. - M., 1949.
Carla
Was the last representative of the royal house Stuarts and his death would lead... at the age of eighteen Henry Stewart died of typhus. The heir to the English... king) became younger brother Charles. Henry Stewart buried in Westminster Abbey. ...