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
December 2, 1648 revolutionary army Oliver Cromwell entered London. Getting ready trial, not yet heard in the annals of mankind: the trial of the people over King Charles I, who was taken as a prisoner to the English capital.
Van Dyck.Portrait of KarlI.
True, they managed to recruit only a few people for the people's court. Out of several hundred members of parliament and the “High Chamber of Justice”, only 67 people dared to judge the king. These were army officers (the so-called “Cromwellian colonels”), former cab drivers, servants, clerks and other representatives of the urban lower classes. All of them seriously feared for their lives, and the chairman of the court, John Bradshaw, even sewed steel plates into his judge's hat just in case.
The revolutionary court at all costs wanted to give its actions the appearance of a legitimate legal procedure. But please judge the king according to the law, if the laws in the kingdom are royal! Karl pointed out this contradiction to the judges at the very first meeting: “Show me the legal grounds for your trial, based on the words of God, Holy Bible or the constitution of the kingdom. My powers are inherited by law, given to me by God himself.”
The House of Commons had to usurp rights and declare itself supreme authority in the country. The next day, the court declared the king “a tyrant, a traitor and a murderer, an open enemy of the English state.” But when the time came to put their signature on the verdict, many members of the court literally lost their hands. Cromwell approached them, put the pen in their fingers and himself moved their hand over the paper.
And then it took a long time to look for the executioner, since the full-time masters of shoulder cases would not agree to chop off the king’s head for any money. Finally, they found a volunteer who appeared before the public wearing a mask, a wig and a false beard.
On January 30, 1649, at two o'clock in the afternoon, Charles, all in black, ascended the scaffold erected in front of the royal palace. He addressed the crowd, but his words, spoken in a weak voice, were carried away by gusts of frosty wind. Only the guards and the executioner heard last phrase: “I die for freedom, I am a martyr for the people.”
Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich turned out to be the only European monarch who condemned the murder of Charles I. By his order English merchants were deprived of trade privileges in Russia and expelled from the country. It was allowed to trade it only in Arkhangelsk, because, it was said in royal decree, they “committed a great evil deed to the whole earth, they killed their sovereign King Charles to death.” Alexei Mikhailovich’s decision remained unchanged even after the personal intervention of the son of the executed king - the future king Charles II: “And for such villains and traitors and murderers to their sovereign it would not be appropriate to speak of murderers. But for their evil deeds they deserve execution, not mercy. It is still indecent for the Moscow state to have such villains.”
For it is known that Charles Stuart, the present King of England, not content with the many infringements upon the rights and liberties of the people committed by his predecessors, set out to completely destroy the ancient and fundamental laws and rights of this nation, and to introduce in their place an arbitrary and tyrannical government, for which purpose he unleashed terrible war against parliament and the people, which devastated the country, depleted the treasury, suspended useful activities and trade and cost the lives of many thousands of people... treacherously and maliciously sought to enslave the English nation... For the fear of all future rulers who might attempt something similar, the king should be brought to answer before a special court of justice consisting of 150 members, appointed by this Parliament, presided over by two Chief Justices.
Sentence of Charles I, 1 January 1649
Portrait of Charles I, King of England. Artist A. Van Dyck
135. Reign of Charles I until 1640
James I's son, Charles I (1625–1649), was much smarter and more prudent than his father, but continued the same policy, and thought that in government affairs may make promises with the intention of not keeping them when it is advantageous and convenient. In the first years of his reign he convened parliament three times, but met only distrust and resistance. By the way, he started a war with France and fought it extremely unsuccessfully. Parliament criticized the actions of the government and especially sharply attacked the frivolous royal adviser, Buckingham, who was still a favorite of James I. Particularly important was the parliament of 1628, which forced Charles I to approve Petition for rights listing all the rights of both chambers and the liberties of the nation, including the freedom of subjects from arbitrary arrests and emergency courts. This petition was like the second Magna Carta, Charles I decided, however, not to fulfill his promise, dissolved parliament and sent some of its members to prison. After that he started rule the country without parliament, which lasted eleven years(1629–1640), is a case unprecedented in the history of England. The main advisers to Charles I were Counts Strafford and Archbishop of Canterbury Lod. The first was called before it was awarded count's title Thomas Wentworth and in previous parliaments attacked the inept policies of Buckingham, but when the latter was killed by one of those dissatisfied with his actions, Wentworth became close to Charles I, became his governor in Ireland and began to recruit an army there to support royalty. He was an absolutist who wanted to establish in England the same orders that were being introduced at that time on the mainland, and who considered it necessary to have a larger military force. He was, however, against any religious exclusivity, while another adviser to Charles I, Laud, on the contrary, persecuted the Puritans and tried to bring the dogmas and rituals of the Anglican Church closer to Catholicism. During all this time Charles I collected money without parliamentary permission, declaring forced loans or interpreting laws in their own way. For example, previously the coastal counties in wartime paid a special tax for the maintenance of the fleet, which Charles I now extended completely Peaceful time throughout England with the aim of creating land army. One of the members of the previous parliaments, a wealthy landowner Hampden, who had previously refused to give money under the guise of a loan and paid for it in prison, did not want to contribute this ship's tax. The king then brought him before the court, which found him guilty. Hampden and many of his other like-minded people wanted to follow the example of the persecuted Puritans and move to American colonies England, but Charles I banned emigration. The government fought against those who disobeyed the royal will with various illegal means, sending them military posts and subjecting them to emergency trials (“ high commission" and "star chamber"), which sentenced them to prison, exhibition in the pillory, cutting off ears, confiscation of property, etc. Apparently, the system of Strafford, who advised to go ahead, triumphed, but difficulties were soon encountered.
136. Scottish Rebellion
Both James I and Charles I hated the Scottish Presbyterian Church and tried to bring it closer to Anglicanism. James I restored the episcopate in it, and under Charles I Laud compiled a new liturgy for Scotland, close to the Anglican one. When this liturgy began to be served for the first time in the Edinburgh Cathedral, it was met with protest from the worshipers (1637), and soon a national union for the defense of Presbyterianism in its pure form. The uprising began which Strafford and Laud advised Charles I to suppress by force. However, this turned out to be not so easy, especially since the British sympathized with the Scots, and even the soldiers, among whom there were many Puritans, did not want to go to the “bishop’s war.” They often killed officers who were suspected of papism and destroyed the interior decoration of Anglican churches. Charles I had no money, and willy-nilly, unable to cope with the Scots, he had to convene parliament just at a moment when strong unrest began in England. Parliament met in the spring of 1640, and it received a mass of petitions from counties and cities to stop the abuses. At the same time, they began to publish in large quantities political brochures, and Puritan sermons became bolder. The assembled parliament announced that it would give the king subsidies if he stopped breaking the laws; but Charles I responded by dissolving parliament. He tried to get consent to taxes from one of the upper houses, but the lords told him that they did not have the right to do this. Then in autumn1640 G. Charles convened parliament again, which became known in history as Long time.
England was declared for the first and only time in its history republic after the execution of the king in 1649, the supreme power in it belonged to the unicameral Parliament, because the House of Lords was abolished Act of repeal House of Lords in March 1649 Constitutional consolidation republican form of government was completed Act of May 19, 1649.State Council became supreme body executive power , who was responsible to Parliament. His tasks included:
opposition to the restoration of the monarchy;
control of the country's armed forces;
establishment of taxes;
trade management and foreign policy countries.
The new republic, which actually turned out to be independent oligarchy, enriched the bourgeoisie and the new nobility by selling the confiscated lands of the king, bishops and “cavaliers” for next to nothing.
After the establishment of the republic, the social struggle did not weaken, since for the Levellers it was only initial stage struggle to deepen transformations (diagram 3).
Scheme 3.
Under these conditions, independent leaders, relying on the army elite, established a regime military dictatorship - - Cromwell's protectorate(1653 - 1658). The main normative act of this period was the “Cromwellian Constitution” - - Control tool 1653 g., which consolidated the constitutional foundations of the regime.
Leveler leaders were thrown into prison, and Leveler uprisings in the army were suppressed.
After Cromwell's death, the dictatorship collapsed. In 1659, republican innovations were formally restored in England, but the bourgeoisie and gentry, frightened by the strengthening of the democratic movement, began to lean towards the “traditional monarchy” (Table 6). In 1660, the restoration of the Stuarts took place, who in Declaration of Breda sanctioned the main economic gains of the bourgeois revolution.
Table 6.
In the subsequent history of England, usually called "Glorious Revolution"(the top coup d'etat of 1688-1689) a compromise was formalized between the bourgeoisie and the landed aristocracy. From then on, the bourgeoisie gained access to state power (diagram 4).
Establishment of a constitutional monarchy in England XVII - - XVIII V. did not happen immediately and was enshrined in the following acts of parliament:
Habeas corpus act(“An Act for the better provision of the liberty of subjects and for the prevention of imprisonment overseas”) - - 1679;
Bill of rights -- 1689;
Act of arrangement- - 1701
Adopted in 1679 Habeas corpus act("An Act for the Better Assurance of the Liberty of Subjects and for the Prevention of Imprisonment Overseas") acquired the significance of one of the main constitutional documents of England. It established the rules for the arrest and bringing the accused to trial, gave the court the right to control the legality of the detention and arrest of citizens and contained a number of principles of fair and democratic justice: the presumption of innocence; compliance with the law when detaining a person; the principle of a quick and expeditious trial carried out with due process and at the place where the offense was committed. The name of this document comes from the Latin initial line of the court order for the delivery of the arrested person (literally - the act of moving the body).
Bill of rights 1689 g. sharply limited the prerogatives of the Crown and guaranteed the rights of Parliament. It established, in particular, freedom of speech and debate in parliament, freedom of elections to parliament, and the right of subjects to petition the king. The term of office of parliament was set at 3 years, and was subsequently increased to 7 years. The supremacy of parliament in the field of legislative power and financial policy was asserted. From now on, without the consent of parliament, the king did not have the right to take any significant actions.
The king continued to participate in legislative activities, and he was also given the right of absolute veto (Fig. 5).
Act of arrangement, or "Law on Succession to the Throne", adopted in 1701, established the order of succession to the throne and contained further clarifications of the competence of the legislative and executive power. It was very important for the development of the modern constitutional system of England. It contained:
establishment the principle of countersignature, according to which acts issued by the king were valid only with the signature of the corresponding minister;
establishment principle of irremovability of judges - - From now on it was possible to remove them from office only by decision of parliament. This rule proclaimed separation judiciary from the executive.
Scientists note that important part The unwritten English constitution consists of certain rules, the establishment of which determines the further development of English constitutional law. These rules began to be established in the 18th century. and got the name constitutional precedents. The main ones include, for example: the king’s failure to attend cabinet meetings; formation of a government from members of the party that won the elections to the House of Commons; collegial responsibility of the cabinet of ministers; the king's waiver of the right of veto (not used in England since 1707) (diag. 6).
At the beginning of the 18th century. A new executive body was created in England - - cabinet of ministers headed by Prime Minister. By the middle of the 18th century. The cabinet of ministers became the highest body for managing public affairs, separate from the king, consisting of representatives of the majority party in parliament and collectively responsible to the House of Commons.
The independence of the cabinet of ministers was ensured by such an unwritten rule (constitutional precedent) as the king's non-attendance at cabinet meetings. The responsibility of cabinet members to parliament was expressed in the resignation of a cabinet member whose policy did not receive the support of the House of Commons (Fig. 7).
