britain danish conquest reformation
After the death of Elizabeth, James VI of Scotland ascended the throne in 1603, becoming king of two kingdoms at the same time.
The first steps of James I testified to his succession to the policy of Elizabeth.
In 1604 a peace treaty was signed with Spain.
Robert Cecil became Secretary of State under James.
One of the most difficult problems that James I faced upon accession to the throne was the problem of religious tolerance.
In 1604, a delegation of Puritan clergy came to Yakov, who asked to simplify some of the rites. However, the king was adamant, the Puritans were ordered to either submit or resign from the powers of the clergy.
Catholics also made appeals to Jacob. At first, the king made concessions, however, after the number of people attending church services decreased markedly, James I issued a decree on the expulsion of all Catholic clergy from London. In response, a group of Catholics led by Robert Catesby organized a conspiracy against the king, which was called the "gunpowder." They planned an explosion during a meeting of parliament, which would be attended by both the king himself and all those who participated in the adoption of the law. The conspirators dug an underground passage leading directly under the House of Lords, and brought thirty kegs of gunpowder into it. However, the plot was discovered through the fault of one of the participants, who were subsequently executed. The discovery of the Gunpowder Plot further turned the English Protestants against the Catholics.
Experiencing financial difficulties Yakov. In 1610-1611. Parliament tried to conclude an agreement with James, according to which the king was guaranteed income for the fact that he would not introduce new taxes without the consent of the king, the so-called "Great Treaty". However, disputes on this issue and the parties did not come to an agreement.
After the death of the eldest son Henry, Charles becomes the heir to the throne. Wanting to strengthen his position, Jacob decided to establish family ties with European sovereigns. Jacob could not decide what was more profitable - an alliance with France or Spain. When, finally, Charles went to the Spanish King Philip IV to woo his sister, she refused to marry a heretic and Charles was asked to convert to Catholicism. This nearly sparked another Anglo-Spanish war. But then Charles, during a trip to Paris, met Princess Henrietta Maria, the youngest daughter of the French King IV, and married her and in his personal life was one of the happiest English monarchs.
Having ascended the throne, Charles I hoped that Parliament would give him money to wage war against Spain. However, Parliament became stubborn, and then Charles I dissolves it. Charles nevertheless found funds and equipped a squadron and an army under the command of Edward Cecil, but the military operation of 1625 ended in failure. The second parliament of Charles I, assembled in 1626, impeached the assistant to the king, Buckingham, who was guilty of military failure and embezzlement of money. The king, wishing to save his friend, again dissolved Parliament.
Meanwhile, Charles began to have problems in relations with France. Charles broke the promise given before the wedding to grant freedom of religion to all Catholics in England, and in 1627 another war broke out between the states.
The operation to rescue the fortress of La Rochelle, besieged by the French, ended in a major defeat for England.
In 1628 the king was forced to convene parliament again. The House of Commons presented the "Petition of Right" to Charles. The need for money forced the king to accept the petition, which later became law. It stated that the king could not, by his own will, declare martial law in the country and could not levy taxes without the consent of parliament. Meanwhile, the Duke of Buckingham was killed and all responsibility for the defeat in the war with France fell on the shoulders of the king.
Soon a new conflict flares up between Parliament and the King, and Parliament is dissolved again.
In Scotland, a religious conflict flared up, which led to the Anglo-Scottish war. The king's troops were pushed back and Charles had to convene another parliament.
- On April 13, 1640, Charles I convened the fourth parliament, which sat for only a week, and was called the Short Parliament.
- November 3, 1640 Charles convenes the fifth and last parliament, the Long, which lasted 19 years.
Charles was forced to approve all the decrees of Parliament. At the request of the same parliament, many of the king's advisers were arrested: the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Earl of Strafford. Parliament adopted a petition demanding the expulsion from the bosom of the church of bishops and archbishops who, according to the conclusion of parliament, were inclined towards Catholicism.
In Westminster, a militia was formed to guard the rebellious parliament, led by the Earl of Essex, and meanwhile the king leaves London to recruit an army to fight the rebels.
Supporters of the king, royalists, because of their exquisite costumes, were called "cavaliers". The Puritans, who made up the majority of the parliamentary militia, were nicknamed "Roundheads".
During the civil wars of the 1640s. "Roundheads" managed to win up. One of the active figures of the Long Parliament was Oliver Cromwell, who was entrusted with the formation of militia units, which he subsequently led. Cromwell's cavalrymen were nicknamed "iron-flanked" due to their strong cuirasses. Most of the Ironsides were represented by the Independents, who insisted on the autonomy of individual church parishes. They were well trained and equipped. Soon the party of the Independents and its army got out of the control of Parliament, it was reorganized, it became regular, the term of military service was determined. Thereafter, the Roundhead army became known as the "new model" army. In 1645, this army defeated the troops of Charles I at the battle of Naisby. The king's troops were also defeated in Scotland.
In 1647 Charles I was extradited to Parliament. The king was placed in Hampton Core Palace. However, the king managed to escape and persuade the Scottish Parliament to send an army to England. Meanwhile, a part of the Presbyterians, who quarreled with the Independents, joined the royalists. Cromwell's army was victorious over both, and the fleeing king was again captured.
The Independent Parliament passed a law making it treasonous to wage war against Parliament, so the king had to be tried.
The king was accused of violating the rights and privileges of the people, of tyranny. The king was held responsible for all the misfortunes caused to the country and its people during the years of civil wars. However, the king was firm in his convictions. He refused to recognize the legitimacy of the court. On January 27, the king was convicted. Karl was sentenced to death. The court acted cowardly - sometimes they did not even give the last word. The only thing that was allowed to the king was to see the children who were in England at that time.
On January 30, Charles I was executed - for the first time in the history of Europe, a king was tried and executed by a court verdict.
However, soon after this execution, the people of England spoke of Charles I no longer as a traitor, but as a martyr. The execution of the king rallied the royalist party, and over time it regained its dominance.
Portrait of Charles I, King of England. Artist A. Van Dyck
135. Reign of Charles I until 1640
The son of James I, Charles I (1625–1649), was much smarter and more prudent than his father, but continued the same policy, and he thought that in public affairs he could make promises with the intention of not fulfilling them when it was profitable and convenient. During the early years of his reign, he convened Parliament three times But met one distrust and resistance. By the way, he started a war with France and fought it extremely unsuccessfully. Parliament criticized the actions of the government and especially sharply attacked the frivolous royal adviser, Buckingham, who was still the favorite of James I. The parliament of 1628 is especially important, which forced Charles I to approve Petition for rights listing all the rights of both chambers and the liberties of the nation, including the freedom of subjects from arbitrary arrests and emergency trials. This petition was the second Magna Carta, Charles I, however, decided not to fulfill his promise, dissolved the parliament and put some of its members in prison. After that he started rule the country without a parliament, which lasted eleven years(1629-1640) - an event unparalleled in the history of England. Count Strafford and Archbishop of Canterbury Lod. The former was called Thomas Wentworth before he was granted the title of earl, and in previous parliaments attacked the inept policy of Buckingham, but when the latter was killed by one of those dissatisfied with his actions, Wentworth became close to Charles I, became his governor in Ireland and began to recruit an army there to maintain royal power . He was an absolutist who wanted to establish in England the same order that was being introduced at that time on the mainland, and considered it necessary to have a large military force for this. He was, however, against any religious exclusivity, while another adviser to Charles I, Laud, on the contrary, persecuted the Puritans and tried to bring the dogmas and rites of the Anglican Church closer to Catholicism. During all this time, Charles I collected money without the permission of Parliament, by announcing compulsory loans or interpreting laws in his own way. For example, the coastal counties formerly paid a special tax for the maintenance of the fleet in wartime, which Charles I now extended to the whole of England in perfectly peaceful time with the aim of creating a land army. One of the members of the former parliaments, a wealthy landowner hampden, who had previously refused to give money under the guise of a loan and paid for it with prison, did not want to pay this ship's filing. The king then brought him to trial, which found him guilty. Hampden and many others of his like-minded people wanted to follow the example of the persecuted Puritans and move to the American colonies of England, but Charles I forbade emigration. The government fought against those who disobeyed the royal will by various illegal means, sending military quarters to them and subjecting them to emergency courts (“high commission” and “star chamber”), which sentenced them to prison, exhibition at the pillory, cutting off their ears, confiscation of property, etc. Apparently, the system of Strafford, who advised to go "through", triumphed, but difficulties soon met.
136. Scottish rebellion
Both James I and Charles I hated the Scottish Presbyterian Church and tried to bring it closer to Anglicanism. James I restored the episcopacy in it, and under Charles I, Laud composed a new liturgy for Scotland, close to the Anglican one. When this liturgy was first served in Edinburgh Cathedral, it was met with protest from the worshipers (1637), and soon a a national alliance to defend Presbyterianism in its purest form. The uprising has begun which Strafford and Laud advised Charles I to suppress by force. However, it turned out to be not so easy, especially since the British sympathized with the Scots, and even the soldiers, among whom there were many Puritans, did not want to go to the “episcopal war”. They often killed officers who were suspected of papism, and broke the interior of Anglican churches. Charles I had no money, and willy-nilly, unable to cope with the Scots, he had to convene parliament just at the moment when strong fermentation began in England. Parliament met in the spring of 1640, and received a mass of petitions from the counties and cities to stop the abuses. At the same time, they began to print in large numbers political pamphlets, and Puritan sermons became bolder. The assembled parliament announced that it would give subsidies to the king if he stopped breaking the laws; but Charles I responded by dissolving Parliament. He tried to get consent to taxes from one upper house, but the lords told him that they had no right to do this. Then autumn1640 G. Charles called parliament again, who became known in history as Long.
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 in 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", a "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 her title of Princess of Wales, which she held after the arrival of the marriage license from Rome, and stop learning 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 domestic and foreign policy were summed up. 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 sort through 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 fees 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 on the naval 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 meaning of these words is clear enough.
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 devastating 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, from 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? .It was an extortion of property and at the same time a solicitation of opinions.
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 does 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 the French Queen - Anna 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 " .Although Charles hardly had any special affection for the Huguenots, he allowed himself to be persuaded. A poorly organized, failed expedition to the walls of La Rochelle dealt a severe blow to the reputation of English weapons. It has been a long time since England paid so dearly for her disgrace. The resentment was universal. The farmer left his field, the craftsman his workshop and went to find out if his patron, nobleman or townsman had lost his brother or son. On the way back, he told his neighbors about the disasters he had heard about, about the sufferings he had seen enough, cursed Buckingham and blamed the king. The petty nobility, the townspeople, the people were more and more closely united in common grief and indignation.
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 having little respect for their privileges, needed only a plausible pretext. to quarrel with them completely, that he will gladly seize the first opportunity that any ambiguous incident or disrespectful 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. " .The Lord Privy Seal, in his own words, only emphasized the king's hidden hint:
“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 " .With his speeches, Karl tried to veil the terrible situation in which he found himself. Being an arrogant supplicant, under the weight of failures and mistakes, he did not understand the complexity of the situation to such an extent that he could not imagine the possibility of resistance. It seemed to Karl that honor and rank oblige him to keep that arrogant tone, which he acquired for himself by birthright.
The communities correctly understood the king's 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 his ministers on the basis of personal sympathies and completely disregarding 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, Karl 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 of the English form of 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 meekly accept 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 denied 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 show his loyal nobility." .The dissolution of Parliament was a foregone conclusion.
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" .The king's rude break with Parliament greatly outraged the nation.
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 have such unlimited trust in 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 dynasties of Habsburg and Bourbon, 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 thus 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. They were not stupid 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 claims 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 destruction 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, dissolve it, under the pretext of some insignificant irregularity in its actions, then nothing better could be desired. " .At the same time word was received that Charles was making preparations for war, and that the army which Strafford had raised in Ireland was ready to be sent to Scotland by sea.
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 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 various 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; the general discontent was transmitted to her, moreover, 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 leveled 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 were well aware 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, the 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, convinced that he was already suspected of a secret addiction to 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 the militia remained a stumbling block. The latter was a direct violation of the previously unquestioned 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 to be the 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, the hallmarks of which were strong discipline, as well as the promotion to leading 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 charged, convicted, 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" .Many of those gathered expressed their regret with sighs and weeping. Some soldier could not resist and blessed the head of the unfortunate monarch. The officer knocked the poor man off his feet with a strong blow. The king remarked to him that such a punishment was too severe for such an insignificant offense. Returning from this sad performance, imitating a fair and impartial trial, the king petitioned Parliament in writing to allow him to say goodbye to his children, and also to send the Bishop of London, Dr. Jackson, to help him prepare for death. Both wishes were immediately fulfilled.
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; the rebirth of the revolutionary army was completed in Ireland; 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, No. 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.
Execution of King Charles I of England
Since 1640, King Charles I of England has been in conflict with the British Parliament. The reason for the conflict, on the one hand, lies in the violation by the king of the right of Parliament to impose taxes. On the other hand, in the religious claims of the king. He wants to assert his authority over the church with the help of Anglican bishops, while a growing number of Englishmen join the stern Protestantism that rejects the episcopate.
In 1642 the conflict escalated into a civil war. Parliament creates its own army - mostly from extreme Protestants, "Puritans", led by Cromwell. While a moderate parliament could be content with a compromise with the king, Cromwell and the army decide to get rid of him. Defeated, then captured, Charles I is trying to negotiate with Parliament. But Cromwell, at the head of the army, goes to London, expels his opponents from parliament (only a “rump” will remain of parliament, they will call him that) and puts the king on trial. The king is sentenced to death as "a tyrant, a traitor, a murderer and an enemy of the country". On January 30, 1649, he was beheaded on a scaffold erected in front of the royal palace.24
The execution of the king caused great confusion - for the public opinion of that time, the king, whatever he may be, is sacred. Together with Charles I, the era of absolute monarchy is gone.
Origins of the English Revolution
Starting with the Magna Carta, which in the XIII century. John the Landless was forced to sign, in England the custom of limiting royal power was established. Parliament made laws and approved taxes. At first it consists of "barons" - the highest aristocracy, then expands and is divided into two separate chambers: the House of Lords, which brought together the highest secular and ecclesiastical lords, and the House of Commons, representing the petty nobility of the counties and cities.
From the end of the XV century. The Tudors no longer respected the rights of Parliament, but it nevertheless survived.
The death in 1603 of Elizabeth I, who had no direct heirs, led to the transfer of the crown to a new dynasty of Stuarts, kings of Scotland. Until the beginning of the XVIII century. both states, English and Scottish, remain divided, only they have one king.
The first Stuarts - James I (1603-1625) and his son Charles I (1625-1649) - are in conflict with their subjects both politically and religiously.
They seek to do without a parliament, which leads them to dubious financial practices and deprives them of the opportunity, due to lack of funds, to pursue an active foreign policy. They want to strengthen their power over the church through the Anglican clergy, while the extreme Protestant currents, which reject the hierarchy of bishops, are gaining strength. In Scotland, the reformer John Knox successfully preached a new variant of Calvinism, Presbyterianism (which recognizes pastors but not bishops).
The conflict escalated during the reign of Charles I, who wanted to establish an absolute monarchy in England, following the example of the Richelieu government in France established in those years. But in 1638, a revolt of the Scots, on whom the king wanted to impose Anglican ceremonial, causes a civil war. We have seen its consequences.
English Republic (1649–1660)
After the execution of the king, the parliamentary "rump" proclaims a republic (the House of Lords is liquidated).
From the very beginning, Oliver Cromwell, a rural nobleman, a convinced puritan, and an excellent commander, has been at the head of the republic.
He introduces a new regime in Scotland, where attachment to the national Stuart dynasty was balanced by religious opposition. The new device was given by Cromwell to Catholic Ireland, which raised an uprising in 1641. Cromwell is waging a merciless war here, accompanied by massacres. The Catholic Irish are dispossessed of their land and reduced to the position of miserable tenants, their lands given to Cromwell's soldiers. Soon this land was in the hands of a narrow group of adventurers who would make up an aristocracy in Ireland - Protestant or Anglican landlords who oppressed the Catholic population. Here lies the root of the Irish question, which haunts the history of England to this day.
Cromwell's foreign policy is aimed at protecting English trade and maritime interests. This is served by the Navigation Act (1651), which was in force until the 19th century.
This law prohibits any importation of foreign goods into England on non-English ships, with the exception of ships of the country of origin. The act was directed against the maritime power of the Dutch, who played the role of intermediaries in trade.
Having come into conflict with Parliament, Cromwell dissolved it and ruled as a dictator, with the title of "Lord Protector of the Republic of England, Scotland and Ireland."
After his death in 1658, he was succeeded by his son Richard, but had to give up power very soon.
Cromwell relied mainly on the popular strata: on the free land-holders of the "yeomen", still numerous in the British countryside, on the small rural nobles (like himself), on the bourgeoisie and artisans of the cities.
It should be noted that in 1646 the last remnants of feudalism (which had been largely swept away under the Tudors) were liquidated: the land was freed from all duties of a feudal nature, opening the way for the development of a system of "bourgeois" property.
Restoration and the "glorious revolution" of 1688
The traditional aristocracy and the "new rich" who had made money under Cromwell agreed to recognize the Stuarts in the person of Charles II (1660-1685), who was then replaced by his brother James II (1685-1688). The propertied classes wanted order, but also the king's recognition of a parliamentary regime. If Charles II succeeded in being more or less recognized, this was not the case with his brother. Aspiring to authoritarianism, James II was also a Catholic, while almost all the British - Protestants or Anglicans - were hostile to Catholicism. Since both of his daughters from his first marriage were married to Protestant princes, the British hoped that the stay of the Catholic king on the throne would be transient. But when James II remarried a Catholic princess of Italy and had a son in 1688, the prospect of seeing an established Catholic dynasty in England became intolerable to the ruling classes. They turned to the son-in-law of James II, the Protestant Prince William of Orange, the ruler of Holland. Abandoned by everyone, James II was forced to flee to France. The crown passed to his daughter Mary and her husband William of Orange. Before the coronation, they had to sign the Bill of Rights (1689), which confirmed that laws and taxes were passed by Parliament.
The Revolution of 1688, which its organizers dubbed the "Glorious Revolution", was not popular, like the one led by Cromwell. It was a revolution from above, a coup d'état carried out by the ruling classes.
The "Deed of Dispensation" (1701) eliminated all Catholics from succession to the throne. After the reign of Anna (1701 - 1714), the crown passed to a distant relative, but a Protestant, the Elector of Hanover. So the Hanoverian dynasty was established (which adopted the more "English" name of Windsor in 1914). The German princes, who lived little in England, the first kings of this dynasty, George 1 and George II, by the way, people of little ability, did not interfere with the establishment of a parliamentary regime, that is, the custom according to which the king appoints the leader of the parliamentary majority as prime minister, according to the principle " The king reigns but does not govern."
Charles I was the second son of King James I of England and Scotland and Anne of Denmark. He was born on November 19, 1600 at Dunfermline Palace in Fife, Scotland. As a child, Karl did not differ in special abilities, he learned to walk and talk late. After his father became king of England in 1603 and moved to London, Prince Charles remained in Scotland for some time, being an extremely sickly child, difficult to endure moving. Even reaching maturity, Charles I continued to experience health problems and was very short - only 162 cm.
The heir to the throne of England and Scotland was the elder brother of Charles Henry, Prince of Wales, who had high hopes in English society. Charles was raised Duke of Albany in 1603 and Duke of York in 1605. However, in 1612, Prince Henry died unexpectedly, and Charles became the heir to King James I, Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester (since 1616).
Already in 1620, negotiations began on the marriage of Prince Charles with the Spanish Infanta, which displeased the English Parliament, which was striving for an alliance with the Protestant states. At the same time, the prince became very close to his father's favorite, George Villiers, 1st Duke of Buckingham. In 1623 they made an adventurous journey together to Madrid and personally intervened in marriage negotiations. But personal enmity between Buckingham and the Spanish royal court, as well as the demand of the Spaniards for the prince to convert to Catholicism, upset the negotiations and the wedding did not take place. Moreover, Buckingham and Charles, upon their return to England, advocated breaking off relations with Spain and declaring war. Already in 1624, an English expeditionary force landed in the Netherlands to conduct military operations against the Spanish army. At the same time, negotiations began on the marriage of Charles and Henrietta Maria, daughter of Henry IV, King of France.
The beginning of the reign
Having ascended the throne, Charles, in order to wage war on the continent, demanded subsidies from parliament; but Parliament wanted to decide first the cases of illegal shipping taxes and religious matters. Charles dissolved parliament twice and collected taxes autocratically. Not having received enough money, Charles was forced to reconvene parliament and approve the "petition of rights."
One-man rule and religious reforms
In 1628, Buckingham, who had a great influence on Charles, was killed. The illegal collection of taxes, contrary to the "petition for rights", aroused indignation in parliament, which was again dissolved by Charles in 1629. After that, he ruled for 11 years himself, getting money through extortions, fines, monopolies and the like. At this time, Thomas Wentworth, later Earl of Strafford, came forward, a man of talent, but cruel and power-hungry; he devised a plan (Thorough) to introduce the absolute power of the king, with the help of a standing army, and successfully applied it himself, as governor of Ireland. Desiring to introduce a single Anglican Church throughout the kingdom, Charles persecuted Puritanism, even giving preference to papism over it; He allowed Primate Laud to introduce the celibacy of the clergy, the doctrine of purgatory, the prayer for the dead, and many other dogmas that brought the Church closer to Rome.
Politics in Scotland
The main goals of the policy of Charles I were to increase the power of the king and, perhaps more importantly, the church. For this, the king was ready to sacrifice the traditional rights of the estates and the principle of the inviolability of the private property of his subjects. The tragedy of the reign of Charles I, however, was largely explained not so much by the goals of the king, but by the methods of their implementation: almost always poorly thought out, too straightforward and with a pronounced coloring of secrecy, which entailed an increase in discontent among the general population and increased opposition to the king. In addition, unlike his father, Charles I was not intimately familiar with the situation in Scotland, and there were practically no Scots among his advisers. As a result, the only way to communicate with the Scottish opposition became forceful pressure, arrests and manipulation of royal prerogatives.
In 1625, Charles I issued the "Act of Revocation", which canceled all land grants by the kings of Scotland, starting from 1540. First of all, this concerned the former church lands secularized during the Reformation. The nobles could keep these lands in their ownership, but subject to monetary compensation, which went to support the church. This decree affected most of the Scottish nobility and caused widespread discontent. However, the king refused to consider the Scots' petition against the revocation. In the same year, the Scottish Parliament, under pressure from the king, sanctioned taxation for four years in advance. This soon led to the fact that the taxation of land and income in the country became permanent, and this practice did not correspond to traditional Scottish ideas about the sources of funding for the king.
Almost from the very beginning of his reign, Charles I began to actively attract bishops to the highest state positions. The first person of the royal administration of Scotland was John Spottiswoode, Archbishop of St. Andrews, Lord Chancellor from 1635. The majority in the royal council passed to the bishops to the detriment of the Scottish aristocrats, the bishops also actually began to determine the composition of the Committee of Articles and candidates for the positions of justices of the peace. Unfortunately, a significant part of the representatives of the Scottish episcopate of that time did not enjoy authority among their flock and had no connections with the nobility. The aristocracy, pushed aside from management, did not have access to the king, whose court was almost always in London.
Opposition, primarily noble, to the reign of Charles I arose almost immediately after his accession to the throne. Trying to prevent its strengthening, the king after 1626 refused to convene the Parliament of Scotland and the general assembly of the Scottish Church. Only in 1633, during the first visit of the king to Scotland, was a parliament convened, which, under pressure from Charles I, approved the act of supremacy of the king in matters of religion. At the same time, Charles I introduced a number of Anglican canons into Scottish worship and formed a new bishopric - Edinburgh, headed by William Forbes, an ardent supporter of Anglican reforms. This caused an outburst of indignation in Scotland, but Charles I again refused to consider the petition of the Scottish nobles against church innovations and the king's manipulation of parliamentary elections. One of the authors of the petition, Lord Balmerino, was arrested in 1634 and sentenced to death on charges of treason.
Despite the growing opposition to royal reforms in the sphere of worship, Charles I continued the policy of rapprochement between Scottish Presbyterianism and Anglicanism. In 1636, under the signature of the king, reformed canons of the Scottish church were published, in which there was no mention of presbyteries and parish meetings, and in 1637 a new liturgy was introduced, the cult of saints, rich church decoration and providing for a number of Anglican elements. These reforms were perceived in Scottish society as an attempt to restore Catholic rites and caused the consolidation of all classes in opposition to Catholicism, the episcopate and the authoritarianism of the king.
Rebellion in Scotland
On July 23, 1637, an attempt to hold the first divine service according to the new liturgy in Edinburgh caused a spontaneous uprising of the townspeople. This rebellion was immediately supported in different parts of Scotland and caused a flood of petitions to the king from various counties and cities against the reform of the liturgy. In response, Charles I ordered the petitioners removed from Edinburgh. The leaders of the noble opposition (Balmerino, Loudon, Routs) protested to the king against the episcopate and the reform of the church and announced the convening of a meeting of the estates of Scotland. Under pressure from the growth of the movement, the bishops were forced to leave the Scottish royal council, moreover, a number of its members joined the opposition (Earl Trakwer, Lord Lorne).
On February 28, 1638, in Edinburgh, representatives of the Scottish aristocracy, nobility, clergy and cities signed the National Covenant - a manifesto of opposition, condemning attempts to reform the Presbyterian church and providing for joint action by the Scottish nation to protect religion. The Covenant also approved the supremacy of Parliament in the legislative sphere, retaining, however, loyalty to the king. Copies of this manifesto were sent to the principal cities and counties of Scotland, and throughout the country signings and oaths of allegiance to the Covenant took on a massive character. The Scottish people rallied around the National Covenant to defend their faith.
The king sent the Marquis of Hamilton to negotiate with the Covenanters and proposed to suspend the new canons and liturgy. However, this could no longer satisfy the Scots, who are now demanding the complete abolition of the episcopate. The failure of Hamilton's mission forced Charles I to expand his concessions: on September 10, 1638, the Five Articles, all innovations in worship, were canceled and the Negative Confession of James VI was confirmed. The King also agreed to a general assembly of the Church of Scotland in Glasgow. In the elections, the Covenanters won a complete victory. As a result, the assembly, having canceled all the church reforms of the king, decided to abolish the episcopate. This meant a break with the king and the beginning of wars between Charles I and his Scottish subjects, which went down in history under the name "Bishops' Wars".
Civil War
At this time, an uprising broke out in Ireland, where Charles collected money from Catholics, promising them benefits, but did not fulfill the promise. After the final break with Parliament, Charles, on August 23, 1642, raised the royal banner in Nottingham, which formally began a civil war. After the first victories of Charles and indecisive battles in 1644 and 1645, on July 14, 1645, the battle of Nesby took place; here, the defeated Charles was seized of his papers, which revealed his deals with the Catholics, the appeal for help to foreign powers, an agreement with the Irish. In May 1646, Charles reported to the Scots camp at Kelgham and was held in Scotland almost as a prisoner, maneuvering his promises between Puritans and Presbyterians, until in January 1647 he was, for £400,000, delivered into the hands of the English Parliament, which placed him in Holmby, under strict supervision. From here, captured by the army, Charles was transferred to Hampton Court Palace. Cromwell and Ayrton offered him conditions for the return of power, very moderate ones; but Charles, hoping to get more benefits, spoke secretly with Parliament and the Scots and evaded Cromwell's proposals; in November 1647 he fled to the Isle of Wight, but was soon taken prisoner again. Arthur Capel tried to save Charles from captivity, but he himself was forced to surrender to General Thomas Fairfax near the city of Colchester.
Judgment and execution
The incitement to rebellion, which he continued from prison, led to petitions from all the regiments for the appointment of a trial for Charles. The Rump chose 150 commissioners (later reduced to 135), led by lawyer John Bradshaw, to try the king. Charles appeared before this court, which found him guilty as a tyrant, traitor and enemy of the fatherland, and sentenced him to death. On January 30, 1649, Charles was beheaded at Whitehall. In his dying speech, he said from the scaffold to the assembled crowd: “I must tell you that your liberties and freedoms are contained in the presence of government, in those laws that best ensure your life and the safety of property. This does not come from participation in management, which does not belong to you. The subject and the sovereign are completely different concepts. A few minutes before his execution, Charles I continued to defend absolutism with the same stubbornness as in the years of the greatest flowering of his power. After the execution was completed, the executioner raised the head of the former king and shouted: "Here is the head of a traitor." Carl's body was taken to Windsor and buried on February 8 without any funeral service.
Characteristic
Karl's private life was impeccable; he had a taste for literature and art, but he lacked the most essential qualities of a king; in relation to his favorites, he showed affection that reached the point of weakness, considered double-mindedness as political wisdom and easily broke his promises.
