For the first time in the history of the nation, the trial of the Crown

Trial that resulted in King Charles I Stuart of England being sentenced to death penalty, was the first court in history that approved the right of subjects not only to obey the royal mercy, but also to demand that the king protect their own interests.

At the beginning of the 17th century, England, before all the powers of Europe, came to the forefront of the development of new industrial relations. For the first time in history, the emerging English bourgeoisie was able to feel its significance, and hence its right to demand that the king protect its own interests. The spokesman for these interests was the Parliament, formed in England as early as the 13th century as an organ of representation of all classes, including the English bourgeoisie.

But the Stuart dynasty that ruled in those days did not recognize the limitations of absolute monarchical power. The struggle between the crown and Parliament intensified already under its first representative, the son of Mary Stuart, James I. His heir, Charles I, who ascended the throne in 1625, was brought up in the same spirit.

1628 - the young king, who was in great need of funds to maintain his usual way of life, was forced to convene a parliament. At its very first meeting, the parliamentarians filed a "Petition of Right" to the king, in accordance with it, any taxes and taxes could be collected only with the consent of parliament. The rest of the offerings to the king were declared illegal. But Charles 1 constantly violated adopted law, and soon completely dissolved Parliament.

For the next 11 years, the king ruled alone. However, in 1637 a war broke out between England and Scotland, and Charles 1 needed a lot of money. 1640, April - the king was forced to convene parliament again to approve additional taxes. But the parliament, protecting the interests of the bourgeoisie, did not support the new bill. In addition, parliamentarians began to demand the abolition of the emergency royal courts, which the king introduced during his sole reign, as well as the punishment of the most hated officials. In response to this, already on May 5, the king dissolved this parliament, which in history was called the Short.

In this situation, Karl clearly overestimated his strength. By autumn, it became clear that the royal power in England was in a critical state - the people did not obey the king. Therefore, in November 1640, Stuart convened a new parliament, called the Long (because it lasted until 1653). Charles 1 was forced to approve a law according to which parliament could be dissolved only in accordance with the decision of the parliament itself. All institutions of royal power, namely the Star Chamber and the High Commission, which were called upon to administer justice in the state, were dissolved. Thus the absolute power of the king was limited and the monarchy became constitutional.

The king could not accept this. He issued a declaration on the protection of the crown from parliament and on the formation of the royal army. After an unsuccessful attempt on January 4, 1642 to arrest the 5 most influential parliamentarians on charges of treason, the king was forced to leave the capital, counting on the support of the provinces.

There was a dual power in England. 1642, July - the House of Commons passes a resolution on the creation of its own army, and Charles 1 in August of the same year declared war on parliament. This was the beginning of the civil war of 1642-1646. On the side of the monarch were the economically backward northern and western counties, as well as the Anglican Church. The economically developed south-western, as well as individual industrial and commercial areas of the center and north of the state, stood up for the parliament.

At first, the advantage was with the well-trained royal army. But in 1645 the opposition created a standing army with a unified command and severe discipline. The talented politician and military leader Oliver Cromwell stood at the head of the parliamentary army. He was able to create military formations that deserved the glory of the best in Europe.

1645, June 14 - at the Battle of Nesby, the new army of Parliament was able to defeat the royal troops. Charles 1 managed to escape to Scotland, but the enemy captured not only artillery, ammunition and royal banners, but also the secret correspondence of the royal office, which played an important role in the course of the trial that followed soon.

The Scots proved to be unreliable allies. For £400,000 they gave Charles to Parliament. After which the monarch became a prisoner. At first, Hurstcastle was chosen as his place of residence. Supporters of Charles were preparing an escape. His nephew, Prince Rupert, had to free his uncle from the castle. But by that time the king had been transferred and imprisoned closer to London (at Windsor Castle). On the way to Windsor, during a stop at Bagshot, Lord Newburgh's estate, the hospitable host wanted to provide Carl with one of the best horses for which his stables were famous.

Then no pursuit could overtake the king if he could decide to escape. But the head of the guard Harrison prudently ordered the trotter to be given to one of the soldiers of the convoy. And in Windsor, the prisoner was transferred to a stricter regime of detention: the number of his servants was reduced; those who remained were obliged to report everything that could contribute to the escape. The door to the room where the king was, was guarded all the time. All visits were banned, and walks were limited to the castle terrace.

By that time, the decision on the trial of the monarch had already been made. Political situation in England developed in this way. The Independents came to power, led by Oliver Cromwell. This political party expressed the interests of the radical wing of the bourgeoisie and the new nobility (gentry). She by force was able to achieve a majority in the House of Commons.

On December 23, this chamber adopted a resolution - it called Charles 1 the main culprit for all the misfortunes in the state, which in reality experienced enormous difficulties associated with the civil war and its consequences. A special committee was appointed, which was supposed to develop a procedure for the trial of the king.

Not only in the practice of English legal proceedings of those times, but in general in Europe, there were no such precedents. Therefore, the committee established a special judicial board, and the House of Commons on December 28, 1648 issued a decree on the trial of the sovereign.

This decision was not easy for Parliament. Many of its members fled the capital, including those on whom development depended. legal framework future process. Even being staunch opponents of the king, not all parliamentarians were able to oppose the legitimate monarch.

1649, January 1 - The House of Commons considered and adopted a draft ordinance, which was presented by the preparatory committee.

It read: “Since it is known that Charles 1 Stuart, the present English king, not content with the many infringements on the rights and freedoms of the people allowed by his predecessors, set out to completely destroy the ancient and fundamental laws and rights of this nation and introduce in their place an arbitrary and tyrannical government , for which he unleashed a terrible war against Parliament and the people, which devastated the country, exhausted the treasury, suspended useful employment and trade and cost the lives of many thousands of people ... treacherously and maliciously sought to enslave the English nation.

At the fear of all future rulers who might try to do something like this, the king must be brought to justice before a special court of justice, consisting of 150 members appointed by this parliament, under the chairmanship of two supreme judges.

They decided to create a special Supreme Court of Justice for the trial of the king.

The very next day, the House of Lords, which then consisted of only 16 people, received this resolution and unanimously rejected it. The aristocratic parliamentarians believed that the king had more rights than parliament and had the right to dissolve it. And the Earl of Northumberland, a staunch supporter of Parliament, said: “It is unlikely that even one person in twenty will agree with the statement that the King, and not Parliament, started the war. Without a preliminary clarification of this circumstance, the king cannot be accused of high treason.

Thus, the bill presented by the House of Commons did not receive legal force. Then on January 4, 1649, the House of Commons declared itself the bearer of supreme power in the country. The rights of the king and the House of Lords were limited. The people were declared the source of any legitimate power, and their elected representatives, represented by members of the House of Commons, were the highest authority.

Despite considerable dissatisfaction with royal policy among the majority of the population, it was not an easy task to assemble the Supreme Court of Justice. Some of the judges appointed by the House of Commons refused to take part in the trial. And one of them, Sydney, directly told the chairman of the court, J. Bradshaw, that "no court has the right to judge the king at all, and no one can be tried like this court." He actually recognized the Supreme Court of Justice as an illegitimate body.

In response, the House of Commons adopted a resolution that gave the right to pass sentence even if the decision was made even by 20 of its members (the final number of judges was to be 135 people). At the same time, contrary to the existing judicial system in England, judges Supreme Court justice were at the same time jurors. (This nullified the very principle of the institution of jurors.)

1649, January 19 - The king was transported from Windsor to London. And the next day, the court began, which sat for only five days. First, an act of parliament was read out, which confirmed the powers of the court. Then the accused was brought in. The king entered and, without taking off his hat, went to the chair assigned to him, emphasizing in such a way that he does not recognize the competence of the court.

The indictment was read to the monarch. Charles 1 was accused of treason, the desire to appropriate unlimited and tyrannical power, to destroy the rights and privileges of the people, to unleash a civil war, to prepare a foreign invasion of England. Charles was declared responsible "for all treason, murder, violence, fires, looting, damages caused to the nation" during the war. He was declared "a tyrant, a traitor, a public and merciless enemy of the English people."

The King made several unsuccessful attempts to interrupt the reading. Chief Justice Bradshaw invited the king to comment on the charges. But he, still not recognizing the legality of the court, demanded explanations from the judges. He wondered what legal authority had summoned him to this hall. After all, in his eyes, the only legitimate authority was himself.

The court did not answer. Carl's impassioned speech, which he had prepared, was interrupted at the very beginning. Under the cries of the soldiers "Justice, justice!" The king was removed from the hall. Bradshaw obviously did not want those present to hear from the lips of the defendant that he could not be tried by any of the English courts, especially one that was created without the participation of the House of Lords.

The judges were in a very difficult position. The refusal of Charles 1 to answer the charges made it impossible to conduct a trial and, first of all, to hear the witnesses and the accuser's speech. Without this, it was impossible to pass a death sentence, and this was the main goal of the parliamentarians. The court procedure had to be continued at any cost.

The king was warned that the court would regard his silence as an admission of guilt. But the monarch continued to take his former position: he did not recognize the legality of his trial. Then the accuser suggested that the witnesses be heard without the defendant's explanations. In his opinion, the fault of the sovereign was too obvious to comply with accepted norms.

33 witnesses were interrogated over the course of two days. Their testimony was heard at a public hearing in front of a huge crowd of people. Interrogations of witnesses continued for two days. On January 25, the testimony of the witnesses was read out at a public hearing of the court. But, given the scale of the process, they still could not be recognized as the basis for a death sentence.

Most of the witnesses spoke of the participation of the king in battles against his own subjects. The London weaver Richard Blomfield testified that the royal soldiers plundered the captured in the presence of Charles. Another witness, a peasant from Rutland, spoke of the massacre of the defenders of the city of Leicester. According to his testimonies, the sovereign, in response to the protests of one of the officers of his army, said: "I'm not worried if three times more of them are cut out - they are my enemies." This, according to the court, was enough to accuse the king of tyranny and the murder of his own subjects (although parliament was equally to blame for unleashing a civil war).

But there were still many royalists and opponents of the trial of the monarch in the country. Among them were many priests who campaigned for the king not only during sermons, but also in the streets and squares of cities. The European powers also tried to put pressure on Parliament. The fleet of Charles's nephew, Prince Rupert, sailed off the English coast. The King of France issued a manifesto condemning the process. And the States General of Holland sent two ambassadors to the capital of England. They were supposed to persuade parliament to abandon the court.

All this, however, could not affect the situation. On January 27, the last court session took place. Carl was given the last word. The king asked that he be heard in the presence of the parliamentarians of both chambers. Many members of the court were inclined to satisfy the desire of the defendant. However, the initiative was seized by Cromwell, who was also in the courtroom. He declared that not a single word of the king could be trusted, that it was impossible to expect anything good from a man whom God had rejected. The request of the monarch was rejected.

Then came Bradshaw. He stated: “There is an agreement that is concluded between the king and his people, and the obligations arising from it are mutual. The duty of the sovereign to protect his people, the duty of the people is loyalty to the sovereign. If the king once broke his oath and his obligations, he destroyed his sovereignty.” So, according to his firm conviction, the judges did a great work of justice.

At the end, the verdict was read out. It read: "The mentioned Charles 1 Stuart, as a tyrant, traitor, murderer and public enemy, is sentenced to death by cutting off his head from his body." The document had only 59 signatures.

The execution was scheduled for January 30, 1649. At two o'clock in the afternoon, dressed in all black, the king appeared on the square where the scaffold was built. He was surrounded by several ranks of cavalry, which separated the crowd from the place of execution. Spectators filled not only the square. Many watched from balconies, rooftops and street lamps.

On the platform in the clothes of sailors, with beards and mustaches glued on, in masks were the executioner and his assistant. The king ascended the scaffold, took out a folded piece of paper from his pocket and read out a farewell word. No one but the guard could hear him. A minute later, the assistant executioner, performing his duties, lifted the severed head of the executed Charles 1 by the hair and showed it to the crowd.

The execution of Charles 1 did not bring relief to the English people. After 10 years, royal power was restored. The heir to the throne, the son of Charles I, returned to England and was crowned as Charles II. He gave the order to judge all who took part in the trial of his father. During interrogations, many of them said that they protested against the verdict. The body of the main inspirer of the trial and execution of the monarch, Oliver Cromwell, was removed from the grave on the anniversary of the death of Charles 1. The corpse was hanged and then its head was cut off. The body was buried in a hole dug under the gallows. And for a long time, the head impaled on a spear frightened passers-by near Westminster with empty eye sockets.

The day of January 30, 1649 turned out to be surprisingly frosty. On the square, fenced on three sides by the buildings of the royal palace of Whitehall, the sound of axes was heard - the last preparations were underway. Here they built a platform on which Charles Stewart, the king of England, was to lose his head. The first open trial of a monarch in history ended with an open execution.

The king awoke early, and after spending some time in prayer, received communion and absolution from the hands of Bishop Jackson, who made every effort to lighten the last moments of his master's life; then he was led through the park to Whitehall.

At two o'clock in the afternoon he is up on the platform. The scaffold, covered with black crepe, was surrounded by several ranks of cavalry, separating the place of execution from the audience.

Karl took a folded sheet out of his pocket and addressed the crowd surrounding the place of execution with a "farewell" word. When Charles had finished his preparations for his execution, Bishop Jackson addressed him in the following words: "There is only one, the last step, Sir, difficult, terrible, but also very short ... You will change, Bishop continued, a temporary kingdom into an eternal kingdom; good change!" .

Taking off his mantle, Charles handed over to the bishop his George (a figure of St. George on a horse framed with precious stones, an attribute of the Order of the Garter) and uttered only one word "Remember!", then he laid his head on the chopping block and, stretching his arms forward, gave the signal to the executioners.

Charles I was executed in the 49th year of his life and in the 24th year of his reign. The execution of this monarch meant the victory of the English Parliament in its long and bitter opposition to the monarch, which constituted one of the main lines in the English Revolution.

This revolution was one of the most important events European history. Disputes about her character do not stop to this day. The first revolution on a European scale, it opened the era of the collapse of the feudal system in Europe, laying the foundation for the formation of the capitalist. This was the last revolutionary movement in Europe, taking place under the medieval banner of the struggle of one religious doctrine against another. The assault on absolutism in England began with the assault on its ideology, ethics and morals, which were embodied in the doctrine of the semi-Catholic state Anglican Church.

The proposed marriage of Charles with the Spanish infanta caused great alarm in English society. In response to a parliamentary petition that vehemently opposed rapprochement with Spain, James I developed the theory that the rights and liberties of Parliament were not his. "inheritance", but "an act of royal favor" which he may be deprived of at any time. When the House of Commons, protesting against such an interpretation of its rights and privileges, declared that the discussion of all questions relating to the crown, the state, the protection of religion, - its "an ancient and inalienable right", the king, at a meeting of the Privy Council and in the presence of the heir to the throne, with his own hand tore out the text of the memorandum from the journal of the House of Commons in order to eliminate the possibility of using it "ambiguous expressions" in the future as a precedent. Naturally, Parliament was immediately dissolved.

Bristol, the English ambassador to Spain, received a direct order not to use the powers granted to him to complete the negotiations until a guarantee was given for the return of the Palatinate to Frederick. The Spanish king understood what this meant. However, he wanted the whole blame for the break to fall on the English, and therefore gave Bristol a written promise, by which he pledged, by persuasion or by any other means, to achieve the return of the Palatinate to Frederick; and when he found that this concession came to nothing, he ordered the infanta to resign the title of Princess of Wales, which she bore after the arrival of the marriage license from Rome, and stop studying in English.

In 1624, James I was forced to convene parliament again. Now the monarch listened to very bitter reproaches, in which, as it were, all the absurdities of his inner and foreign policy. However, as soon as he received the long-awaited "subsidies" from Parliament, the "double game" familiar to the Stuarts' policy was immediately revealed: only a few months after the promises of James I not to conclude treaties with foreign states without the knowledge and consent of Parliament, he did not hesitate to conclude a secret agreement with France on the marriage of Charles, Prince of Wales, and Henrietta Maria. As a result, contrary to the requirements of Parliament, England - a Protestant country - was to receive a Catholic queen, whose court could become the center of Catholic intrigues.

Jacob didn't have long to live. In the spring of 1625, after a three-day fever, he felt extremely weak and called the prince to him. He begged him to love his wife dearly, to remain constancy in the faith, to defend the Church of England and not to leave the unfortunate family of the count palatine in his care. On March 27, Yakov died.

Charles took the reins of state government into his own hands, being unshakably confident that his popularity would allow him to carry out any events. He was bound by a treaty made by his father, obliging him to protect his son-in-law, the King of Bohemia. Now Charles was forced to join the war.

However, it was easier to announce than to raise funds for it, and therefore he looked forward to the moment when he could receive indisputable proof of the loyalty of his dutiful subjects. His first speech to Parliament was imbued with innocence and cordiality. Firmly convinced of the love of the communities, the king decided that their generous gift should be entirely their own act, which is not asked or demanded - the true fruit of unconditional trust and deep respect for his person.

As soon as the meeting opened, the lower house began to go over all parts of the government: external and internal affairs, negotiations, alliances, the use of past and future taxes, the state of religion, the pacification of the papists. She expected the king to meet her demands and showed a firm determination to intervene in all matters, using her committees and petitions, and to express her opinion on everything.

The reproaches were not related to the reign of Charles itself. It has just begun. However, such an extensive and heated trial of state affairs seemed to him already a violation of his rights; freedom of speech offended him. The king was beginning to get angry, but he tried not to show it. Such language, though unpleasant, did not yet seem dangerous to him. Moreover, he needed subsidies. The last parliament ardently desired war with Spain: the present one could not refuse to support it. Charles insisted that he be immediately given the means for waging war, and promised to satisfy just complaints.

The Chamber did not believe the promises. Despite the fact that the king had not yet had time to give a single reason for distrust and the deputies respected him, they had already learned not to trust the royal word.

Many were led by hatred for the Duke of Buckingham, who had even more power over Charles than over the weak-willed Jacob. Now all government measures were taken only on his advice and instructions. Having completely captured the confidence of the king and concentrating in one person the most important government posts, he held in his hands all power over the country.

French courtship and pro-Catholic clauses, which were suspected to be included in the marriage contract, also caused discontent. Henrietta Maria was the daughter of a monarch of one of the two great (and threatening) Roman Catholic powers. Society was confident that she would be a diligent and successful propagandist for her faith. And this at a time when continental Protestantism was under terrible threat because of the Thirty Years' War. In 1625, the treatise "Sacrae Heplades, or seven problems relating to the Antichrist" was published in Amsterdam. The work was dedicated "specially to King Charles, Defender of the Faith, and to the King and Queen of Bohemia(son-in-law and daughter of Jacob. - OH. ),professing their faith and therefore persecuted." Particular concern was expressed about the marriage of Charles to Henrietta Maria. The author of the treatise "Vox Coeli" (1624) quoted no less than nine biblical texts, which spoke of the need to realize the danger coming from foreign queens who profess an alien religion.

Thomas Hooker did the same in a traveling sermon delivered in Essex in 1626. In front of the "great congregation" he prayed that God "put in the heart of the king" 11th and 12th verses from chapter 2 of the book of the prophet Malachi. He did not quote them, because he had no doubt that the members of the congregation knew them by heart or had a Bible at hand. They said: "Judas acts treacherously ... for ... he married the daughter of a strange god. The Lord will destroy him who does this."

The culmination of the confrontation between the monarch and the lower house was her decision on the customs duty, which she was going to leave for the king for only one year. This decision seemed insulting to Karl. Therefore, they do not believe the king, said the court, as they believed his predecessors, who were constantly provided with customs duties for the entire duration of their reign; and meanwhile, with such rare frankness, he described the state of finances; he did not refuse to submit documents and explanations: the urgency of the tax was obvious. It would be imprudent, thought the lords, to irritate without any reason a young sovereign who shows such a disposition to live in harmony with Parliament.

The lower chamber did not directly deny sufficient subsidies, but continued to do its traditional job - it considered popular complaints. The king was indignant: so they dare to prescribe laws to him in this way and imagine that he will yield to force or will not be able to manage?

Refusing to provide the necessary funds seemed to Karl a cruel and treacherous act. The high concept of the power of the monarch, extremely widespread in that era, was firmly entrenched in the mind of the young king. Charles continued to regard his political principles as absolutely true and irrefutable. Even in the ancient laws, he saw rather some general lines to which his actions should conform, rather than barriers designed to resist his power. In connection with another outbreak of plague raging in London, Charles postponed the meetings of the communities (July 11) for almost two months, after which he again made an attempt to demand much-needed funds.

At the opening of the regular session of Parliament, Charles made a great speech, and in it he abandoned restraint. He said that by the promise of subsidies he had succeeded in enlisting in the war the king of Denmark, who intended to enter Germany from the north and call to arms the princes, who were impatiently awaiting the opportunity to defend the imperial freedoms; that help should be given to the Netherlands in their unequal struggle with Spain.

Charles reminded the assembly that this was the first request he made to Parliament; that he himself is still young and just beginning to reign, and that if he finds good disposition and loyal obedience, this will inspire him with love and respect for parliament and forever preserve full harmony between him and his people. The deputies remained deaf to his arguments. Although the measures taken by the king in view of the war on the Continent, which they themselves constantly demanded, were absolutely necessary, Parliament stubbornly refused to provide additional funds. The Lower House was well aware that the army and navy at Portsmouth were short of provisions and unpaid, and that the Duke of Buckingham, admiral and treasurer of the navy, had already spent about 100,000 pounds on the needs of the sea forces against future parliamentary appropriations.

Thus, neither side felt weak or guilty; they parted with the same confidence in the legitimacy of their demands, with the same determination to defend their rights. The communities announced that they were loyal to the king, but would not give up their rights. The king said that he respected the rights of his subjects, but he could govern alone. Parliament was dissolved in August 1625.

The modern concept of a parliamentary opposition seeking to change government policy in a legitimate and acceptable way was unknown in the 17th century. The government belonged to the king, and the ministers and officials, endowed with executive functions, were servants, appointed and removed at his will and choice. The role of Parliament was, first, to inform the king of the needs and desires of his subjects through the consideration of petitions; secondly, to enact the laws necessary for the exercise of government; thirdly, through the tax system to provide money for fixed and exceptional expenses.

The idea of ​​parliament as an important component of the constitutional structure of the state was in the air. It was pursued persistently by Sir Thomas Smith in The State of England (written in 1565, but first published in 1585). Smith believed that parliament is neither an appendage of the crown nor a counterbalance to it, but is an important element of the supreme power, which Smith defined as "king-in-parliament." In 1610, Parliament formally adopted this doctrine, declaring that the supreme power belonged to the "King-in-Parliament" and not to the "King-in-Council".
This concept, which underlay English constitutional acts in the 17th century, was based more on precedent than on the idea that Parliament limits the king's power or choice of his ministers and policies. The royal law passed through parliament is the supreme law, but its initiative, preparation and presentation belong only to the king (or his chosen servants), the function of parliament is more legal than political. The ancient constitution that members of the Commons so often referred to in their attempts to restrict the king was a system of customary law.

* * * The person is frivolous. Charles could not understand all the difficulties that unlimited power entails, requiring that everything be sacrificed to it. He thought that the rights of kingship freed him from strenuous labor. Karl regularly and attentively dealt with state affairs in the council, but as soon as this duty ended, they no longer occupied his thoughts. He did not so much feel the need to rule as he enjoyed power. For him, it was essentially a game. The good or bad disposition of the queen, the customs of the court, the rights and privileges of court officials seemed to him so important that he was willing to sacrifice them for the political interests of his country.

After an unsuccessful expedition to Cadiz in 1625, organized to capture the Spanish silver fleet. Charles was forced again to resort to the help of Parliament. This failure weakened his authority and every day more and more demonstrated the futility of the Spanish war. Although the growing needs of the king made him increasingly dependent on the commons, Charles decided to once again turn to this usual means of obtaining money. Irritation had not yet penetrated deep into the soul of the young king, and he thought that the communities would be glad to meet again so soon. Perhaps he even hoped that the firmness he showed would cause more compliance on their part.

When the king presented his needs to the House and asked for financial support, the communities voted for only three subsidies totaling about 60,000 pounds, which fell far short of the king's requests and the scale of the war he was about to wage. However, this circumstance was not the most unpleasant. Parliament only voted appropriations to the king, and the transformation of this vote into law was postponed until the end of the session. Thus, the communities set conditions for the sovereign, and in a very frank form. Under the pretext of combating abuses (which, it must be admitted, could not have accumulated too much in such a short reign), the deputies intended to check and put in order all parts of the administration that had caused discontent; if the king stops them in this enterprise or does not agree with these demands, then he should no longer count on benefits from the communities. Charles expressed his deep indignation at this manner of action, considering it rude and contrary to duty. But extreme need forced him to submit, and he began to patiently wait what the communities would do now. And they decided to impeach the royal favorite. All this affected the power of the king and offended his vanity. Buckingham's only fault, Karl reasoned, was that he was his friend and favorite. All other complaints about the duke are empty excuses. After the most thorough investigation, the duke could not be caught even in the slightest fault. How much authority would a monarch retain in the eyes of his own nation, Charles reasoned, if, at the very beginning of his reign and in such an important matter, he delivered the greatest triumph to his enemies and completely discouraged his adherents? Today the communities will take away his minister; tomorrow they will encroach on some part of his royal prerogative. Karl was tired of suffering defeat from opponents whom he could disperse at any moment. The concessions that he tried to make were accepted with enthusiasm, but did not lead to anything.

Carl told the House:

“I must announce to you that I will not tolerate you persecuting any of my servants, especially those who are placed so high and so close to me. It used to be asked: what will we do for a man whom the king has honored? "Now some are racking their brains to think of what to do against a man whom the king has been pleased to honor. I wish you to take up the matter of my subsidies. If not, so much the worse for you. And if any misfortune comes from it, I I will feel it, of course, after all" .

The communities believed that fragile and unguaranteed freedom, which had to be saved by boundless obsequiousness, was not freedom at all. Therefore, while it is still in their power, it is necessary to protect the constitution, so that henceforth no king or minister will dare to speak to parliaments in such a tone, or even dare to hatch such designs against them.

Having learned that the House of Commons, which foresaw the dissolution of Parliament, is preparing a special demonstration, where it is going to justify its behavior before the people. Karl decided to get out of a situation that humiliated him in his own eyes and in the eyes of Europe. He immediately dissolved Parliament.

The Duke of Buckingham breathed more freely, and Charles felt like a king. But Karl's joy was as short-lived as his calculations were short-sighted.

* * * Having started a ruinous war with Spain and Austria, the monarch did not have a sufficient army that he could use at the same time against the enemy and against his subjects.

The king eliminated opponents, but did not get rid of difficulties and obstacles. After breaking off relations with Parliament, Charles set himself only one reasonable goal - to immediately make peace with Spain and try to make himself as less dependent as possible on his own people, who showed so little desire to help him, on the contrary, firmly intended to curtail his powers.

It can be assumed that if he had a reliable army, then, most likely, he would immediately throw off his mask and begin to rule without any regard for parliamentary privileges: he learned such a high concept of the royal prerogative and placed such a low value on the rights of popular assemblies, on the part of which, as it was quite natural for the king to think, he met with such mistreatment.

So, in the absence of armed support, the king had to behave with caution and cover his actions with reference to ancient precedents. Considering the vast power his predecessors usually exercised, he could not lack them.

Express permission was given to exempt Catholics from the penalties prescribed by law, subject to the payment of a special fine. By this measure, the king replenished the treasury and to some extent satisfied his own desire to show a certain tolerance for this faith. Nothing could cause more indignation and discontent among his Protestant subjects than this measure.

From the nobility, the king wanted to get support, from the citizens of the City, a self-governing administrative district of London, he demanded a loan of 100 thousand pounds. The first gave money reluctantly, the second, hiding behind various excuses, in the end he was refused.

The regiments passed through the counties or settled down in them, which was a burden to the inhabitants. The soldiers were placed in private houses; this was contrary to custom, which required that, under ordinary circumstances, they should be quartered in taverns or inns. Those who refused to borrow or procrastinated could be sure that many of these violent and dangerous guests would soon appear in their homes.

The inhabitants of the ports and coastal districts were ordered to field armed ships with a crew at their own expense. This was the first experience of "ship money" in the reign of Charles, a tax collected at one time by Elizabeth, but which later, when Charles went a little further along this path, caused such violent indignation. 20 ships were demanded from the inhabitants of London. The city replied that Queen Elizabeth did not require so much to repel the invincible armada of Philip II; he was told that "past tenses set an example of obedience, not contradiction" .

All these means of replenishing the treasury were used with a certain moderation until the news came of the crushing defeat of the king of Denmark at the hands of the imperial commander Count Tilly. The king of Denmark entered this war at the insistence of the English monarch. The Protestant Union was cracking at the seams.

After a little deliberation, the Privy Council decided that, as the extreme urgency of the matter did not permit recourse to the help of Parliament, the quickest, most convenient, and sensible way to raise the necessary amount would be a general loan from the subjects of the English crown, in amounts corresponding to the taxation of them under the last subsidy authorized by parliament. Everyone had to contribute exactly the amount that they would pay if the parliamentary decree on subsidies became law.

One of the articles of the secret instruction to the commissioners appointed to collect this loan prescribed the following:

“If anyone refuses to pay money, delays, makes excuses, or persists, they must interrogate him under oath to find out if anyone has persuaded him to refuse to lend and give excuses for his refusal. Who spoke to him, what speeches and convictions did he use for this purpose? .

To justify such a step, the doctrine of blind obedience was ordered to be preached in all churches. The Archbishop of Canterbury George Abbott did not want to allow such sermons in his district, for which he was removed from office and exiled to a rural estate.

It is safe to say that, with the exception of a few clerics and courtiers, all English people were deeply indignant at the new spirit of the administration and the extreme use of royal power. Reasonable people believed that the insult inflicted on the king did not give the monarch the right to encroach on the freedom of the entire English nation in retaliation for such actions.

War was soon declared on France. The reason for this reckless step is considered to be Buckingham's love affair with french queen- Anne of Austria, which began between them during the presence of Buckingham at the wedding ceremony dedicated to the marriage of Charles and Princess Henrietta Maria. Encouraged by the smiles of the courtiers, he managed to impress. This feeling, apparently, was also encouraged by the princess, and the duke relied on her favor so much that after his departure he secretly returned to Paris and visited the queen. He was sent back with reproaches, in which, perhaps, there was more tenderness than anger.

Soon Buckingham began to prepare for a new embassy to France, but Louis informed him that he should not think about this trip. In a fit of passion, the duke exclaimed: "I swear I will see the queen in spite of all the might of France!" .

There are other points of view. One of them belongs to the famous English historian J. Green.

"In the great struggle with Catholicism, - he wrote, - all the hopes of the Protestants of England were connected with an alliance with France against the Austrian and Spanish Habsburgs, but the arrogant and mediocre policy of the favorite led to the fact that England suddenly found itself in a war against both Spain and France at the same time. The French minister, Cardinal Richelieu, who was interested in an alliance with England, was convinced that in order to successfully wage a war in Europe (against Spain), one must first of all put things in order at home, i.e. put down a protestant uprising in La Rochelle. And in 1625 the British even helped him in this. But in 1627, Buckingham decided to gain popularity among the English Protestants by supporting the Huguenots in their resistance to the French government and declared war on the latter " .

People were inclined to explain all these misfortunes not by the obstinacy and intractability of the last two parliaments, but only by the fact that the monarch stubbornly followed the advice of his favorite. To suffer because of the frivolous intrigues and childish whims of a temporary worker seemed especially humiliating and unbearable to the British.

Despite his arrogance, upon his return to England, Buckingham experienced the weight of public hatred and, of course, a keen desire to get rid of it. In addition, it was necessary to find some means to get out of the predicament. All the resources of the king's power were exhausted. The sums of money collected - or rather extorted - under the guise of references to the royal prerogative, came so slowly and caused so much discontent in the country that the repetition of this experience seemed a very risky step.

In such circumstances, the king and duke feared nothing more than calling a new parliament, but in the end they were forced to resort to it. The court hoped that the communities, realizing the unconditional need to provide subsidies to the crown, would forget about all past grievances, and, having experienced the bad consequences of their stubbornness, would decide to make reasonable concessions.

Parliament met on March 17, 1628. Members of the Commons represented the counties and cities, deeply indignant at the recent encroachments on liberty; many of the deputies had themselves been imprisoned or had suffered at the hands of the court. The entire composition of the new, third parliament of Charles was imbued with the spirit of freedom and freedom.

The communities understood that the king, irritated against popular assemblies and not having much respect for their privileges, needed only a plausible pretext. to finally quarrel with them, that he will gladly seize the first opportunity that any ambiguous incident or irreverent behavior of the members of the House will give him.

Karl confirmed these thoughts in his opening speech.

“Gentlemen! From now on, let everyone act according to conscience,” said the king, opening the meeting. “If it happened that you, despising your duties, refused to deliver to me what the needs of our state now demand, my duty commands me to take other measures that God has given me to save that which might perish from the folly of a few. Do not take this as a threat: I will not stoop to threaten anyone but my equals; this is only a warning that he gives you to whom nature and duty entrusted with the care of your welfare and happiness. He hopes that your present behavior will allow him to approve your former advice; and that I, in gratitude for this, will assume obligations that will give me the opportunity to call you frequently. " .

“His Majesty, as you have been told, has chosen the Parliamentary way of obtaining subsidies, not as the only means, but as the most convenient; not because he has no other means, but because this means is in perfect harmony with his great kindness and mercy, but also with the desire and good of his subjects. If there is a delay with him, then necessity and the sword of the enemy may open the way for other measures. Do not forget the warning of his majesty, I repeat to you, do not forget " .

The communities correctly understood the royal speeches - at the first opportunity, the king would immediately dissolve parliament, and from that moment on he would consider himself entitled to even more openly violate the old order.

At first, relations between the parliament and the sovereign developed peacefully. Carl felt the need to give in. However, the House of Commons immediately came up with its demands, formulated in a document known as the "Petition of Rights". The compilers of the petition referred to the main provisions of the Magna Carta and deduced from it a number of requirements: that funds for public expenditures be collected only with the consent of Parliament; so that the king does not put the soldiers on the stand and does not produce violence in this way to collect taxes; that there be no arbitrary arrests and imprisonment without trial.

The bipartisans, both in parliament and in the country, argued heatedly about this bill. He was destined to constitute a whole epoch in the history of the English system of government.

The House diplomatically sweetened the pill by promising the king to approve £350,000 in subsidies. After a little haggling, which was quite characteristic of Charles, he agreed to the petition. When the deputies demanded the removal of Buckingham, the king announced a break in the work of parliament.

Between sessions, the Duke of Buckingham was assassinated by the religious fanatic Felton. The king received this news with a calm and indifferent air, and the courtiers, watching the expression of his face, concluded that in the depths of his soul he was not upset that he had lost a minister so hated by the whole nation. However, such a reaction can rather be explained by the peculiarity of Karl's character, his balanced attitude to life. He was very attached to the favorite, and subsequently all his life he retained sympathy for Buckingham's friends and hostility to his enemies.

Karl ordered the killer to be brought to London and placed in the Tower of London. The whole country applauded the feat of Felton. Poets sang it in verse. For many weeks, while the investigation was going on, people crowded around the prison to look at their "little David", at their "liberator".

In vain did the people hope that the murder of Buckingham would bring him liberation. It did not stop the king's abuses. He returned his favors to the opponents of Parliament: some he exalted, others received lucrative seats. Public measures were in keeping with court favors: customs duties continued to be rigorously levied; exceptional tribunals continued to break the course of the laws. Charles succeeded in depriving the popular party of the most brilliant of its representatives: Sir Thomas Wentworth received the title of baron and entered the Council of State, despite the severe reproaches and even threats of his former friends. Ambitious and proud Wentworth rushed to honors, not foreseeing what end awaits him.

This policy of the king is understandable. Previously, when the monarch was less dependent on his subjects, he chose ministers, guided by personal sympathies and completely without taking into account their parliamentary talents and influence. Subsequently, the sovereigns made it a rule, whenever the popular leaders too vigorously and frankly encroached on the royal prerogative, to appoint them to important posts, believing that the former oppositionists would carefully guard against belittling the power that had become their own. However, Charles miscalculated - this time his intentions were so contrary to the goals of the deputies that those leaders whom he attracted to his side instantly lost all authority in their party and even, as traitors and defectors, turned into an object of implacable hatred.

Surrounded by new councillors, more serious, more efficient, and less vilified than Buckingham, Charles waited without fear for the secondary sessions of Parliament.

* * * The communities met on January 20, 1629, and began by presenting their grievances to Charles. The question of the collection of fees has become a major stumbling block. The communities quarreled with the king, and this quarrel eventually inspired Charles with an aversion to parliaments in general.

In the Middle Ages, the right to levy per ton and per pound dues was granted by parliament to the monarch, as a rule, only for a certain period. However, Henry V and all subsequent sovereigns received it for life in order to be able to maintain a fleet to protect the state. The necessity of levying this fee was so obvious that every king collected it from the moment of his accession to the throne, and usually the first parliament of each reign decided to grant to the monarch what he actually used.

In the short time between Charles' accession to the throne and his first parliament, the king followed the example of his predecessors. The First Parliament approved these fees for only one year, reserving to itself the right, after this period, either to renew the fees or to refuse the king fees. The fact that Parliament did not provide these appropriations to Charles for the entire period of his reign proves indisputably that the House of Commons seriously intended to subjugate its sovereign.

In the opinion of the House of Lords, which disapproved of the freedom-loving spirit of the commons, these levies were now more than ever necessary to meet the growing needs of the crown, and they rejected the bill. This was followed by the dissolution of Parliament, and Charles continued to levy tolls by his own authority, unopposed by a nation so accustomed to this use of royal prerogative that at first it submitted without hesitation.

Opening the next session of Parliament, Charles foresaw that the old dispute would flare up with renewed vigor, and therefore immediately notified the communities, in terms of mild and conciliatory, "that he did not consider these duties part of his hereditary prerogative, but always considered and still considers them as a gift from his people, and that if he has hitherto collected fees per ton and per pound, then he sees the only justification for this only in the extreme need to act likewise, not at all wishing to invoke any right". The communities, on the other hand, insisted that the king immediately stop collecting them, as an indispensable preliminary condition, after which they, the communities, would have to decide to what extent they should restore the king to the possession of income, from which he himself waives the right. Karl could not agree to this condition. Moreover, the communities did not speak in such a tone with any of his predecessors. Charles had every reason to think that the deputies would return to their former plan to make this source of income for the crown temporary and thus make him dependent on parliament.

Carl was in a desperate situation. According to the general principles of the English system of government, and the formal meaning of every bill granting these fees to the king, the sole source of the ton and pound dues was the voluntary gift of the people. This also worked in reverse - the people could take it back at will. The purpose of the duty was to give the king the opportunity to protect the seas, but the need to protect the seas did not in itself give the king an unconditional right to this income. The Nation still retained the right to decide to what extent the performance of this duty required the collection of appropriate fees. However, Karl, contrary to his declaration, was completely unwilling to agree with this state of affairs. In full accordance with the concepts prevailing at that time, he sincerely believed that the core English form government is the monarch. And any other force that would dare to destroy or limit the power of the monarch must certainly be considered usurping. Wishing to preserve the harmony of the constitution, he was ready to submit to the old ways of administration. Faced with the obstinacy of the lower house, he realized that their actions lead to a violation of harmony and one step remains to introduce a new constitution. Therefore, from the point of view of Charles, in these dangerous circumstances, popular privileges should for the time being give way to the prerogative of the king. To turn from a monarch into a slave of his subjects seemed to him the greatest shame, and to resign himself to this fall, without making any attempts to defend power, would be even more humiliating.

Charles tried in vain to obtain from the chamber a concession of customs duties, and this was for him the only goal of the new meeting. He used both threats and gentle persuasion. The House remained unmoved. Carl was getting tired of it. He was refused his request, but did not put forward any of their demands in return, did not make any offer that he could either reject or accept. In all this, he saw only a hostile attitude towards his person, a clear intention to act in defiance of him.

"Never have I entered here in more unpleasant circumstances: I came to dissolve parliament. The only reason for this is the outrageous behavior of the lower house. I do not want to blame everyone: I know that there are many honest and faithful subjects in this chamber. They are deceived or intimidated by a few traitors. The intruders will get what they deserve. As for you, Lords of the Upper House, you can count on all the protection and favor that a good king should extend to his loyal nobility." .

The next day, the following announcement was made:

“Ill-intentioned people spread a rumor that Parliament will soon be assembled. His Majesty has clearly proved that he does not have the slightest aversion to parliaments; but the latest tricks of the deputies forced him to change his course of action. From now on, he will consider all speeches, all actions as a personal insult tending to prescribe him any definite period for the convocation of new parliaments" .

Charles decided not to convene Parliament until he found among the people more obvious signs of compliance and obedience. Unwilling to give in to parliament in order to get money from him sufficient to cover the costs. Charles, however, considered it humiliating to limit his expenses according to his income. The brilliance of the throne, the court holidays, the ancient customs of the court were in his eyes a condition, a right, almost a duty of royal power. Although he knew what abuses supported all this splendor, he did not have the heart to destroy them.

Having lost his all-powerful favorite Buckingham, Charles himself became the first minister and subsequently did not show such boundless trust to anyone. Now the king followed mainly his own opinion and inclinations.

The situation in the foreign policy arena was developing very favorably for England. Europe was divided between the rival Habsburg and Bourbon dynasties, whose opposition - and even more - mutual suspicion guaranteed peace of mind for England. Their forces were equal, and therefore no one was afraid that something could violate the status quo. The Spanish monarch, who was considered more powerful, was further away, and thus political motives pushed the British towards a closer alliance with a neighboring state. The English navy posed a serious threat to the Spanish possessions scattered around the world and kept the Spanish court in constant tension. France, territorially more compact and full of energy, became more powerful every day, both politically and militarily, and finally achieved equality of power with the House of Austria. But her rise, slow and gradual, still left the opportunity for England to intervene in time to prevent her from achieving a decisive superiority over her rival.

Thus, if he could find a compromise with his subjects, he would be in a position where he could force all European powers to respect England.

November 15, 1630 England and Spain signed a peace agreement. Basically, it concerned the cessation of hostilities between both countries and the restoration of diplomatic relations, in other words, the parties simply returned to the conditions of 1604.

The first step of the king, left without a parliament, was quite reasonable. He made peace with the two powers and thereby put an end to the war, which he started without sufficient grounds and which did not bring him any benefits or glory. Having thus got rid of external problems, he concentrated all his attention on the internal affairs of the kingdom.

The first difficulties arose near the throne. There were two parties that entered the struggle for the newly acquired power - the queen and the ministers.

After the death of Buckingham, who to a certain extent alienated Charles from Henrietta Maria, it was she who became the first friend and favorite of the king. Unlike his father. Karl was kind and respectful to all the ladies. But he dedicated his passion only to his wife, whom he kept unshakable loyalty and trusted in everything. As soon as she arrived in England, the Queen made no secret of the fact that her new homeland bored her. Religion, institutions, customs, language - she did not like everything. In an effort to brighten up her existence, Henrietta surrounded herself, on the one hand, with papists, on the other, with petty ambitious people. Both recognized the immutable truth that only from one queen they can expect - some of their happiness, others - the restoration of their religion. The queen intervened in all intrigues, vouching for their success, demanded the same from the king and wanted him to always consult with her and do nothing without her consent. If Karl did not fulfill her desires, she reproached him, saying that he did not know how to love or reign.

The king's advisers, Sir Thomas Wentworth, who later received the title of Earl of Strafford, and Laud, who became Archbishop of Canterbury in 1633, submitted to these whims with difficulty and not without resistance. Intelligent people, independent in their convictions and, moreover, devoted to the king, they wanted to serve him differently than the whims of a woman and the pretensions of the court required.

The queen hated them, the aristocracy was offended by their power, and soon the whole court united with the people to attack them, shouting about arbitrariness.

Charles did not betray his advisers; he was confident in the ability and devotion of the ministers. But, leaving these people beside him, contrary to the opinion of the courtiers, he was not able to subordinate the court to their power. Hence, for his ministers, many small, but uninterrupted difficulties were born. The monarch believed that his duty was only to keep the ministers in place, and that nothing more was needed for them. Unlimited executive power was entrusted to the favorites, but they did not possess sufficient power to exercise it.

Thus, despite the energy and zeal of the chief advisers, the government was neither powerful nor respected. Suffering from internal disagreements, being subjected to various influences, either openly bypassing the laws, or retreating before insignificant obstacles, it had no core in its actions and every minute forgot its own intentions. This applied to all areas of politics - both foreign and domestic. So, in Europe, it abandoned the cause of Protestantism and even forbade Lord Scudamore, the English ambassador in Paris, to attend services in the Reformed Chapel, finding it somewhat inconsistent with the rites of the Anglican Church. The same uncertainty prevailed in civil cases. There was no firm intention, no domineering hand. Charles was sincerely devoted to the new religion in the form that it acquired under Elizabeth, and yet he not only gave the Catholics freedom, at that time illegal, but even showed them obvious favor.

The first serious blow to English absolutism was inflicted in Scotland during the outbreak of the Anglo-Scottish War of 1639-1640.

From the time of his accession to the throne, Charles, following the example of his father, did not cease to strive to destroy the republican structure of the Scottish church, borrowed by it from the Calvinists, and to restore in all its significance and pomp the English episcopate. Most likely, he was aware that in a kingdom with a complex territorial composition, it was dangerous to allow the existence in one of the countries of a religion that was forbidden in another. Deceit, severity, threats, bribery - everything was put into action to achieve this goal. At the same time, the monarch even showed flexibility and patience: he turned either to the ambitions of the clergy, or to the interests of small merchants, offering the latter an easy redemption of the tithe, and the former - the highest church and state positions. From time to time the unrest among the people intensified, the national clergy resisted, but their meetings were closed, the more courageous preachers were expelled. Thus, the Scottish Church, losing one right after another, gradually fell under the yoke of the hierarchical structure and teaching of the Anglican Church, which sanctified the absolute power and rights of the bishops and the king.

In 1636, the case was nearing completion: the Archbishop of St. Andrew Spottiswood became chancellor of the kingdom, Bishop Maxwell of Russia was preparing to become Lord of the Treasury, out of 14 prelates, nine sat in the Council of State and had an advantage in it. Charles and his minister Laud decided that the time had come to finish what they had begun and to introduce into the Scottish church a code of canon and worship in accordance with its new position.

The restoration of the episcopate, the abolition of ancient laws, the closing or bribery of political or religious assemblies—everything that could escape the eyes of the general public was done with success. It remained only to change the public worship. Everything collapsed on the very day that the new liturgy was introduced for the first time in Edinburgh Cathedral.

In less than six weeks, all of Scotland was under the banner of the covenant. Only royal officials, several thousand Catholics and the city of Aberdeen did not join him.

It was only then that Carl began to think about the consequences. In June, he sent his commissioner, the Marquis of Hamilton, to Scotland, empowering him to negotiate with the Covenanters. The king demanded the renunciation and renunciation of the covenant, believing that for his part he would make ample concessions to the Scots, promising to delay the introduction of the canons and liturgy until such a time when they could be accepted legally and justly. As in the case of parliaments, these general declarations could not satisfy anyone. It was in the actions of Hamilton that the two-faced policy of the king was revealed: the Marquis used every effort to confuse the affairs of the synod that met in Glasgow on November 21, 1638, and resorted to all sorts of tricks to make its acts invalid. This is clearly confirmed by the instructions given to Hamilton by Karl:

“As for this general meeting, although I do not expect any good from it, I still hope that you will prevent a great evil, firstly, if you start a debate between them about the legality of their elections, and secondly, if you begin to protest against their wrong and violent actions ... I do not at all approve of the opinion of those prelates who think that this meeting should be postponed. Not allowing it to take place at all, I would do more damage to my reputation than his reckless actions can damage my benefits. Therefore, I command You can open it on the appointed day. But if you could, as you inform me about it, dissolve it, under the pretext of some insignificant irregularity in its actions, then nothing better could be desired. " .

It is not at all difficult to see in the character and policy of Charles one of the causes of the "episcopal war." The decision to introduce a single prayer book in Scotland, which started the British turmoil, was completely Charles's decision, and it naturally followed from his convictions about the nature of power, about Britain, about the church. If he shared responsibility with others, then they were appointed by him, perhaps because they shared his views.

When the Scottish army entered the northern counties of England in 1639, its military superiority over the army of Charles I became apparent.

Not only the empty treasury and the discontent of the people forced Charles to yield to his rebellious subjects. Even so, he was able to field an army equal in numbers to that commanded by Leslie. But due to his negligence in organizing the kingdom's military resources in times of peace, the army he raised never became a real fighting unit.

The king dug in and took up the defense - the only thing he could do, and a month later, on June 18, 1639, he concluded the Treaty of Berwick and accepted the demands of the supporters of the covenant. According to the articles of the peace treaty, both armies were to be dissolved, a synod and a Scottish parliament were to be convened. However, no precise and clear treatise that could put an end to the differences that caused the war was worked out.

The war was only postponed; both sides were aware of this. The Scots, disbanding their troops, kept the officers part of their salary and ordered to be ready. In turn, Charles, barely disbanding one army, began to secretly recruit another.

Military failures and lack of funds forced him to convene a parliament, which was called the "Short Parliament". It lasted from April 13 to May 5, 1640.

In order to arouse the patriotism of the members of Parliament, a secret correspondence between the Scots and the King of France was announced. However, the leaders of the opposition indicated that, in their opinion, the main danger lay in the threat to English freedom and the liberties of Parliament from the king and his advisers.

Instead of satisfying the request of the king - to provide him with subsidies for waging war with the Scots, the House of Commons began to consider the policy of Charles I during the years of his sole reign. It was stated that until such time as reforms were carried out to eliminate the possibility of future abuse of the rights of the prerogative, the House of Commons did not intend to vote any subsidies to the king.

As time went. The king said that the new parliament was as stubborn as the previous ones, and was in the greatest confusion and anxiety. It did not escape his attention that he had more enemies than friends in the House, and that the same sentiments prevailed there as in previous parliaments. He could not expect that he would be allocated funds for the war with the Scots, in whom the majority of the House saw their friends and loyal allies; on the contrary, he expected that from day to day he would be presented with a request to conclude peace with these rebels. And so it happened. Under Pym's leadership, the communities began to develop a petition against the war with Scotland.

When great calamities threaten on all sides, it is not easy to find a way out, and it is not surprising that the king, whose talents did not correspond to such complex and complicated circumstances, made and hastily carried out the decision to dissolve Parliament.

A rude and abrupt dissolution of Parliament could arouse the indignation of the people. But the king stubbornly held on to his former course of action, the unpopularity of which he should have known by experience. Therefore, the declaration turned out to be in vain, proving to society that the dissolution of parliament was an absolutely necessary act on its part. Most persistently, the king insisted that the communities followed the bad example of their predecessors: they encroached endlessly on his power, condemned all his actions and his entire administration, discussed all government affairs without exception, and even bargained with their king for subsidies, as if he could get nothing from them except by purchase, i.e. either giving up some of the royal prerogatives, or cutting back on his regular income. Such a course of action, Karl declared, was contrary to the rules of the ancestors and completely incompatible with the monarchy.

The policy of the monarch was not a manifestation of the disorderly impulses of his unhappy and unfortunate nature, but was a completely understandable choice between different paths for the development of the English political system. His policies were harmful because they dealt (in the crudest way) with those long-term structural problems that had been generated or set aside in previous reigns. This does not mean that civil war, in the particular form it took, was inevitable, but it does mean that the events that led directly to the explosion must be considered in a broader context.

The king began the second "episcopal war". He succeeded with great difficulty in gathering and marching an army of 19,000 infantry and 2,000 cavalry. The war with the Scots ended in a shameful defeat for the royal forces. The Scots captured Newcastle-upon-Tyne and the adjacent north-eastern territories of England.

Carl was in a desperate situation. The nation was extremely irritated, the demoralized army began to grumble; general discontent was conveyed to her, besides, the soldiers needed to justify their shameful behavior, and they tried to explain it not by cowardice, but by unwillingness to fight. The treasury was completely depleted. Charles could borrow again only if certain guarantees were provided, and for this it was necessary to approve taxes, which only Parliament could do.

In fact, something happened that could have been foreseen as inevitable, or at any rate as highly probable. The king found himself in a situation where it was impossible to come up with any chances to get out of it.

To stop the advance of the Scots, he agreed to negotiations and appointed 16 English nobles to meet at Rippon with 11 Scottish commissioners.

An appeal was received from the City of London, expressing the opinion of the whole nation, with a request to convene Parliament. The king, however, contented himself with calling a Great Council of Peers at York, a measure which in former times was resorted to as a last resort. Under the circumstances, this measure could no longer bring tangible benefits. The King, who most feared the House of Commons, and did not expect to receive money from it on any acceptable terms, probably thought that in such distressful circumstances he could approve subsidies by the power of this assembly alone. By the time the council opened, Charles had every reason to believe that the peers would advise him to convene a parliament, and therefore, in his first speech to them, the king announced that he had already taken this decision. He also told the audience that the Queen, in her letter to him, strongly recommended taking this step.

Notices for the convocation of parliament were sent out in an atmosphere of extreme tension. As a result of the elections, the party of the big bourgeoisie, landowners and merchants won the victory with an overwhelming majority of votes. The court, in turn, also tried to exert at least some influence on the elections. In vain. His candidates, for lack of good support, were sidelined everywhere.

The more hopeless the position of the king became, the more resolutely the communities acted. The first thing they did was the expulsion from their midst of the "monopolists" and the initiation of a lawsuit against the "chief advisers" of the king, and above all against the Earl of Strafford as the most dangerous enemy. The accusations brought against him included "advising" the king to use the Irish army against the "rebels" in England and, having dealt with the leaders of the opposition, govern the country by means of a state of emergency.

Despite a long and eloquent speech delivered by Wentworth in his defense, in which he denied all the charges against him, the earl was found guilty in relation to the freedom of his subjects. The king had no choice but to approve this decision.

Karl, who appreciated Strafford, hesitated for a long time, not wanting to sign the death warrant, and tried in every possible way to avoid or at least postpone such a terrible duty. After all, he, under the "honest royal word" guaranteed Strafford's personal safety and property inviolability. He gave this "word" in the hope that the House of Lords would be at one with him. However, when the House of Commons became convinced that the king was not wrong in counting on the Lords, she replaced the impeachment procedure (in which the House of Lords becomes a judicial tribunal) with the adoption of a bill of treason. Based on it, the trial was replaced by a direct and speedy voting procedure. A majority of the members of the House of Commons voted in favor of the bill.

The reluctance of Charles to send his devoted adviser to the chopping block was put an end to the performance of the armed Londoners. A crowd of thousands laid siege to Whitehall. Under these conditions, Charles I had no choice but to "yield" to the will of Parliament, and in reality - to the will of the rebellious London artisans, apprentices and apprentices. News of peasant unrest came from various counties. This is what has made the King so malleable and Parliament so bold. On May 12, 1641, the executioner put an end to the minister's life.

Accusations were made against other officials of the king during the period of non-parliamentary rule. Some of them fled the country, others ended up in the Tower. Among the latter was the archbishop of Lod. "Your desire to take my life, said Lod to his accusers, cannot be stronger than my urge to die." January 10, 1645 he was executed. Parliamentary leaders said they simply sought to restore the constitutional balance and the Protestant Church, to protect political and religious freedoms undermined "bad advisors" standing between the king and the people. These statements cannot be accepted. In attacks on the royal ministers, the latter were portrayed as sources of a conspiracy aimed at the destruction of English liberties; the king, on the other hand, looked like an innocent dupe, but it is hard to imagine that, in their experience, they did not consider Charles to be a real source of difficulty. They were simply playing for time to gain the support of the majority and then attack him directly. The opposition did not trust Charles and looked for a way to tie him up in the future. Thanks to numerous lawyers, they knew very well that laws such as the Triennial Act increased the power of parliament and limited the king, thereby upsetting rather than restoring the constitutional balance.

* * * By the act of streamlining the Privy Council and the abolition of the court, usually called the "Star Chamber", unanimously approved by both the communities and the lords, both these instances were canceled. Thus, the two main and most dangerous of the prerogatives of the king were destroyed.

No one realized that the abolition of the Star Chamber, the High Commission and other courts based on royal prerogative was in itself a small revolution. They were seen as mere institutions that had become tools of royal tyranny.

"Voluntary approval" by Charles I of all these until recently simply unthinkable within the framework of the constitution of acts and such an unexpected "compliance" against the backdrop of a tough course of the previous period of his reign were explained not only and not even so much by the catastrophic financial situation of the court, aggravated by failures in the war with the Scottish Covenanters, and above all, fear of crowds of armed Londoners, mainly apprentices, apprentices, day laborers and similar inhabitants of the London suburbs, who found themselves in front of the royal palace whenever the "consent" of the king was delayed.

Now Parliament has shown generosity - in the royal treasury funds appeared to pay and disband the two armies stationed in the north of the country - the Scots and the British.

The news of the uprising that broke out in Ireland in 1641 further inflamed the atmosphere in London and in the country as a whole. The uprising was accompanied by acts of terrible cruelty and filled the whole of England with alarm. Not without obvious political intent, rumors spread intensely about thousands of Irish Protestants who allegedly fell at the hands of rebels who allegedly acted on behalf of the king and with the support of Queen Henrietta Maria and the Pope. The uprising could be easily suppressed, but the emissaries of the king in Ireland, who sought to cash in on the confiscations, assured him that all the Catholics of the kingdom were involved in the conspiracy and uprising, and tried by all means (or rather the most vicious means) to turn the local conflict into a civil war.

The king, confident that he was already suspected of a secret passion for papism and that for the Northern Irish defending his interests was only a pretext for rebellion and robbery, did everything possible to suppress the uprising. However, he was no longer able to achieve the desired goal. The native Irish and the lords of Pale - the descendants of the first settlers from England and Scotland, who had been deceived more than once in the past, no longer believed the royal promises.

If the issue of financing a military expedition to Ireland did not cause controversy - the City moneybags willingly agreed to provide a loan by subscription against the "collateral" of future land confiscations after the suppression of the uprising, then the issue of control over the armed forces remained the most acute on the agenda. The leaders of the lower house knew that the king could use the army just as well against the Irish as against Parliament. Royalists, in turn, were afraid to entrust the army to the House of Commons. Moreover, the creation of the army and its leadership has always been the right and duty of the crown.

In November, the lower house of parliament issued a Great Remonstrance stating that the king should never be trusted with the army. If Charles had limited himself to trying to continue to defend his ancestral rights, he might have succeeded during this period. But he himself destroyed all the advantages of his legal position by making an open attempt to arrest five members of the House of Commons: Sir Arthur Haselrig, Hollis, Hampden, Pym and Strode. They were accused of treacherous attempts to violate the fundamental laws, overthrow the royal government, deprive the king of the most august power and doom the people to tyranny and arbitrariness.

On January 4, 1642, Londoners saw the king himself, accompanied by 400 soldiers, heading for the House of Commons. Sitting in the speaker's chair. Karl looked around at those present and said that he was sorry for the reason that brought him here, but he must personally arrest the members of the chamber accused of treason, because he feared that they would not obey the parliamentary bailiff. Just a few minutes before his arrival, the defendants fled to the City. Carl's plans became known to the Countess of Carlisle, a brave, shrewd and very intriguing lady. She secretly alerted the five members, saving them from arrest.

The next day, the mayor of London refused the king's demand to extradite the "traitors". London these days resembled an armed camp. The Thames was covered with boats, as well as ships prepared for battle with small guns.

Returning to Windsor and thinking it over. Carl came to the conclusion that he had gone too far and decided (too late unfortunately) to correct his mistake. He wrote a message to Parliament, in which he recognized his actions against the members of both houses accused by him as illegal. Further, the monarch assured Parliament that henceforth, under all circumstances, he would observe parliamentary privileges as zealously as his life and crown. If previous acts of violence had earned him the hatred of the communities, now Charles' humility had earned him their contempt as well.

The capital refused obedience to the king, and on January 10, 1642, he left for the north of the country, where the royalists predominated, in order to gather forces for armed struggle.

Two days later, on January 13, 1642, the lower house declared that the kingdom was in danger and must be immediately put on the defensive. The people were everywhere notified!

The communities not without reason foresaw the war; the king only thought about the preparations for it. In London, he lived in impotence and fear, leaving there, surrounded by adherents, Charles was already free to make plans to defeat the enemy from whom he himself fled. Considering his place of stay too close to London, the king left Gampton Court and went to Windsor. It was decided there that the queen, taking her crown diamonds with her, would go to the Netherlands to buy equipment, ammunition and ask for help from the monarchs of the continent. And Charles, in order to buy time, continued negotiations with representatives of the chambers and gradually retired to the northern counties until he reached York.

On June 1, 1642, the Presbyterian majority of Parliament made a last attempt to avoid civil war - the House of Lords and the House of Commons sent "19 proposals" to Charles, who was in York. If we leave aside the "wishes" associated with taking action against the Jesuits, papist priests, as well as the demand to expel the papist lords (bishops) from the House of Lords, then the ordinance of parliament on the collection of militia remained a stumbling block. The latter was a direct violation of the previously undisputed prerogative of the king - to call the militia "under arms" and appoint a lord lieutenant. Parliament demanded the dissolution of the armed forces recruited by the king in the north. He also insisted on the conclusion of a close alliance with the United Provinces of the Netherlands and other Protestant states to fight against the papacy and Catholic countries.

The draft peace agreement was presented to the king on 17 June. As expected, Karl strongly rejected these proposals, seeing in them "an attempt on the constitution and fundamental laws of the kingdom". In the failure of the negotiations, his contribution was the main one. The need to negotiate with Parliament, just as he did with the Covenanters after the Civil War, put Charles at a disadvantage: he was forced to deal with those he did not trust. When negotiations reached an impasse, he splashed out a stream of irritation and anger, which only inflamed the opposite side.

On August 22, 1642, the royal standard was raised in Nottingham - a huge banner with the image of the royal coat of arms at the four corners with a crown in the center and a finger pointing "from the sky": "Give Caesar his due." According to tradition, this meant a declaration by the king of war against the rebellious "feudal lord" Earl of Essex, who was appointed commander of the people's militia, i.e. actually Parliament. Thus ended the constitutional phase of the resolution and the civil war began.

* * * There are two civil wars: the first 1642-1646. and the second in 1648. At the beginning of the first civil war, there was a relative advantage of the supporters of the king. The main reason for the turning point during the first civil war is considered military reform, carried out under the leadership of O. Cromwell. In 1643, he organized a detachment, whose soldiers received the nickname "iron-sided" for their steadfastness and fanaticism. On this basis, a "new model" army arose, hallmarks which were strong discipline, as well as the promotion to senior officer positions of persons not only of noble origin. By 1645 it became clear that the war in England was lost for Charles. In April 1646, Charles headed north, hoping to negotiate with the Scots. These hopes were not justified. The Scots gave the king to the English Parliament, receiving 400 thousand pounds for this.

In November 1647, Charles I managed to escape to the Isle of Wight, where he gained relative freedom and could meet with those Scots who looked with great apprehension at the power of the new model army. Under the terms of recognition of the Covenant, they were willing to send the Scottish army to restore the king's power.

As early as the end of 1647, royalist uprisings began in some parts of England. These events are called the second civil war. There are three of its main centers - Southern England and Wales, Essex and the north of England. The rebellion in the south was crushed by Cromwell, and the last stronghold of resistance, the fortress of Pembroke in Wales, surrendered after a siege in June 1648, but several thousand insurgents withdrew to Essex, where they resisted for several more months. In the north of England, units of Anglo-Irish royalists fought alongside the Scots. Cromwell headed there immediately after the victory in Wales. On August 17 and 18, 1648, he won decisive battles, first at Preston, and then at Winwick. This meant the victory of the opposition and the end of the second civil war.

Now the king was treated as "bloody man" The creation of a Supreme Tribunal to try the king was announced. 135 people were appointed to it. The behavior of the king during all the days that the court session lasted remained majestic, calm and firm. Every time he passed through the hall, the soldiers and the mob, incited by his haters, shouted, demanding "justice and execution", and showered him with public abuse, choosing the most rude and obscene expressions possible. One of them spat in the face of his sovereign. The King patiently endured this insult as well. "Poor fellows, he only said, give them sixpence and they will do the same to their leaders." .

“Since Charles Stewart, King of England, has been accused, caught and convicted of treason and other grave crimes, and against him last Saturday was sentenced by this court ... therefore, we hereby order you(executioner. - OH. ) carry out said sentence in the open street in front of Whitehall tomorrow, January 30, between 10 am and 5 noon the same day" .

This was the first trial of a monarch in history, during which the court was declared the spokesman for the will of the people.

On May 19, 1649, three and a half months after the execution of Charles I, England became a republic. The supreme power in it belonged to the unicameral parliament. The fate of the monarchy was also shared by the House of Lords. Executive power was exercised by the State Council, which consisted of "grands" and their parliamentary associates. Having sold the confiscated lands of the king, bishops and "cavaliers" for nothing, the republic enriched the bourgeoisie and the new nobility.

The social and protective functions of the republic in domestic policy were combined with aggressive aspirations and a policy of suppressing the liberation movement of the peoples under British rule. The military expedition to Ireland (1649-1650) was aimed at suppressing the national liberation uprising of the Irish people, in Ireland the degeneration of the revolutionary army was completed; here a new landed aristocracy was created, which became the stronghold of the counter-revolution in England itself. The English Republic dealt with Scotland just as mercilessly, annexing it to England in 1652.

Formally, England remained a republic, but in fact all power was transferred to the hands of Oliver Cromwell, who was proclaimed Lord Protector. A new political regime was established in the country - the protectorate (1653-1659). Cromwell became head of state for life, but in 1657 he refused to become King Oliver I when his closest associates offered him this. At the same time, he agreed to the right to appoint an heir.

After his death, frightened by the strengthening of the democratic movement, the bourgeoisie and the new nobility began to lean towards the "traditional monarchy". In 1660, the restoration of the Stuarts took place, who agreed to sanction the main gains of the bourgeois revolution, which ensured the economic domination of the bourgeoisie. The son of the executed king Charles II Stuart was invited to the English throne. The Stuart Restoration in 1660 is considered the end of the English Revolution in the mid-17th century.

Literature

1. Wedgwood C.V. The Trial of Charles I. London, 2001, p. 190-193.

2. Barg M.A. Oliver Cromwell and his time. M., 1950; his own. The lower ranks of the people in the English revolution. M., 1967; his own. Charles I Stuart. Judgment and punishment. - New and recent history, 1970, №6; his own. The Great English Revolution in the portraits of its leaders. M., 1991; Avdeeva K.D. From the history of English landownership on the eve of the bourgeois revolution. - Middle Ages, 1957, no. XIII; Porshnev B.F. France, the English Revolution and European Politics in the Middle of the 17th Century. M., 1970; Pavlova T.A."The royal title in this land is useless ..." - Questions of History, 1980, No. 8; her own. Milton. Biography. M., 1997; Barg M.A., Chernyak E.B. On the question of the transitional era from feudalism to capitalism (on the example of England). - New and recent history, 1982, No. 3; Ado A.B. Peasantry in the European bourgeois revolutions of the XVI-XVIII centuries. - New and recent history, 1983, No. 1; Bazer MM.- Levellers against Cromwell (1647-1649). - New and recent history, 2002, No. 3.

3. Disraeli I. Commentary on the Life and Reign of Charles the First, King of England. Paris, 1851; Cooke H.P. Charles I and His Earlier Parliaments. A Vindication and a Challenge. London, 1939; Mathew D. The Age of Charles 1. London, 1951; Toynhee M. King Charles I. London, 1968: Watson D. The Life and Times of Charles I. Introduction by Anthony Eraser. London, 1972; Aylmer G.E. The King's Servants. The Civil Servants of the Charles I. 1625-1642. London, 1974; Bowle J. Charles I. A Biograthy. Boston - Toronto, 1975; Thomas P.W. Charles I of England. The Tragedy of Absolutism. - The Courts of Europe. London, 1977; Gregg P. King Charles I. London, 1978; Carlton Ch. Charles I: the Personal Monarch. London, 1983; Hirst D.M. England In Conflict, 1603-1660: Kingdom. Oxford, 1999; Wedgwood C.V. The King's War, 1637-1641. London. 2001; idem. The King's War, 1641-1647. London. 2001; Henshall H. The myth of absolutism. St. Petersburg, 2003; Aylmer D. Revolt or revolution? England 1640-1660 SPb., 2003. For the latest trends in modern English historiography, see Sogrin V.V., Zvereva G.I., Repina L.P. Modern historiography of Great Britain. M., 1991.

Clarke A. The Old English In Ireland 1625-1642. London, 1966; MacCurtain M. Tudor and Stuart Ireland. Dublin 1972; Fors A. The Protestant Reformation in Ireland. 1590-1641. London, 1985; Fitzpatrick B. Seventeenth Century Ireland. The Wars of Religion. Dublin. 1988: Barnard T.C. Crises of Identity among Irish Protestants 1641-1685. - Past and present, No. 127, 1990, p. 39-83.

37. We are talking about Lady Lucy Hay (1599-1660) - daughter of Henry Percy, ninth Earl of Northumberland.

38. Wodywood C.V. The King's War, 1641-1647, p. 107.

39. For more details, see: Fissel M.S. War and Government In Britain 1598-1650. London, 1991; Carlton C. Going to the Wars: the Experience of the British Civil Wars 1638-51. Cambridge, 1992; Gentles I. The New Model Army In England, Scotland and Ireland, 1645-53. London, 1992; The Civil Wars. A Military History of England, Scotland and Ireland, 1638-1660. Ed. by J. Kenyon, J. Ohymeyer. London, 1998.

40.lbid.,p. 173.

41. Lavrovsky V.M. Collection of documents on the history of the English bourgeois revolution. M., 1973, p. 146.

42. For more details, see Hutton R. The British Republic 1649-1660. London, 1990.

This term has other meanings, see Charles II. Charles II Charles II ... Wikipedia

Charles I, King of England and Scotland- King of England and Scotland from the Stuart dynasty, who ruled in 1625 1648. Son of James 1 and Anna of Denmark. Woman: from June 12, 1625 Henrietta Maria, daughter of King Henry IV of France (b. 1609, d. 1669). Genus. November 29, 1600, d. Jan 30 1649… … All the monarchs of the world

Charles II, King of England and Scotland- King of England and Scotland from the Stuart dynasty, who ruled in 1660 1685. Son of Charles I and Henrietta of France. Woman: from 1662 Catherine, daughter of King João IV of Portugal (b. 1638, d. 1705). Genus. May 29, 1630, d. Feb 16 1685 In the very ... All the monarchs of the world

Charles I (King of Naples)- Charles I of Anjou Charles I d Anjou Statue of Charles of Anjou on the facade of the royal palace in Naples ... Wikipedia

Charles IV, King of Spain- King of Spain from the Bourbon dynasty, who ruled in 1788 1808. Woman: from 1765 Maria Luisa, daughter of Philippe, Duke of Parma (b. 1751, d. 1819) November 11, 1748, d. Jan 19 1819 Before taking the throne, Charles lived completely idle ... All the monarchs of the world

Charles VI (King of France)- Wikipedia has articles about other people with the name Carl. Charles VI Mad fr. Charles VI le Fol, ou le Bien Aimé ... Wikipedia

Charles II (King of Spain)- This term has other meanings, see Charles II. Charles II Carlos II ... Wikipedia

Charles IV (King of Spain)- This term has other meanings, see Charles IV. Charles IV Carlos IV ... Wikipedia

Charles II (King of Navarre)- Charles II Evil Charles II de Navarre, Charles le Mauvais ... Wikipedia

Charles V (King of Spain)- Charles V (Charles I) Karl V., Carlos I Portrait of Charles V in an armchair by Titian Emperor ... Wikipedia

Books

• Writings, Karl Marx. PREFACE TO THE FIRST VOLUME The first volume of the Works of K. Marx and F. Engels contains works written by them in 1839-1844, before the start of the creative community of the founders of the scientific ... Buy for 1860 rubles
• Collection of Monarchs, Tatiana Vinnichenko, Elena Butakova, Mikhail Dubinyansky. The collection `Monarchs` includes twelve biographical essays, the heroes of which are: King of the Franks Charlemagne, Queen of England and France Eleanor of Aquitaine, founder of the Timurid Empire...

A. Van Dyck. Portrait of Charles I of England. Louvre. Paris.

Charles I (1600-1649) - English king from 1625, from the Stuart dynasty. He was recognized as the main culprit of the Civil War. On January 30, 1649, in the presence of a large crowd, the monarch was beheaded, and in England republic was established.

Charles I (19.XI.1600 - 30.I.1649) - king (1625-1649) from the Stuart dynasty. A son James I. He pursued a reactionary feudal-absolutist policy that ran counter to the interests of the bourgeoisie and the "new nobility". Dissolved the opposition parliaments (in 1625, 1626, 1629). He surrounded himself with reactionary advisers (Archbishop W. Laud, Lord Strafford, and others). The policy of feudal reaction especially intensified during the period of the non-parliamentary rule of Charles I (1629-1640). High taxes, arbitrary requisitions ("ship tax", 1635), arrests of opposition leaders of parliament, persons who refused to pay taxes, bloody repressions against the Puritans aroused great discontent in the country. This was facilitated by the personal qualities of Charles I - frivolous, self-confident and narrow-minded. The lack of sufficient financial resources (in particular, to wage war in Scotland, where an anti-English uprising began in 1637) forced Charles I in April 1640 to convene parliament, dissolved by him already on May 5, 1640 (the so-called Short Parliament). The convocation in November 1640, in the context of the revolutionary situation in the country, of a new parliament (called the Long) was the beginning of the English bourgeois revolution. In the civil wars of 1642-1646 and 1648, Charles I was defeated. On January 26, 1649, Charles I, "as a tyrant, traitor, murderer and enemy of the state", was sentenced to death by the Supreme Judicial Tribunal, created by Parliament specifically for the trial of the king, under pressure from the masses of the people, and beheaded on January 30.

Soviet historical encyclopedia. In 16 volumes. - M.: Soviet Encyclopedia. 1973-1982. Volume 7. KARAKEEV - KOSHAKER. 1965.

Charles I - King of England and Scotland from the Stuart dynasty, who ruled in 1625- 1648 gg. Son of James I and Anne of Denmark.

Wife: from June 12, 1625 Henrietta Maria, daughter of King Henry IV of France (b. 1609 + 1669).

Charles was the third son of King James I and did not become heir until 1616, after the death of his two older brothers. In childhood, he was a meek and submissive child, and in his youth he was distinguished by diligence and a penchant for theological disputes. But then the prince became close friends with his father's favorite, the Duke of Buckingham, who had a very bad influence on him. IN last years of his reign, King James I hatched plans for an alliance with Spain and wanted to marry his son to a Spanish princess. The Duke of Buckingham persuaded Charles to follow his bride to Madrid as a wandering lover. This romantic adventure so captivated Karl that even his father's insistent arguments did not make him leave this venture. Carl and Buckingham arrived in Madrid in disguise, but here their appearance aroused more surprise than joy. Long negotiations came to nothing, and Charles returned to England as a staunch enemy of Spain. Soon Jacob died, and Charles ascended the English throne. The new king lacked neither courage nor military skill. With the virtues of the father of the family, he combined some of the virtues of the head of state. However, his rude and arrogant manner chilled affection and repelled devotion. Most of all, Charles was let down by his inability to choose the right tone: he showed weakness in those cases when he had to resist, and stubbornness when he had to give in. He could never understand either the nature of the people with whom he had to fight, or the main aspirations of the people he had to govern.

At his first parliament in 1625, Charles demanded, in short terms and in an authoritative tone, subsidies for the war with Spain. The deputies agreed to allocate £140,000 for military needs and approved a "barrel tax" for this purpose, but only for one year. Annoyed, the king dismissed the chambers. The parliament of 1626 began its sessions with an attempt to give the court the king's favorite, the Duke of Buckingham. Charles went to the House of Lords and announced that he was taking responsibility for all the orders of his minister. He again dissolved Parliament, and in order to get money, he had to resort to a forced loan, which caused general indignation. With great labor and violation of laws, only insignificant funds were obtained, which were then spent without any benefit on the war with France. In 1628 Charles convened his third parliament. Its members were elected in a moment of general irritation and indignation. Skirmishes between the deputies and the king began again. From oblivion, the Magna Carta was retrieved, which was not remembered during the entire period of the Tudor rule. On its basis, the House of Commons drew up the "Petition for Rights", which was, in fact, a statement of the English constitution. After much hesitation, Karl approved it. From that time on, the "petition" became the basic English law, and was constantly appealed to in conflicts with the king. Charles, who agreed to such an important concession, gained nothing in return, since Parliament did not agree to approve subsidies and again demanded that Buckingham be brought to trial. Fortunately for the king, the hated duke was killed in 1629 by the fanatic Felton. Charles dissolved Parliament and ruled without him for the next eleven years.

Charles owed such a long period of absolute rule to the fact that he had a skillful treasurer in the person of Weston, an energetic assistant in religious affairs in the person of Archbishop Laud, and, especially, such a talented statesman as Lord Strafford. The latter, governing Northern England and Ireland, was able, through various abuses, to annually collect significant subsidies from the population, sufficient to maintain a five thousandth army. Archbishop Laud, meanwhile, began a severe persecution of the Puritans and forced many of them to emigrate to America. Seeking funds, the king introduced new taxes with his power. So, in 1634, the "ship duty" was introduced. But collecting these taxes each year became more and more difficult. Against persistent tax evaders, the government had to start prosecutions, which caused a loud murmur of public indignation. Pamphlets directed against the king began to appear in large numbers. The police searched for their authors and punished them. This, in turn, gave rise to new resentment. In Scotland, where the position of the Puritans was much stronger than in England, the policy of the king led in 1638 to a powerful uprising. Leslie's army of 20,000 invaded England from Scotland. Charles did not have the strength to fight it, and in 1640 he had to convene a fourth parliament.

The king hoped that, under the influence of patriotism, the deputies would allow him to raise the funds needed to wage the war. But he was wrong again. At the very first sitting of the House of Commons, the deputies announced their intention to subject to consideration everything that had been done without their participation during these eleven years. The king declared parliament dissolved, but he was in a very difficult position: his army consisted of all sorts of rabble and constantly suffered defeat in the war. In November 1640, he involuntarily convened a new parliament, which went down in history under the name of the Long. On November 2, the deputies demanded the trial of Strafford. On the same day, he was arrested and, along with Lod, was imprisoned. Everyone who took any part in the collection of "ship dues" was persecuted. With no military force in their hands and relying only on the London crowd, Parliament actually took over the government. Karl made one concession after another. In the end, he sacrificed his minister, and in May 1641 the hated by everyone Strafford was beheaded. Soon, Parliament abolished all tribunals that did not obey the general rules, including the Star Chamber. Laws were passed to the effect that the interval between the dissolution of the old parliament and the convocation of a new one could not exceed three years, and that the king could not dissolve parliament against his will.

Karl defended himself as best he could. In January 1642, he accused five members of the Commons of secret dealings with the Scots and demanded their arrest. He himself went to Westminster, accompanied by nobles and bodyguards, to capture the suspects, but they managed to escape to the City. Karl hurried after them in annoyance, but did not manage to take the troublemakers into custody. The sheriffs refused to comply with his order, and a violent crowd, running from all sides, greeted the king with loud cries: “Privilege! Privilege!" Karl saw his impotence and left London the same day. The five members of the House of Commons solemnly returned to Westminster under the protection of the city militia.

The king settled in York and began to prepare for a campaign against the capital. All attempts to peacefully resolve the conflict ended in failure, as both sides showed intransigence. Parliament demanded for itself the right to appoint and dismiss ministers and sought to bring all branches of government under its control. Karl replied: "If I agree to such conditions, then I will become only a ghostly king." Both sides raised troops. Parliament introduced taxes and formed an army of 20,000. At the same time, supporters of the king flocked to the northern counties. The first battle, which took place in October at Agigill, did not have a decisive outcome. But soon rebellions began in the western counties in favor of the king. The city of Bristol surrendered to the Royalists. Firmly entrenched in Oxford, Charles began to threaten London, but resistance to him grew every month. Since all the bishops took the side of the king, Parliament in 1643 announced the abolition of the bishoprics and the introduction of Presbyterianism. Since then, nothing has prevented a close rapprochement with the rebellious Scots. In 1644, the king had to simultaneously wage war with the army of Parliament and the army of Leslie. On July 3, the Royalists were defeated at Merston Moor. The decisive role in this victory was played by the detachment Oliver Cromwell, made up of fanatical Puritans. The northern counties recognized the power of Parliament. For some time, Charles continued to win victories in the south. Throughout this war, he showed, along with his usual fearlessness, composure, energy and outstanding military talents. The Parliamentarian army under Essex was surrounded on 1 September and capitulated at Cornwall. This defeat led to the fact that the Independents (extreme Puritans), led by Cromwell, took up the House of Commons. The people in the capital were seized with religious enthusiasm. The Independents banned all entertainment; time was divided between prayer and military exercises. In a short time, Cromwell formed a new army, which was distinguished by an extremely high morale. On June 14, 1645, she met with the royalists at Nazby and inflicted a decisive defeat on them. The king retreated, leaving five thousand dead and a hundred banners on the battlefield. In the following months, Parliament extended its influence throughout the country.

Accompanied by only two people, Charles fled to Scotland, wanting to get support from his fellow countrymen. But he miscalculated. The Scots captured the king and handed him over to Parliament for £800,000. Karl was imprisoned in Golmeby. True, even now his position was still far from hopeless. The House of Commons offered him peace, on the condition that he consent to the destruction of the episcopal structure of the church and give up the army for twenty years to the subjection of Parliament. Soon a third force intervened in these negotiations. During the years of the war, the army turned into an independent and powerful organization with its own interests and was by no means always ready to follow the instructions of the parliament. In June 1647, several squadrons captured the king in Holmsby and brought him under escort to their camp. Here negotiations began between the king and the chiefs of the army. The terms proposed by these latter were less restrictive than the parliamentary ones. Thus, the period for which the king had to give up command of the army was reduced to ten years. Karl hesitated to make a final decision - he hoped that he could still be the winner, on November 11 he fled from Gampton Court to the Isle of Wight. Here, however, he was immediately captured by Colonel Grommond and imprisoned in the castle of Cerysbroke. However, the flight of the king was the signal for a second civil war. Strong royalist rebellions broke out in the southeast and west of the country. The Scots, whom Charles had promised to keep their Presbyterian church, agreed to support him. But even after that, the king had no hope of victory. Cromwell defeated the Scots and, pursuing them, entered Edinburgh. The rebellious Colchester capitulated to Fairfax's army.

In July 1648 new negotiations began. Charles accepted all the demands of the winners, except for the abolition of the episcopate. Parliament was ready to make peace on these terms, but the puritanical army strongly opposed this concession. On December 6, a detachment of soldiers under the command of Colonel Pride expelled 40 deputies from the House of Commons who were prone to conciliation with the king. The next day, the same number were expelled. Thus, the Independents, who acted in concert with the army, received a majority in Parliament. In reality, this coup marked the beginning of Cromwell's sole rule. He entered the capital as a triumphant and settled in the royal rooms of the Guategoll Palace as the ruler of the state. Now, on his initiative, Parliament decided to bring the king to trial as a rebel who started a war with his own people. Charles was taken in custody to Windsor and then to St. James Palace. At the beginning of 1649 a fifty-man tribunal was formed. On January 20, he began his meetings at the Palace of Westminster. Karl was brought to court three times to testify. From the very beginning, he declared that he did not recognize the right of the House of Commons to bring him to trial, and the tribunal - the right to pass judgment on him. He considered the power appropriated by Parliament to be usurpation. When told that he received power from the people and used it for the evil of the people, Charles replied that he received power from God and used it to fight the rebels. And when he was accused of unleashing a civil war and bloodshed, he replied that he took up arms in order to maintain the rule of law. Obviously, each side was right in its own way, and if the case had been considered in a legal manner, the resolution of all legal difficulties would have taken more than one month. But Cromwell did not consider it possible to delay the process for so long. On January 27, the tribunal announced that "Karl Stewart" as a tyrant, rebel, murderer and enemy of the English state was sentenced to beheading. The king was given three days to prepare for death. He used them in prayer with Bishop Joxon. All these days, until the very last minute, he retained exceptional courage. On January 30, Charles was beheaded on a scaffold placed at the Gueytgall Palace, and a few days later Parliament declared the monarchy abolished and proclaimed a republic.

All the monarchs of the world. Western Europe. Konstantin Ryzhov. Moscow, 1999.

Read further:

Literature:

Higham F. M., Charles I., L., 1932;

Wedgwood C. V., The Great Rebellion: v. 1-The King's peace. 1637-1641, L., 1955; v. 2 - The King's war. 1641-1647, L., 1958.

Introduction

Chapter 1

§1 Identity of CharlesI

§2 The economic development of England at the endXVI- earlyXVIIcenturies

§3 Karl's ContradictionsIwith parliament

§4 Second and third Parliament

§5 "Unparliamentary" reign of CharlesI

§6 Carl's relationshipIwith Scotland. "Short" parliament

Chapter 2

§1 "Long" Parliament

§2 Earl of Strafford

§3 Carl's fightIand parliament

§4 First Civil War

§5 KarlIcaptured by parliament

§6 Second Civil War

Introduction

The history of mankind knows dates that have been 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 the English Revolution of the 17th century. and in particular the personality of Charles I - King of England, who ruled from 1625. to 1649 In my opinion, this topic is relevant because such events as the war of the king with parliament, the dictatorship of the latter, as well as the execution of the monarch himself, Europe of the 17th century. didn't know yet. The experience of the English state became a legislator in the question of revolution for most European states. Of course, no one doubts the role and significance of Charles himself in all these events. Both foreign and domestic historians tried to assess these events, to understand what was happening in England and correlate it with the personality of Charles I.

François Guizot saw in Charles a decent, honest and good-natured person, more inclined towards art than politics.

There are several traditional models in British historiography regarding the understanding of the causes, nature and consequences of the 17th century English Revolution. At the heart of the constitutional-political explanation lies the focus on the confrontation between parliament and the crown, as well as on strengthening the role of the House of Commons. This approach, in turn, is divided into "Whig" and "functionalist" directions. The religious direction includes the belief in the growing influence of puritanism or, on the contrary, the Lodo-Armenian "counter-revolution". Marxists traditionally adhere to the socio-economic explanation (A. Morton, B. Manning, early K. Hill). There is also an eclectic trend characteristic of L. Stone, 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, a "revisionist" trend appeared. It is characterized by the statement about the absence of any long-term social or economic changes, any social delimitation between the parties during the civil war is denied. Hence the conclusion is drawn about the absence of any deep causes of the revolution, which in turn did not have its own "nature" and consequences.

To achieve the goal of the work, I set myself the following tasks:

Characteristics of the personality of Charles, as a person, politician, monarch.

Study of the reasons for the struggle of Charles with Parliament.

To trace the formation of Charles's personal views during an unparliamentary government.

Karl's policy is the path to revolution.

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.

§one. Charles I was born on November 19, 1600. at Dumfernline Castle, his parents were King James I of Scotland and Queen Anne of Denmark. Charles was the third of the surviving royal children. The elder brother, Heinrich, born in 1594, was the heir to whom all attention was paid: he was prepared to adequately occupy the place that belonged to him by birthright. The second was the sister Charles-Elizabeth, born in 1596.

From birth, Karl was a weak and sickly child. Until the age of two and a half, he could not walk at all, and later, until the age of four, he moved only with outside help. This was the result of rickets.

Carl also had another physical handicap. All his life he stuttered badly, and this made it difficult for the ruler to have such important opportunities for communication, because. more often he preferred to remain silent when a weighty word from the monarch was required. 2 Perhaps because of this, some modern researchers tend to believe that it was the psychological state of Karl that played a key role in the revolution that happened.

March 1603. Queen Elizabeth I died, and Jacob 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, already in England, he was rarely brought to court. 3

In childhood, he was a meek and submissive child, and in his youth he was noted for his diligence and penchant for theological disputes. All this time, he worked hard to overcome the alienation he felt in his family. Only his mother was attentive to him, the older children reacted politely but coolly to his assurances of loyalty, 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 Heinrich died unexpectedly - all hopes now concentrated on Karl.

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 the relationship between Charles and the Duke of Buckingham. At first, Charles was extremely negative about the duke for his connection with the king, but then these relations change dramatically. It is difficult to understand the reasons for this: either Karl realized that in order to be closer to Jacob, one must be friends with the duke, or he fell under the spell of the latter. However, the fact remains. Already the trip of Charles and Buckingham in 1623. in

Madrid for the purpose of concluding a marriage between Charles and Infanta Maria speaks volumes. The marriage was never concluded, but this visit was a serious step in bringing Charles closer to the duke. Perhaps it is not for nothing that the opinion prevails in historiography that Karl sought in everything, consciously or not, to act against the will of his father. This is already evident, and because with the accession of Charles, the court changed: jesters and dwarfs disappeared, instead of vices that were not too hidden, marital virtues were exalted, the requirements of court etiquette became law. Also, the newly-made king did not forget his favorite pastime and continued to patronize art and collecting. He spared no time, no money, no energy. Karl created one of the best collections of Renaissance art at that time, numbering about 1760 paintings. The famous Flemish painter Anthony Van Dyck worked at the court of Charles I for many years, and the gallery of portraits of the king and the nobility he created perfectly reflects the appearance of the aristocrat of that time. 4 Karl himself participated in theatrical productions on numerous occasions. This man from his youth was distinguished by complete spinelessness, in need of constant

___________________________________

4 L.E. Kertman. Geography, history and culture of England. - M., 1979. - S. 77

“reinforcement” of determination either from the side of the wife, or from favorites and close associates. No, this character was small, the mind was narrow-minded, the energy was sluggish. From head to toe, Karl was and remained a poseur. The majestic posture hid short stature (only 162 cm), a slightly absent-minded manner of speaking - the absence of one's opinion, a quiet voice - imbalance and irascibility, finally, impartiality - an almost incredible passion for intrigue, including against people from the inner circle. Secret letters, ciphers and just gossip - that's what ignited his imagination and completely captured him. five

As noted above, Charles was very religious, which, however, did not prevent him from marrying a French Catholic Henrietta Maria. A woman with a pleasant and lively mind, she soon acquired over the young king. However, the bliss of home life, so dear to the sedate Karl, could not please the frivolous, restless and insensitive Henrietta Maria: she needed dominion and all 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

Summing up the above, it should be noted that Karl was not a strong, charismatic personality, and, therefore, was easily subjected to pressure from other people. Such, for example, was Buckingham for a long time, then replaced by Strafford and Laud. Do not forget about Henrietta Maria, who had a great influence on Charles and played an important role in the further clashes between the king and

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. - v.1, Rostov-on-Don., 1996. - P.159

§2. In the economic life of England in the 16th - early 17th centuries. There was an intensive process of formation of capitalist relations, which were quite pronounced in all spheres of life in English society. Thus, in its social essence, English industry presented a picture of a motley form of organization in which small-scale production in various sectors either completely dominates, or is intertwined with various forms of capitalist manufactories, then, finally, is increasingly giving way to

capitalist manufacture. The forms of capitalist production were also different. To major 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 the volume of production. For example, the extraction of coal from 1560 to 1680 increased 14 times, the extraction of lead, tin, copper, salt increased 6-8 times, the extraction of iron 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 XVII century. internal exchange has long gone beyond local markets, forming a single national market, contributing to the further specialization of individual areas. Gradually, the figure of a buyer appears, an intermediary between small producers and consumers.

The following figures can give an idea of ​​the increase in the capacity of the domestic market: since 1534. to 1660 The population of London has increased 8 times

7 V.M. Lavrovsky, M.A. Barg. English bourgeois revolution. - M., 1958. - S. 62,

(from 60 thousand to 460 thousand). Instead of 150,000 quarters of wheat, he needed 1,150,000 quarters. The population grew in other parts of the country. 8

English foreign trade made especially great strides after the sinking of the Invincible Armada in 1588. for the first 40 years of the XVII century. The turnover of British foreign trade doubled. Foreign merchants were finally ousted from it. Relations between Great Britain and India occupied a special place in foreign trade. Trade with India increased not only the merchant fleet, but also the wealth of England. True, it was possible to sell only a very limited amount of English cloth in a hot climate. Far East. The enemies of the East India Company have always based their accusations against it on this. But even 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 trip. Around 1621 The £100,000 exported in bullion returned in the form of Oriental goods of fivefold value, of which only a quarter was consumed in the country. The rest was sold abroad at a great profit, which dramatically increased the wealth of the state. nine

Sea 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 for religious reasons, and partly because the merchants were unhappy with the policies of James I and Charles I towards them.

England 17th century still continued to be an agricultural country with

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. - S. 239

city. At the end of the XVII century. out of 5.5 million of its population, three-quarters, i.e. 4 million lived in the countryside and were connected with agriculture. 10 The bulk of the peasants were freeholders (free holders) and copyholders (ordinary holders of land). Their holding was called freehold and copyhold, respectively. Freehold is a free, close to private ownership form of holding land. The copyhold was a hereditary or life holding, for which the copyholders were required to pay the lord a fixed cash annuity, pay a tithe, and so on. The 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 huge lands of the church were seized. All these circumstances, of course, changed the structure of English rural

society. The land became an attractive area for capital investment. 12 People who had money wanted to buy land with it. In England, land was inherited from father to son and cultivated for the consumption needs of the family. But with the development of capitalist relations, many farmers began to sell on the market that part of the production of their estates that they could not consume. It should be noted that rents and

other requisitions from the peasants were substantially increased. It's on its own

10 S.I. Arkhangelsky. Agrarian legislation of the great English revolution. - M., 1935. - S. 75

11 Essays on the history of England. / ed. Assoc. G.R. Levina M., 1959. - P.109

12 C. Hill. English revolution. - M., 1947. – p.57

was not only an economic, but also a moral “revolution”, since meant

a break with everything that people had previously considered decent and right. IN

feudal society was dominated by custom and tradition, money had no

special significance. But now everything is different. Many of the peasants could not pay all these dues, 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 big jump happened in trade. Now England ceases to be only a supplier of raw materials and begins to export finished products.

The state is trying 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 were failed, because. did not reflect the main interests of the population of the country, 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. At the beginning of the XVI 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 were defeated, it ceased to rely on the patronage of the monarchy and eventually began to get out of its control. At this time, the crown already began to feel what dangers the growing power of the commercial class promised her, and she tried, before it was too late, to strengthen her position, but the moment was already lost.

Miscalculations in the policy of the Tudors led to an aggravation and further

____________________________________

13 C. Hill. Decree. op. - p.59

the confrontation between the bourgeoisie and the Stuarts, which was not so pronounced under Jacob, but was greatly aggravated under Charles.

So, the position of the country at the time of the accession of Charles was unenviable. Surely, the fact that after the death of Elizabeth Yakov got a very meager treasury (which he tried to make up by any means) and a huge debt equal to the annual income of the country also affected. In addition, until his death in 1625, he was in constant conflict with Parliament. Charles I further aggravated this conflict, and almost always because of 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 into Europe of silver and gold from the Spanish-American mines, made it impossible for James I and Charles I to "exist on their own

revenues," and Parliament was unwilling to make up the deficit except on certain religious and political terms, which the Stuarts were unwilling to accept. fourteen

§3. Karl's contradictions with parliament were a peculiar regularity. The conflict itself arose at the beginning of his reign, and it reached its apogee in connection with the submission of the famous "Petition on the Right" (June 2, 1628).

Already the first parliament of Charles (1625) expresses distrust of the government. Ton and per pound dues are given to the king only for a year, while 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. – S. 249

15 A.N.Savin. Lectures on the History of the English Revolution. - M., 1937. - p.140

German expedition in 1625. Commoners (members of parliament) began to blame the all-powerful favorite of the king - the Duke of Buckingham in all political crises. Buckingham's unpopularity grew day by day. However, on June 15, 1626. Charles' first parliament was dissolved. And Lord Arundel and Lord Bristol, Buckingham's chief accusers, were captured and imprisoned. The Duke of Buckingham breathed more freely, and Charles felt like a king. But their joy did not last. 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 the enemy and against his subjects. His ground troops, few and poorly trained, cost him dearly. Puritanism dominated among the sailors; he did not dare to rely on the police, because. it was much more influenced by the townspeople and nobles of the counties, and not by the king. Karl eliminated 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 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 appointed, equal to the sum of those subsidies which had been promised but not approved by Parliament. The regiments passed through the counties or settled down in them, to the burden of the inhabitants. The inhabitants of the ports and coastal districts were ordered to put up armed ships with a crew - the first experience of a ship tax. However, the calculation 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 contribute to the loan, but, in spite of everything, the expedition was nevertheless sent under the personal command of Buckingham. But the general's inexperience was the reason

____________________________________

16 F. Guizot. Decree. op. - p.137

the failure of this event: he failed to capture the island of Re, or even retreat without the loss of soldiers and officers. The resentment was universal. The people blamed only the duke and the king for everything that happened. Robert Cotton, to mitigate discontent, suggested that Charles reconvene parliament, as well as release all political prisoners planted in the last period of time. The king followed this advice without delay and already on March 17, 1628. Parliament was assembled.

§4. The convocation of the second parliament of Charles was marked by many events, the most important of which is the famous "Petition of Right" (June 2, 1628). Referring to the Magna Carta of the XIII century. and other statutes and

the laws of the kingdom, the House of Commons protested against a number of abuses and violence committed by the crown and agents of royal absolutism in the "Petition of Right" presented to the king. The authors of the "Petition on the Right" set out their demands in it on behalf of the entire English people, but in fact, they represented the interests of only two classes: the bourgeois-noble and commercial and industrial. It is not difficult to guess that when speaking about the security of land ownership and the inviolability of income from domestic and foreign trade with the political rights and liberties of all the British, the commoners primarily had in mind the nobles and merchant merchants, and not the peasants and small landowners. So, Savin singled out four main issues that were touched upon by the "Petition ...": 1) illegal taxation., 2) illegal arrests., 3) military detention., 4) military justice 18. For each of the issues, the petition sets out the current law as well as government abuses. Every utterance

_____________________

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 the members of parliament.

Particularly great disagreements between parliament and the king occurred over the per-ton and per-pound fees that Charles needed to maintain financial balance. Therefore, Charles continued to collect these fees, despite the protests of Parliament. Wanting to somehow influence the king, the Commoners June 25, 1628. filed a "Remonstrance Against Ton and Pound Levies" to Karl. Its essence lies in the fact that members of parliament refuse to satisfy the king's demands regarding tax collections: "the House of Commons cannot fulfill this desire at present ...". At the end of the remonstrance, the commoners remind the king of his duties, with

with which he agreed, adopting such a document as the "Petition of the Right". "The levying of a tonne and a pound tax, and other taxes not authorized by Parliament, is a violation of the fundamental liberties of this

kingdom and contrary to Your Majesty's royal reply to said "Petition of Right" 19 .

Based on the foregoing, it can be argued that the communities thought that the petition took away from the king the right to levy any taxes, including customs duties, without their consent. The king, however, maintained that the petition was valid only for those taxes that had previously been levied with the consent of Parliament, and that duties did not belong to their number. Ton and per pound dues should be levied as before 20 . Parliament continues to accuse the king of violating the petition and begins to prepare a second remonstrance. In order to prevent it from being submitted, the king hastily closes the session on June 26 and reproaches the communities for 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 XVII century - M., 1973. - p.156

20 A.N.Savin. Decree. op. - p.134

presented me with a demonstration... now I have information that is being prepared

the second remonstrance in order to deprive me of the per ton and per pound collection ... This is so detrimental to me that I am forced to end this session a few 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 her his own interpretation and at the end indicates that without his consent, none of the chambers is authorized to interpret the laws, thereby, as it were, hinting at the absolute, all-encompassing power of the king. Parliament was dissolved until autumn, but it did not meet again until January 20, 1629.

In the interval 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 the adjournment of Parliament on the streets of London

there was a proclamation:

“Who rules the country? - King.

Who rules the king? - Duke.

Who rules the duke? - Heck.

Don't let the duke forget that."

The people still continued to blame Buckingham for everything and longed for trial and reprisals against him. As a result, on August 23, 1628, the 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 to the mediastinum separating the monarch from the people.

In 1629 the third Charles Parliament was convened, in the short session of which a religious dispute occupied a lot of space. The communities disagreed with the crown on the constitutional issue, insisting that the parliament also had supremacy in the religious sector. These disputes were

____________________________________

21 V.M. Lavrovsky. There. - p.157

colored with hatred for papism and Arminianism, distrust of the bishops. The king, for his part, declared that the convocation of a church council was now his prerogative, and also that he declared himself to be above the decisions of a church council. The right to interpret the laws themselves, Charles I, as you know, reserved for himself and his closest advisers - judges. 22 But 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 Chamber of Pens 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 a parliament.

§five. So, since 1629. the time began, which in historiography is called the "unparliamentary reign of Charles."

Although before that he had tried to govern together with Parliament, he was constantly convinced and constantly repeated that if Parliament was too unyielding, then he would be able to do without him. 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 pressing for him, he would always have time to resort to parliament. So did the smartest of his advisers 23 . Neither Charles nor anyone around him then thought of destroying forever the old laws of England. They assumed that the parliament wanted to subjugate the king, taking him under its guardianship, so that the king would cease to be king. When the sovereign and the parliament could not agree, the councilors believed that the parliament should yield, because only the king is the supreme ruler of the whole country. But the chamber did not want to give in,

____________________

22 V.M. Lavrovsky. Decree. op. - p.160

23 F. Guizot. Decree. op. - S. 155

and therefore it was necessary to rule without it. This need was obvious. Sooner or later, but the people had to understand this, and then the king, seeing that the parliament has become more modest, can convene it again.

Even more short-sighted were the views of the royal court, which believed that the dissolution of parliament would further untie its hands. Indeed, as soon as parliament was dissolved, all the barriers to the court disappeared: petty grandeur began to shine as before, and lackey ambition again received its former freedom. The court did not demand more: it cared little about whether, to please it, the form of government would change. 24

The people judged otherwise: the dissolution of parliament was in their eyes true

a sign of a deeply thoughtful, firm intention completely

destroy Parliament.

After the dissolution of the "people's body of power", Charles began to rule the country alone, relying only on the closest of his advisers. The protests of the House of Commons did not find proper support in the country, and therefore, in the future, Charles managed to bring discord into 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 was put in the Tower, who did not want to compromise with the crown. He was followed by Ser Edward Kok, a commentator on the Magna Carta in the spirit of the demands of the bourgeoisie. Another prominent opposition figure, Wentworth, who had previously spoken with Elliot, Cock and Hampden, not only went over to the side of the king, but also became his closest adviser during the period of non-parliamentary rule. Only one Pym was able to survive his political convictions in the years of hard times 25 .

____________________

24 F. Guizot. Decree. op. - S. 157

25 V.M. Lavrovsky, M.A. Barg. Decree. op. - p.190

Finally, all these processes are over. Accused

tried to intimidate or deceive, some of them paid fines. They were allowed to live no closer than ten miles from the royal seat.

The most important advisers of Charles Stuart during the period of government without parliament were: Earl Straffort (Wentworth) - on secular affairs and Archbishop Laud - on religious affairs. 26

It seemed that the resistance of the "revolutionary" opponents of the king

broken. He ruled alone, relying on his closest advisers, implementing the principle of complete unity of the state and the church,

ensuring order and discipline in the country. Carl is easy for a while

was to edit. But at the same time, the fundamental question for absolutism arose about the financial base of 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 "exist on their own income," and Parliament showed no desire to make up the deficit except under certain religious and political conditions, which The Stuarts were unwilling to accept. 27 One can trace what were the resources of the royal treasury in the period from 1629 to 1640. Chancellor of the Exchequer Richard Weston (Earl of Portland from 1633) struggled to make ends meet. In 1631 - 1635. the revenue of the kingdom was 600l. Art. in year. The debt of the Treasury reached £1,000,000. Nobody wanted to pay the per-pound and per-ton tax, which was not approved by Parliament, and enforcement measures to collect it caused only protests and displeasure.

____________________________________

26 V.M. Lavrovsky, M.A. Barg. There. - S. 215

27 J.M. Trevelyan. Decree. op. – S. 249

In order to replenish the treasury, it was necessary to resort to the old measures that were used even under James I: the distribution and grants of crown lands, the sale of monopolies and titles. There have also been attempts to invent new taxes based on precedents. The greatest results in terms of increasing the income of the crown were able to achieve through the collection of "ship money". In this case, the crown could refer to the old precedent - the obligation of coastal cities to equip ships for the royal fleet. However, being the supreme interpreter of the laws in the kingdom, Charles decided to give a broader interpretation of this precedent.

In 1634 he demanded that the City of London build a certain number of ships, citing the need to fight pirates who made constant raids on English merchant ships. And already in the next 1635. the king demanded "ship money" from the inland counties, which lie far from the sea coast. In this regard, the high-profile case of Squier Gampden broke out, who refused to pay this tax, in connection with which he was convicted. The verdict in this case was that the king had the right, in the event of a danger threatening the kingdom, to tax his subjects in order to find the funds necessary for the defense of the country. The decision of the court in this case acquired a fundamental significance, creating a precedent for imposing taxes on the maintenance of standing armed forces by the king. It should not be forgotten that this verdict in the Hampden case also had another side: it contributed to the growth of opposition sentiments 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 from the inner 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 such cases.

At this time, two parties are formed around the royal throne: the queen and ministers, the court and the state council. They are the ones who entered

in the struggle for the newfound power. As noted above, the queen, having barely arrived in England, began to actively intervene in the domestic and foreign policy of the state, as well as put pressure on her husband. The most obsequious advisers to the king with difficulty and not without resistance submitted to her whims. Two of them, not stupid people, independent in their convictions and, moreover, devoted to the king, wanted to serve him differently than the whims of a woman or the unreasonable claims of the court demanded.

One such man was the Earl of Strafford, who did not sacrifice any particular conviction or change his conscience. 28 Ambitious, passionate, he was formerly a patriot more out of hatred for Buckingham, out of a thirst for glory, out of a desire to develop his talents and strengths to the full extent, than out of honest and deep conviction. He set to work with great enthusiasm, overcoming all rivalry, destroying all resistance, with ardor spreading and asserting royal power inseparable from his own. At the same time, he tried to restore order, to destroy abuses, to weaken private interests, which he considered illegitimate, and to 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 Council of State. Distinguished by the severity of morals and simplicity in his way of life, 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.

Better than such advisers and Karl did not need with his new,

___________________

28 G.I. Zvereva. History of Scotland. - M., 1987. - S. 75

position. Alien to the court, they cared little to please him, but rather tried to serve their master. They were stubborn, courageous, able to work and devoted. 29

Charles' unwillingness to live within his means led to a constant financial crisis in domestic politics. It was previously noted that in order to increase the income of the treasury, 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 allotments for everyone. Therefore, diligent searches for "hidden" crown land began to be carried out, which led to clashes between the crown and the largest land lords. 30 Land rights, considered indisputable for 3.5 centuries, are recognized as null and void. Huge fines (from £10,000 to £60,000) begin to be collected from landlords for "seizing" royal lands. Charles "made" enemies among the common people by levying a "ship tax" and did not stop there, coming into conflict with the large land holders, who were the unshakable pillar of absolutism.

Charles was constantly trying to find support in the person of the highest aristocracy by suppressing the simple nobility, whose influence was feared in London. But all attempts were unsuccessful, partly because their uselessness was soon noticed, and partly because the memory of the old barons inspired a certain distrust in the king of their descendants. But it was important for the king to find support for himself in the face of some strong class in order to strengthen his precarious position. For a long time, the Anglican clergy have been striving for such a value - and, finally, earned it, thereby losing their independence, which did not prevent them from introducing their 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. - S. 154

Thus, French, Dutch, German manufacturers transferred their industry to England and received charters that ensured the free celebration of their national worship. These letters were taken away, and most of settlers left their new homeland. One Norwich parish lost 3,000 of these industrious newcomers 31 .

In 1634 - 1637. in England, the vicar-general of Archbishop Laud makes an audit of the entire Canterbury province, he everywhere introduces monotonous rites, monitors their implementation, and also conducts a general economic audit. The methods with which he carried them out were also cruel: under strict control were all the priests of this

provinces, for the slightest offense they were punished not only by imprisonment, but, sometimes, by the death penalty.

The affairs of foreign policy were 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 accounts of everything to their sovereigns, and soon, in spite of the well-known prosperity of England, the opinion spread that the reign of Charles was weak, imprudent and precarious.

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 more affluent of them sold their property, bought a small ship, food supplies and any agricultural implements, and, led by a servant of their faith, set off for North America, where the beginnings of colonies were already formed. According to the decision of the State Council, these resettlements 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. - S. 176

Hampden, Hezlrig and Cromwell. 32

Karl and his advisers realized that the colonial policy could bring considerable profit to the state, and already in April 1636. A commission on colonial affairs was established with the Code at its head. She had to revise the colonial charters, establish new laws in case of need, introduce the Anglican Church everywhere, control the governors. Thus, Charles wanted to establish a rigid system of subordination of the colonies to England for the economic support 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 most successful for the king and 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 ruled by him, remained a completely independent state from England with its own laws, religion, army and monetary system. The Scots took this as a threat to their rights and rebelled: July 23, 1637. in Edinburgh Cathedral they solemnly wanted to introduce the Elizabethan 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 put down 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 Karl in particular at this stage made a serious mistake 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 gift of political and religious freedoms. But this moment was irretrievably missed, and already in October, in order to restore order, the Privy Councilors turn to the help of the rebellious lords and gentlemen, who then gathered in the city and thought about organizing a revolutionary movement. In November of the same year, they elect commissioners, who at the beginning of 1638. they single out a closer estate committee, which both leads the movement, and also becomes a true Scottish government. The demands of the commissars are constantly growing: for example, if at the beginning of the rebellion they demanded only the abolition of innovations, then 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 Aberdeens and the northeastern highlanders - the Gordons - with the Marquis of Gentley at the head, stand firm. In this situation, Karl was forced to make concessions in order to gain time. He agrees to convene an assembly and parliament. The Assembly meets in November 1638. and immediately takes the side of the Covenanters. King's Commissioner Hamilton declares this meeting illegal because of the illegality of the election and dissolves it in the name of the king. But the assembly does not disperse until December 20, 1638. and passed a series of revolutionary acts: abolishes the Articles of Perth, the Canons and the 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 join the battle and immediately begins negotiations with the rebels. They end with the Treaty of Berwick in June 1639, and consequently with the inevitable fall of absolutism in Scotland. Under the Berwick Treaty, the rebels undertook to hand over the fortresses to the royal

_______________________________

34 A.N. Savin. Decree. op. - S. 164

officers and disband illegal organizations.

The concessions of the king were undoubtedly more significant:

he promises amnesty;

undertakes to refer all religious matters to the resolution of the assembly;

all secular affairs undertakes to transfer to parliament.

But none of the parties wanted to fulfill their part of the contract, and

hence the conclusion suggests itself 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 episcopate.

August 31, 1639 a meeting of parliament was held in Scotland, at which it was decided that parliamentary peers, gentlemen, citizens should choose 8 "state lords", i.e. the creation of a local body of people's representation.

From the beginning of 1640 intense preparations are underway for a new war. In 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). The government, at a meeting of parliament, reads out the secret correspondence of the Scots with the French king, hoping that they will awaken patriotic feelings, but this step did not produce the desired effect.

The Commoners demanded reform 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 ranks of the people in the English bourgeois revolution of the 17th century–M., 1967.–S.79

Parliament and once again dissolved it.

In the meantime, the Scottish Parliament, which has dispersed for the holidays, 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 in concert with the Lowlands, and the latter had to use military force to ensure their obedience. Also among the Covenanters, a moderate wing was formed, which was part of a secret agreement not to allow the diminution of the prerogative, to reconcile the Covenant with loyalty. However, the Scottish strife did not help Charles in achieving 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 repulsed the British, occupying the north-east of the country, as well as Northumberland and Durham. The king was again forced to start negotiations. However, this time the Scots agreed only to a truce, which was concluded on October 14, 1640. and which, by its terms, was very shameful: the Scots hold Northumberland and Dörham and assign an indemnity of 850l. Art. per person per day 36 .

This is how Charles and Lod'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 of

Ireland.

However, there is no consensus in historiography regarding this issue. François Guizot, for example, believed that as soon as Ireland was entrusted to Strafford, this kingdom, which until then had been only a burden for the crown, became a source of wealth and power. State

_____________________

36 Abstract collection. English Revolution Ser. XVII century - M., 1991. – p.124

debts were paid, income previously stupidly collected and plundered

shamelessly, was arranged correctly and soon exceeded the costs.

According to other historians, Charles's policy in Ireland was, in fact, a continuation of his father's policy. 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 the payment of 4 thousand pounds. Art. per year for 3 years. This amount of £12,000 Art. it was supposed to be spent on creating a standing army in Ireland, which was not 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 extract the maximum income from Irish Catholics in favor 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 is sent to Connaught with a detachment of 4 thousand cavalry to "assistance" in the organization of 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 who were dissatisfied with the activities of Archbishop Laud. But Strafford's calculation on the Irish army did not materialize.

Summarizing all of the above, it can be noted that both historians are right in their own way in understanding the Irish policy of Charles, 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 was not without oppression and violence on the part of the royal subjects in the person of Strafford.

ChapterII.

Against the revolution.

§one. After a long delay, Parliament was not assembled until April 13, 1640. and went down in history as a "short parliament" because of the very short period of its activity. It was assembled because Charles needed subsidies to continue the war with Scotland. However, the king and parliament were like poles of the same name and constantly repelled each other: the king wanted the chamber, without starting to consider popular demands, to approve the previous subsidies and promised to listen to her submissions later, but the chamber firmly insisted on its own and wanted to discuss the demands first people, and then the question of subsidies.

Charles said that the new parliament was as stubborn as the previous ones, he was already clearly annoyed. Soon, Charles sends to tell the lower house that if he is assigned 12 subsidies that can be paid within 3 years, then he gives his word not to collect shipping tax in advance without the consent of Parliament. The amount seemed too huge to the parliament, moreover, the temporary consent of the king not to collect taxes from the ships was not enough: it was necessary to declare the illegality of the 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 amount, Secretary of State Henry Wen announced that it was not worth talking about the royal proposal if they did not want to fulfill it in full, because the king would not agree to accept less than what he demanded. Attorney General Herbet confirmed Ven's words. The lower house was astonished and indignant. The most peaceful of the 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 the parliament was dissolved, having lasted only 3 weeks until May 5, 1640.

By the evening of the same day, Karl began to repent. He said that he was misrepresented by the intentions of the lower house, and that Wen never received from him the authority to announce that he did not agree to less than 12 subsidies 37 .

Critical circumstances seemed to give for a moment some self-confidence to the ministers, and some success to the king's measures. It should be taken into account the fact that on April 4, 1640. Strafford arrived in England from Ireland, 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 was still losing ground. From that moment on, Strafford himself was defeated.

As a result, the war with Scotland ended with a truce, as well as 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 raise money for the payment of indemnity, and he, once again, decided to resort to the help of parliament, which was convened on November 3, 1640. and was called "long".

In addition, Charles was pushed to this decision by the stormy uprisings of the population of London and other cities, as well as the peasant movement that swept eastern England.

As is known, the "long" parliament played a significant role in the subsequent English history, and therefore it is necessary to consider the composition of that parliament. In October 1640 parliamentary elections were held, which inflicted a clear defeat on the royal party. In terms of its social composition, the long parliament was an assembly of the nobility, and, as is known, Charles

____________________________________

37 F. Guizot. Decree. op. – P.210

always feared the growing influence of the new nobility. The bourgeois deputies drowned in the mass of representatives of the nobility, who, however, in their majority also represented the interests of the bourgeois part of England. At the very first meetings 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, freedom of the individual, 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 asserting the supreme power of parliament. By decision of the parliament, some feudal institutions that were a symbol of absolutism were liquidated: the Star Chamber, the High Commission, the Chessboard Chamber. Also, in order to protect itself from the arbitrariness of the king, the parliament stipulated that it could not be dissolved during the first fifty days of its meetings 38 .

Now it becomes clearly visible how the slightest misconduct 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 turning, 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 Earl Strafford became the first on his path.

§2. Strafford, foreseeing disaster, begged the king to dismiss him from his duty to be in Parliament. To which Karl refused, convincing Strafford that he was not in danger.

On November 9, the earl arrived in London, on the 10th the 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. - S.116

Paim's suggestion, 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, he was told that the upper house had approved the charge 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 executed. 39 Strafford's accusation was followed almost immediately by Laud's accusation. Several other theologians, two bishops and six judges, were indicted, but only Strafford's indictment moved forward actively. For this, a special Secret Committee was created. In Ireland, another subsidiary committee has been set up.

The Scots also contributed to the Strafford 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 seized power in its own hands completely. Then the following transformations followed:

She appointed subsidies, but very limited, which were enough only to cover monthly expenses.

A special commission was formed to manage the country's finances.

New customs duties were approved for two months, with a subsequent extension.

A loan was made from the industrialists of the City, and thus a public credit was formed.

____________________________________

39 F. Guizot. Decree. op. – p.221

January 19, 1641 A bill was proposed, according to which it was prescribed to convene Parliament 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 the parliament did not give a direct answer, constantly avoiding solving this problem, because the commoners were interested in the existing counterweight to the royal army. Parliament did not trust the army of Charles, 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 transformations, Parliament "remembered" Strafford, who was still in prison. His process began on March 22, 1641. and, I must say, that the verdict was known in advance. The process was rather exemplary. The lower house wanted to be present at the trial in full force in order 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 the peers, were not admitted. this process was criminal in nature. Arriving from the Tower at Westminster, Strafford saw that the assembled crowds of people treated him with rather respectful manner, 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 alone defended himself against 30 judges who spoke in turn, replacing each other. In addition, 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 clever 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 slip out of the hands of justice. Therefore, it was decided to accuse him by an act of parliament, which made the judges any dependence on the law. During the process, documents were forged, there was frequent pressure on witnesses, but, despite this, Strafford continued to fend off all attacks from the prosecution. But, as you know, everything comes to an end and the Strafford trial was no exception. The House of Peers hastened to pass a bill of treason (April 21, 1641).

At this news, the king fell into despair and decided to save the count, at all costs. He even offered £20,000 to Sir William Belfort, Governor of the Tower. and Strafford's daughter as a bride to his son for arranging the Earl's escape. But he refused. Every day some new means was devised to save the count. But, as a rule, it ended in nothing.

So, on the side of Strafford were the king, and the nobility, represented in the House of Lords. Not surprisingly, the Lords dragged out the case, leaning towards Strafford's acquittal. Members of the House of Commons demanded the death penalty. 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 at the parliament building. Many were armed with swords, clubs, daggers. "Justice, justice!" screams rang out. Then the crowd followed to the royal palace. The people demanded the immediate execution of Strafford. The demonstrations continued for several days. And the lords surrendered. On May 7, 1641, they passed judgment. 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 was beheaded.

§3. After the execution of Strafford, the king had no proper advisers, and the parliament of opponents. The parliamentarians concentrated in their hands all the power in governing 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 seen 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 opposed to him, Karl, fearing for his life, decides to leave the capital and goes to York, where he could find protection and understanding from the local land lords.

It is worth noting that before the start of the war, and especially after its official announcement in 1642, Parliament opened a propaganda campaign. The theory that it is the duty of every Christian to rebel against non-Christian rulers has long won general acceptance, so the first to be reprinted was A Brief Treatise on Political Power by 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 the widespread reprints of Ponnett's Elizabethan Cry, democratic motives were prominent in the writings of two then-living writers: John Goodwin, an Independent clergyman, and Henry Parker, a lawyer. Goodwin's "Against the Cavalry" justified the resistance to the king, who ceased to observe the obligations arising for him from the social contract, and Parker's "Remarks on some of the last answers and sayings of his Majesty"

____________________________________

41 G.Holorenshaw. The Levellers and the English Revolution. - M., 1947. - P.58

put forward the thesis "power originally belongs to the people."

The pamphlet war of this period is also interesting in that it

occupied a certain place in the history of religious tolerance. The Presbyterians were against religious tolerance, and they wrote many serious objections to the universal freedom of thought demanded by the Independents. It should not be forgotten that Presbyterians are conservative by nature, while Independents are radicals. However, the requirement of 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, the 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 onto the tower. There was a strong wind that day, and the banner was torn off, and when Karl ordered to install it in an open field, it turned out that the soil was stony, and it was not possible to dig a deep hole, because of which the staff constantly heeled and fell, and for several hours in a row I had to support it with my hands. These signs were interpreted by many as an omen of great failure in Charles's undertakings.

In general, the whole war can be imagined as a clash of hostile religious and political parties and when assessing the parties in the initial period of the war, one may get the impression that their sphere of influence (according to

territorial basis) was divided between them evenly. However, it is worth paying attention to such features as: the level of development, population, prosperity of the counties, and we will see that the parliament had a clear advantage. Behind him 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 full advantage of the parliament was also observed at sea, because. the sailors went over to his side and forced their officers to do the same. 42 Due to their naval dominance, the parliamentary troops were very mobile and mobile, which allowed them to constantly outpace the not very maneuverable army of the king. 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, who received good continental training in the Swedish and Dutch troops. 43 Therefore, in the army of Charles were professionals, well trained and knew their trade. As a result, many parliamentary military leaders were in favor of reforming the army, and when the appropriate measures were taken, the scales tipped in favor of parliament completely. However, the advantage of the royal army in officers cannot be considered as an absolute advantage, because. the army constantly needed ordinary soldiers, and not officers and generals, who were in abundance there. Also, there were controversies and frequent disputes over the conduct of the campaign - each of the officers had his own opinion on this issue. It should be noted that the king from the very beginning of the war experienced financial difficulties: there were not enough shells, uniforms, horses, and often weapons. The peasants who came to the service of Charles were generally armed with pitchforks and scythes. Since the king had nothing to pay salaries to 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 city of Keyton, in the county of Warwick, at the foot of Edgegil (the Edgegil battle). The battle continued from noon until evening. At first, success accompanied the army of Charles: his nephew, Prince Rupert, was able to defeat the parliamentary cavalry and put it to flight, but he was too carried away by the chase and pursued the enemy for 2 miles. When he returned, he saw

that the infantry of the king was defeated and scattered, and Charles himself was almost taken prisoner. At nightfall, each side remained at its own lines and each attributed the victory to itself. In the morning, Charles's army began to advance towards London. In the battle of Brentford, which was located 7 miles from London, the king was able to defeat parliamentary troops and occupied the city. Panic reigned in London. But Charles was not going to go to the capital alone, he wanted to connect east of London with the army of Lord Newcastle, who had won many victories in York County. However, at the last moment, Newcastle refused to go to London, Charles, in turn, did not dare to go alone to the capital. The king decided only to besiege the city of Gloucester, but he could not be taken on the move, and at that time, from London, the Earl of Essex was moving 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. On the way, near the city of Newbury, the troops of Charles and Essex met 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 could not 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, the royal troops retreated, opening the way to Essex London.

Based on the results of this battle, one can say about the short-sightedness of the generals of the king 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 using their chance to end the war. Moreover, Charles gave Parliament the opportunity to muster all its forces. So, September 25, 1643. A solemn league and covenant was 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 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 communication between Yorkshire and Goole - 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 reappears. January-February 1645 an act on the reform of the army ("Ordinance on the "New Model") passes through both chambers. 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 refused local militias of the counties.,

2) the new army is recruited from people of different origins and is subordinate to one commander in chief.,

3) the financial organization is changing - money is not taken from local unions, but universal monotonous taxation is introduced.,

4) officers now had the right to corporally punish the guilty soldiers.,

5) the introduction of special military courts.,

6) a new uniform was introduced - a red uniform.,

7) members of parliament were removed from the management of the army.

It should be noted the activities 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 parts of the parliamentary army. Cromwell's main idea was to form an army of religious and deeply religious people who would fight not so much for money as for religious beliefs. 44 In addition to the religious factor, Cromwell also emphasized the tactics of warfare, introducing in his detachment

improved continental tactics.

All these innovations and transformations led to the fact that from the army of the king, the soldiers began to defect to the army of parliament, because. salaries were regularly paid there, and there was an opportunity for career growth. The result was obvious.

July 2, 1644 there was a battle at Marston Moor, in which Cromwell's "iron-sided" played a decisive role in the 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 army rush to the attack. The left wing of the royalist cavalry attacked the Scottish cavalry under the leadership of Fairfax with such force that they, without putting up any resistance, rushed to flee. However, when they returned from the chase, the Cavaliers found that their right flank suffered the same fate as the Scots, despite the fact that it was commanded by Rupert himself. The outcome of the battle was predetermined by the stubbornness and perseverance of Cromwell's squadrons, as well as their well-coordinated activities with

____________________________________

44 A.E. Kudryavtsev. Great English Revolution. - M., 1925. – P.145

Manchester infantry. The results were deplorable 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 meaningless, however, it was not over.

was overtaken by the parliamentary one, and Karl had no choice but to give a battle, which we can learn about thanks to the notes of an unknown author - a participant in the events who spoke on the side of parliament. 45 The author relates that the two armies met on June 14 at about 9 am. Success accompanied alternately each of the parties, and at some point in the battle, the army of the king was able to push the central part of the army of parliament. But thanks to the good training and solidarity of the soldiers and officers of Parliament,

managed to align the troops and strengthen the defense, and then, and at all, begin a general offensive operation the entire army. Charles' troops faltered and were put to flight. Charles's papers were seized, revealing his dealings with the Catholics, as well as 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 wagons. It was not only a military, but also a political collapse of the royalists. In May 1646, Charles appeared in the Scots camp in Kelgham (by mistake) and was taken prisoner by them. He was held in Scotland almost like a prisoner, maneuvering in his promises between Puritans and Presbyterians, until in January 1647. was not, for 400,000l. Art., handed over to the English Parliament, which placed it in Holmby, under strict supervision. It should be noted that the last stronghold of the royal army collapsed in March 1647, with the capture of the fortress in Wales.

Thus, a new period begins in the life of Charles - his stay in captivity at the parliament.

_____________________

45 V.M. Lavrovsky. Decree. op.- P.172

§five. The king, even in moments of extreme decline in his power, did not doubt at all that he was the central figure of all England. This is evidenced by the following facts: the army, the Presbyterian peers, the Independents - they are all trying to make an alliance with Charles, to drag him to their side. One has only to remember the return of the king from Scottish captivity and everything becomes clear: upon his arrival, bells were rung, cannons were fired in honor of him, crowds of people flocked to the new residence of the king to get rid of diseases - the king still remained the number one figure in England.

Parliament took this into account and generously released money to the king for his personal needs (£50 per day). Karl did not give up and was still full of faith in the triumph of his hopes. He thought that it was worth waiting 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 mercy from him at that time 46 . The king hoped now for Scottish, then for Irish, then for French, then for Dutch help.

The victors 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 enter into relations with him. Back in January 1647. the Presbyterian peers were ready to make peace with the king and make big concessions, if only he would agree to give parliament power over the militia 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. April 1647. Karl from

some officers received an offer to join the army, but refused. Later, the king moves, accompanied by a cavalry regiment, to the army's headquarters in Newmarket and has had his own since then.

____________________________________

46 A.N. Savin. Decree. op. - S. 302

locations along with the army. True, he was at the main

army headquarters and had to follow him in 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 the new conditions and, while in 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 since May 1647. an active political life develops in the army. Rallies, all-army gatherings and meetings of the army representation take place in the army. The new organized force actively intervened in the political struggle, and the old political organizations had to reckon with it more and more. Cromwell, in this situation, decided to persuade the king to his side, but Charles constantly evaded his proposals, because. made a secret agreement with the Scots in December 1647. Under this agreement, the king undertook to approve a covenant for three years and abolish religious tolerance. 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 peace apart and help each other in every possible way.

To implement his plans, the king escapes to the Isle of Wight, but in doing so, he only compromised himself and provoked a new civil war.

§6. The flight of Charles was a sign to everyone that the king was not going to side with 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 was sharply opposed to 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 military forces of the country 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 directed against parliament;

3) peers raised 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 communication with the king. From now on, parliament, as well as all subjects, should not turn to the king with anything, violation of this decree was punished as treason. The final break with Scotland was approaching, and general discontent in the country was also revealed, royalists began to conduct active propaganda against the army and parliament. Especially great unrest reigned in London, where on April 9, 1648. a mutiny 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, that the Presbyterian general Skippon be appointed head of the London militia. Cromwell advised to accept the demands of the townspeople, in view of the fact that a new war with the royalists was coming, and it was necessary to enlist the support of the capital. So, on May 9, Fairfax's garrison was withdrawn from London. The unrest was especially strong in the south. The movement began in the fleet. The fleet stationed off the Kentish coast was dissatisfied with the resignation of its commander and the appointment of a new one - Reinsbero. The disturbances in the navy so excited the Kentish royalists that they revolted. There was even an impostor who called himself the Prince of Wales. It was under his "banners" that the 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, and boatmen, and apprentices - among these groups there was no strong connection, and therefore, when the parliament declared an amnesty for them, all the peasants went home. With this turn of affairs, Fairfax quickly defeated the Kentish rebels.

Far more serious were naval unrest. 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 then recaptured from them with great difficulty. To avoid pushing the rebellion further inland, Parliament decided to make concessions and replaced the unpopular Admiral Rainesberaugh with the Presbyterian peer of Warwick.

The central place in the second civil war belongs to the struggle with Scotland. The Scots hoped to put up about 30 thousand people against the English army, but they were able to put up only 20 thousand people. However, the British did not have even half of this number, but they were superior to the enemy in tactics and experience, plus everything, the British troops were led by Cromwell, who was much more experienced than the Scottish commander-in-chief, Hamilton, who at the very beginning made the main mistake by breaking his army into 4 parts. At the Battle of Preston on August 17, 1648. Cromwell broke one of these parts, thereby spreading fear in the rest. From that moment on, he could only 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 there was no significant force behind the Presbyterians. 47 However, Parliament did not understand this and

____________________________________

47 M.A. Barg. The Great English Revolution in the portraits of its leaders. - M., 1991. - S. 156

continued to insist on an agreement with the king, and on August 24 he cancels his previous decision to terminate relations with the king. Parliament

insisted on the recognition of Presbyterianism as the state religion and on the subordination of the militia to parliament. Charles at first shied away from a direct answer, but, in the end, offered a compromise: he conceded command of the militia for 20 years and proposed introducing something between the episcopate and Presbyterianism as the state religion. However, during further negotiations, Charles flatly refused to introduce Presbyterianism. In response to this statement, the parliament makes concessions and on December 5 states that the royal proposals can serve as the basis for continuing negotiations. It is not known what these negotiations would lead to, but the next day (December 6) there was a famous "purge of the Pride", during which members of parliament who desired an alliance with the king were eliminated. At the end, there are about a hundred deputies obedient to the army.

The successes in the second civil war greatly raised the mood of the radicals, who, together with the Levellers, demanded a decisive reprisal against all those responsible for the civil wars. Of course, it was clear to everyone that they were demanding the trial of the king.

On such a note, not entirely optimistic for Charles, 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 the 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 for the last time tried 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, of inciting civil wars, in dealing 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 condemn the king according to constitutional principle. To find a way out, on January 4, 3 resolutions were passed by the communities, transferring all power to the lower house. And two days later, an act was adopted on the creation of the Supreme Court, and it was also established that the king would be judged by 135 commissioners, who are both judges and jurors.

However, this process has been highly controversial. Thus, 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 had no real judicial power. 48 White stood for the reprisal of the king, but not for the trial, and therefore advised simply removing the monarch from power, keeping him as a prisoner. This point of view was very realistic and devoid of party ideology, but the judges, and even more so the defendant, could not take this path.

So the trial began. During his time, Karl was called "in front of" the Supreme Court three times. On the first day (January 20) he was told the charge against him. These accusations were made in the name of the people. A court case was initiated against the king, as against a tyrant, a traitor, a murderer and a public enemy of the state.

After reading the accusation, Karl was given the floor to give his

explanations on these charges, but he refused. Later, Carla

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, considering that the king agreed with everything, but he did not, because. decided to interrogate the witnesses under oath and take their testimonies into account. After considering all

____________________________________

48 A.N. Savin. Decree. op.- S. 325

circumstances and facts, the court was convinced that Charles I was guilty of having raised a war against parliament and the people, supported and continued it, for which he must be punished.

"For all treacherous acts and crimes, real court sentences the named Karl Stuart, as a tyrant, traitor, murderer and public enemy of the people, to death by cutting off his head from his body. 49 This was the verdict of the Supreme Court against the king, read out on January 27, 1649. The order for the execution of Charles was announced on January 29, 1649. and it sounded like this: “Since Charles Stewart, King of England, has been charged, caught and convicted of treason and other serious crimes, and sentence has been pronounced against him by this court, therefore, you are ordered to carry out the said sentence in the open street in front of Whitehall tomorrow , January 30, between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. on the same day." fifty

The executioner and his assistant stood ready on the platform. The duties of the latter included raising the severed head high, shouting "here is the head of the traitor." They were wearing half-masks and, besides, they were made up (mustache and beard were glued to them), in the clothes of sailors. 51 On the day of 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 accused Parliament of starting the war and urged the people to return to the old ways. He called himself a martyr and said he was dying for freedom. It is interesting that even before his death, Karl blamed himself for allowing the execution of Strafford, and in his speech he mentioned this as well.

Thus ended the life of Carl Stewart.

____________________________________

49 V.M. Lavrovsky. Decree. op. - S. 234

50 V.M. Lavrovsky. There. – p. 234

51 M.A. Barg. Charles I Stuart. Trial and execution // New and recent history. - 1970. No. 6. – p. 163

Conclusion

Summing up all of the above, I would like to highlight the reasons for Carl'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 did not bring up a politician from a young age, he was not prepared to govern the state. Therefore, he did not even imagine what he could expect when he came to power. He was well versed in music, painting, theater, often not noticing what was happening around. Karl's father did not pay attention to him, because he believed that he would never become king.

Often Karl relied on the opinion 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. No less influential was his wife, Henrietta-Maria, who wanted to participate in the government of the country, weaving ingenious intrigues. And there is no need to talk about such a favorite of the king as Earl Strafford. After all, he blamed himself for his execution until his death.

When Charles 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 struggle with parliament that was the key reason for all the failures of Charles, which gave birth to all the others.

It's no secret that almost throughout his entire reign, Charles always needed money, and their constant shortage led to frequent quarrels and contradictions with Parliament, which later resulted in Charles's parliamentless rule. Money was also needed during the struggle with parliament. This was the key to Parliament's victory in the first civil war.

Not unimportant role was played by the religious issue in the policy of Charles. The planting of the Anglican religion in Scotland led to the Scottish war, which in turn led to the retreat of Charles from his principles and the convening of Parliament.

The very policy of Charles during the years of unparliamentary rule was not directed in favor of the people (peasants, bourgeoisie), but was reduced to strengthening the old tribal 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 the royal power so unshakable has also changed, but Charles could not understand this and lived in the old way. Already in captivity, he refused to compromise with the army, parliament.

I would like to note that Charles and his father Jacob were kings of Scottish origin, having founded 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.

Arkhangelsky S.I. Agrarian legislation of the great English revolution. - M., 1935.

English Revolution in the middle of the 17th century. (to the 350th anniversary). Reference collection. - M., 1991.

Barg M.A. Popular lower classes in the English bourgeois revolution of the 17th century. - M., 1967.

Barg M.A. The Great English Revolution in the portraits of its leaders. - M., 1991.

Barg M.A. Charles I Stuart. Court and execution // New and recent history, 1970, No. 6.

Gardiner S.R. Puritans and Stuarts (1603 - 1660). - St. Petersburg, 1896.

Gizo F. History of the English Revolution. - v.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. Great English Revolution. - M., 1925.

Lavrovsky V.M. Collection of documents on the history of the English bourgeois revolution of the XVII century - M., 1973.

Lavrovsky V.M., Barg M.A. English bourgeois revolution. - M., 1958.

Essays on the history of England. / ed. Assoc. G.R. Levina 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.

I Biography >> Historical figures

He was the last representative of the royal house Stuarts and his death would have resulted... at the age of eighteen Heinrich Stuart died of typhus. The heir to the English ... king) was the younger brother Charles. Henry Stuart buried in Westminster Abbey. ...

1. Charles I de Bourbon Archbishop of Rouen

   Biography >> Historical figures

   League by the king of France under the name Karla X, but didn't really rule... . A son Karla IV de Bourbon, brother... by the marriage of Francis II and Mary Stuart, Philip of Spain and Elizabeth of France. ... Count of Artois named himself Carl X, not Carl XI. Shortly before death...