The struggle of parliament against royal power under the Stuarts. Hello student Confrontation between the king and parliament revolution in England
At the end of the 17th century, England became the first state in Europe to establish a constitutional monarchy. As a result of two civil wars, power passed into the hands of parliament, which forever changed the development of this country.
England on the eve of the revolution
The textbook on European history for the 7th grade told that in the 16th century England was the leading country in the development of industry, and the defeat of the Spanish Invincible Armada made it a leading maritime power, which entailed the development of international trade.
In North America, England had colonies, created the East India Trading Company, and opened a stock exchange in the capital. William Shakespeare and Francis Bacon shone in the cultural sphere.
The rise in the number of Puritans led to the formation of a general social opinion about the high cost of the church. Studying the Holy Scriptures, the Puritans increasingly came to the conclusion that not only the king, but also parliament was endowed with power by God.
With the death of Elizabeth I, the throne passed to James Stuart. As the years passed, conflict grew between him and parliament. The monarch sought to strengthen and strengthen his power, violating long-standing traditions laid down in the Great Charter. Moreover, contrary to public demands, Jacob supported the old guild system and gave exclusive rights to individuals or companies to sell various goods.
Rice. 1. King James.
The oppression of the Puritans forced them to leave the island, going to the New World.
The last straw was Jacob's rapprochement with Madrid and Paris, which professed Catholicism as opposed to the Anglican Church. With the death of James, everyone hoped for changes with the accession of Charles I to the throne, but everything remained as it was.
Parliament against the king. Revolution in England
In 1628, England waged war against Austria, France and Spain at once. Parliament exploited this by forcing the king to pass the “Petition of Right,” which made arrests carried out without a court order illegal.
TOP 4 articleswho are reading along with this
Rice. 2. King Charles I Stuart.
After 12 years, the treasury was completely empty. Scotland also entered the war against England on religious grounds. To obtain an additional source of finance, Charles had to convene a parliament, later called the Long.
Thus, a number of reforms were carried out:
- royal courts were abolished;
- Episcopal censorship and police are prohibited;
- the House of Commons could only be dissolved with its consent;
- Parliament received the right to set taxes.
The king tried to regain weakened power by attempting to arrest the leaders of the Long Parliament in 1642, but the attempt failed. The king had to flee to the north of the country, hoping for the support of large feudal lords.
Civil War between the King and the Parliament of England
Charles' advantage was his well-equipped army. However, the southern regions were more developed, which deprived the monarch of the resources to wage war. With the outbreak of hostilities, the royal troops were successful, but in 1645 Parliament issued a decree on the formation of a single army. Thus, a new model army was created, formed from representatives of the working class. Nobles, among whom was Oliver Cromwell, also joined its ranks.
Cromwell liked to repeat to his soldiers: “Trust in God, but keep your gunpowder dry.”
On June 14, 1645, a general battle took place near the village of Naseby, in which Charles’s army was defeated and the king fled to Scotland. Cromwell captured all the enemy's artillery and ammunition, as well as the king's letters asking for help from the Irish and French in putting down the uprising.
In the winter of 1647, the Scots “sold” the king to Parliament. Under pressure from the social strata of England, on January 20, 1649, Charles was put on trial, where he was found guilty, although he never admitted his guilt, being arrogant.
Rice. 3. Oliver Cromwell.
Even before his death, Charles I continued to defend the system of absolute monarchy. Going to his death, he felt no remorse or fear. The monarch walked proudly and accepted death as befits a king.
What have we learned?
This historical theme is reflected in English art and culture. She radically changed the political structure of England, turning it into the largest colonial empire in the world, presenting humanity with a new form of government that exists in England to this day.
Test on the topic
Evaluation of the report
Average rating: 4.3. Total ratings received: 449.
This conflict was closely connected with growing disagreements on issues of commercial, industrial, financial and religious policy, which directly affected the interests of various social classes.
The program of the new nobility and bourgeoisie is clearly expressed in the document presented by the House of Commons to James I Stuart at the very beginning of his reign. This is the so-called “Apology of the House of Commons”. The compilers of the Apology demand, first of all, ensuring the right of ownership of land and, secondly, the inviolability of income from commercial and industrial activities. The first demand refers to the liberation of the direct holders of land from the crown on the terms of knightly service, i.e., large landowners, from the feudal services and duties that fell on them, the transformation of feudal estates into the full, free, bourgeois property of landlords. The second requirement involves ensuring the “rights and liberties” of all persons engaged in trade and industrial activities on their income from trade and manufacture. From these vital economic interests of the new nobility and bourgeoisie flow their political demands. In contrast to the absolutist claims of James I, developed in his political treatise, The True Law of Free Monarchies, "the House of Commons declares very emphatically in the Apology that the king is neither an absolute head of state, nor independent of Parliament. While James I was inclined to consider parliament as an auxiliary body of the king, possessing absolute power of divine origin and character, the authors of the Apology proclaimed the supreme body of the state to be parliament, consisting of two houses - the commons and the lords, headed by the king, but by no means the king, acting independently of of Parliament. Strongly opposing the very principle of the divinity of royal power, the House of Commons declares in its "Apology" that the power of a mortal king is not divine, absolute and sole, neither in spiritual nor in temporal matters. Supporting its constitutional theory with references to the Magna Carta, the authors of the Apology put into this essentially feudal document, which reflected the relations between the king and the feudal lords in the 13th century, a completely new, bourgeois content that expressed the interests and political claims of the new nobility and bourgeoisie of the early 17th century
V. James I was inclined to regard the “rights and liberties” of his subjects as a temporary concession to them and to limit the validity of these rights to the duration of the sessions of one or another parliament, believing that these rights should cease to exist with the dissolution of parliament.
The "Apology of the House of Commons" considers the "rights and liberties" of the English, not as a temporary concession on the part of the Crown, but as a legal, inherent right, arising from the Magna Carta and other statutes of the kingdom, passed by Parliament, entered into its minutes and received the consent of the King . The source of the rights of the English people is, according to the compilers of the Apology, written law, fixed in legislative acts, which is opposed to common law, based on the interpretation of statutes and on judicial decisions and precedents of the royal courts,
From the political theory developed in the "Apology of the House of Commons" flow the economic and religious demands of the bourgeoisie and the new nobility. The dispute over the issue of the royal prerogative, about the scope of the king’s rights and powers belonging to him by virtue of possessing the English crown, was for the bourgeois-noble opposition of parliament a dispute about the boundaries of the king’s rights over the property of his subjects; it reflected the opposition’s desire to protect bourgeois property from feudal exploitation and absolutism. The "Apology of the House of Commons" supports the "statutory" Church of England, denying the king the sole right to make any changes to its existing organization and doctrine. The King must not make any new laws relating to religious (or secular) matters without the consent of Parliament. The fact is that the king was suspected of having a penchant for Catholicism, of secret sympathies for the Catholic Church and of connivance with Catholics. In an effort to protect the Anglican Church from any rapprochement with Rome, the compilers of the Apology, for their part! declare that the House of Commons does not at all strive for any innovations of a Puritan nature, to deepen the Reformation: the Puritan or Brownist spirit and any manifestations of religious dissent, dissent and individualism in religious matters are alien to it.
Nevertheless, James I accused the House of Commons of sympathizing with Puritanism and dissolved Parliament. Along with the break in the meetings, the “freedoms and liberties” “granted” by the king ceased to exist. Contrasting the temporarily convened parliament with the power of the king, who occupies the throne permanently and exercises his “justice” independently of parliament, James I tries to establish “uniformity” in religious affairs by issuing canons and royal proclamations punishing any manifestation of religious dissent and dissent. The king threatens to excommunicate from the Church of England all those who doubt the truth of any of its provisions, and declares all religious organizations other than the state church “illegal.” A decisive war was declared against religious unrest, schism, dissent, independence, and especially Anabaptism. James I acted in a similar way in matters of financial and tax policy. Having interrupted the parliamentary session,
the king demanded the payment of “impositions” - duties not authorized by Parliament on goods imported into England.
The royal judges - advisers to the king, helping him to carry out his justice, stated that the king has an indisputable right, by virtue of his royal prerogative, regardless of parliament, to regulate the import and export of goods, to impose duties on goods imported into England, or to prohibit the export of any goods from the country. After all, all the ports of the kingdom “belong” to the king. Hence its right to collect customs duties. Like questions of war and peace, customs policy was, in the opinion of the royal judges, a matter of royal prerogative.
This interpretation of the crown's prerogative in relation to customs policy was in decisive conflict with the interests of English merchants and manufacturers. The ideologists of the bourgeoisie declared that /contrary to the opinion of the royal judges, the introduction of any taxes and duties without the consent of parliament contradicts the fundamental law of the kingdom - “the law of property and private rights.” In this law, the ideologists of the revolutionary classes saw the basis of a new social order that was emerging in England to replace the old, feudal one. They tried to find precedents in the past development of England that confirmed the new demands of the advanced classes. From the specific question - the right of the king to introduce new taxes and duties only with the consent of parliament - the ideologists of the new nobility and bourgeoisie, for example the lawyer Whitelock, move on to the essence of the constitutional problem, which was the subject of disputes between the king, the defenders of his prerogative and the House of Commons. Whitelock poses the question: who has supreme power in England? And he gives the following answer to it: to the king in parliament, that is, to the king who has received the support of “the entire state” - both houses of parliament.
The power of the king in parliament is contrasted by this lawyer with his power outside parliament, when the king acts, guided only by his own will, alone and isolated. In a speech in the House of Commons in 1611, Whitelock argued that it was possible to appeal against the king's actions outside parliament (for example, in the court of the king's bench, where the king's judges acted on behalf of the king) to the king in parliament. The king's power in parliament is not absolute, in the sense of its independence from both houses of parliament. But it is the truly supreme and sovereign power of the constitutional head of state, based on parliament.
In contrast to this theory of the power of a constitutional monarch, James I and his advisers tried to "justify" the sovereignty of the royal power - the power of the king outside parliament - by reference to the divine origin of the royal power, which was therefore independent of parliament. Based on this, James I considered his right to impose and collect taxes to be “indisputable,” with which the House of Commons strongly disagreed. Thus, in the “bill against taxes” discussed in 1610, in addition to the dispute about the prerogative, the real interests of English merchants were reflected, who insisted on the inviolability of their income from commercial and industrial activities from the tyranny of an absolute monarch who acted outside of and outside parliament. Merchants and manufacturers were no less interested than large landowners in the liberation of the knightly domain, in the acquisition of bourgeois property rights, or rather, the free and common socage approaching it, to their feudal estates. English merchants who traded overseas were imbued with the conviction that their trading activities were fully consistent with the good of the entire kingdom, and protested against the king’s introduction of taxes and duties “without the general consent of the kingdom,” that is, without the consent of parliament. On the contrary, the king’s opposition to the adoption of the “bill” against duties" causes discontent among English merchants and causes damage to the entire country.
Being forced to agree to the “bill against duties,” James I tried in every possible way to circumvent it, to avoid infringement of his prerogative in matters of customs Policy.
Continuing to act autocratically, the king distributes monopolies at his discretion to the detriment of freedom of trade and entrepreneurial activity, in which the ideologists of the bourgeoisie see the innate right of this class. James I stubbornly resisted proposals for ransom and release of the knightly holding. The “Great Treaty” of 1611 provided for the payment of 200 thousand pounds to the king. Art. per year in return for the feudal duties that the holders bore on the basis of knightly service. The amount proposed by Parliament was approximately twice the king's actual income under this item. Nevertheless, the king continued to defend his prerogative - his supreme rights to knightly holdings, demanding that the amount offered to him be increased to 300 thousand pounds. Art. in year. The “Great Treaty” was never concluded; the abolition of feudal duties associated with knighthood was carried out, as is known, only after the victory of the parliamentary army over the king in 1646.
James I Stuart took a different path: he dissolved parliament and convened it again for a short period (3 months) in 1614. Essentially, after the dissolution of parliament in 1611, a period of non-parliamentary rule began for more than a whole decade - until 1624, when English absolutism takes on classical features that bring it closer to the examples of continental absolutism and at the same time bring closer its catastrophe in England under Charles I, the second Stuart on the English throne.
Putting into practice during the non-parliamentary decade the principle according to which, with the dissolution of parliament, the “freedoms and liberties” “granted” by the king cease to exist, James I introduces and collects illegal “impositions”, resorts to collecting old, feudal duties such as “help” under the occasion of the royal daughter's marriage and "voluntary donations". However, this does not create either a solid financial or political basis for Stuart absolutism. This was essentially a new form of absolute monarchy for England, based on the political treatise of James I and on the support of the outdated forces of feudal society - the remnants of the feudal aristocracy that survived until the first decades of the 17th century, the feudal nobility - and the high Anglican state church. This political form was in decisive conflict with the class interests of the new nobility and bourgeoisie - the progressive force at the dawn of the bourgeois revolution.
James I managed to delay and prevent the immediate danger of a revolutionary explosion; The “prologue to the revolution” did not result in a revolution under the first Stuart. During the period of non-parliamentary rule, James I was faced with increasing economic difficulties, which he and his advisers tried to overcome through extreme means. These difficulties especially increased with the beginning of the 30 Years' War, which England entered, guided by considerations of the dynastic policy of the Stuarts.
In 1621, the king again had to convene parliament and turn to it for support. However, at this moment, Stuart's absolutism turns out to be especially discredited by the absurd foreign policy, the corruption and bribery of the king's close advisers and military failures. The conflict reached particular acuteness in connection with the issue of the Spanish marriage of the heir to the throne, which James I also attributed to the area of royal prerogative and considered it inaccessible to the understanding of parliament. Meanwhile, the issue of the expected marriage of the future Charles I to the Spanish Infanta was associated with very acute economic, political and religious interests of various classes of English society. The Spanish marriage of the heir to the throne seemed completely unacceptable to English merchants and manufacturers, zealots of Puritan piety, because it meant an infringement of their commercial interests. As a result of the marriage, the “Catholic danger” would increase enormously for English merchants and manufacturers, accustomed to identifying their class interests with the “national interests” and even the “common good” of England.
In December 1621, the king was presented with a petition and a remonstration of the House of Commons with sharp attacks against Spain and the Spanish king, in whom James I saw not only his future father-in-law, but also an ally in the fight for the “palatinate”, for the Electorate of the Palatinate - “property” his daughter Elizabeth and her husband Frederick of the Palatinate. For dynastic reasons, James I was ready to enter into an alliance with Catholic Spain, sacrificing to it the interests of English merchants and manufacturers. The Puritan-minded classes - the bourgeoisie and the new nobility - hated Spain and in the marriage of Charles with the Infanta they saw the implementation of the “evil” plans and “diabolical” intrigues of the English and Spanish papists, who intensified their propaganda at that time.
The House of Commons demands that the king take measures to protect the “true religion.” As a condition for providing financial support to the king, the chamber puts forward a demand for a decisive change in foreign and domestic policies.
Extremely irritated by the resistance and demands of the House of Commons, James I responded to the parliament's petition, written in a loyal tone, with ridicule and mockery. James I again develops the "theory" according to which the "rights and liberties" of Parliament are not its "hereditary property", but an act of royal favor, which can be taken away at any time. When the House of Commons made a strong protest, pointing out in its memorandum that the discussion of all important questions concerning the crown, the state, the defense of religion and the Church of England, was the ancient and undoubted natural right of the house, James I destroyed it. At a meeting of the Privy Council in the presence of the heir to the throne, the Lords and the Clerk of the House of Commons, the king himself tore out the text of the memorandum from the journal of the House of Commons in order to eliminate the possibility of using its “ambiguous language” in the future as a precedent for further incursions into the area of royal “prerogative”.
Then Parliament was dissolved again and was not convened until 1624, the last year of the reign of James I. Why was James I forced to reconvene Parliament in 1624? Why, in the Speech from the Throne (February 1623/24), did the King decisively change his tone and ask for the "free and sincere advice" of both Houses of Parliament on the question of the marriage of the Prince of Wales? Moreover, James I also renounced his previous encroachments on the “legal rights, liberties and privileges of parliament.” Why was the king forced to abandon, at least in words, what he had strived for throughout his reign?
This is explained by the fact that English absolutism was faced with the collapse of the absurd foreign policy of James I and acute financial need. James I was looking for a way to get out of difficult economic and political difficulties. He, in turn, had to listen to the lessons of the House of Commons, which recognized the terms of the marriage treaty with Spain as incompatible with the honor of the king himself, with the safety of the English people and with the interests of England's Protestant allies.
However, in reality it turned out that the deceitful and insincere first representative of the Stuart dynasty, like its subsequent representatives, right up to James II, played a double game: verbally renouncing the project of a Spanish marriage in his speech from the throne, James I continued secret negotiations with “ minions of the king of Spain." He was betrayed by none other than his beloved favorite Buckingham, who very cheekily and cynically invited the king to make a choice between his subjects and the Spaniards and give an unequivocal answer on the question of the marriage of the future Charles I and the infanta. Buckingham's correspondence with James I is a striking example of the moral degeneration of Stuart absolutism. This is essentially a condemnation of the “grotesk degenerate,” as Marx calls James I*. Political intrigue, blackmail, spreading false rumors among members of parliament - these are the methods by which James I tries to extract “subsidies” and financial support from parliament, while continuing to threaten to “break the neck” of his last parliament, as he managed to do in regarding the first three parliaments (1604, 1614 and 1621).
The crisis in the relationship between absolutist statehood and society took on the concrete form of confrontation between the crown and parliament.
In 1628, Parliament adopted the “Petition of Right,” containing the idea of a bourgeois constitutional monarchy. This document reflected such issues as the rights of the king in relation to the life and property of his subjects, the inviolability of private property, and it was noted that not a single English subject could be captured, imprisoned or expelled without an appropriate court decision. The petition also expressed protest against the systematic stationing of soldiers and sailors among the population and against the introduction of martial law. The petition noted that the true criminals in the person of high dignitaries remain unpunished, while, contrary to the customs of the country, a huge number of death sentences are imposed by the courts. The Lower House asked not to impose any taxes without the consent of parliament and not to punish those who refuse to pay taxes not authorized by parliament, not to arrest anyone without trial.
The demands of parliament led to its dissolution and the long unparliamentary rule of Charles I. The years of the king's reign without parliament (1629-1640) can be characterized as complete arbitrariness of royal power. To replenish the treasury, Charles I introduced more and more fines and taxes, and emergency courts suppressed any discontent of the population. One of the results of such rule was an armed uprising in Scotland, which created the threat of a Scots invasion of England. Failures in foreign policy, depletion of the treasury and a constant lack of funds forced Charles I to convene parliament in April 1640. This parliament did not work for long - from April 13 to May 5, 1640 and went down in history under the name of the Short Parliament. The main reason for its dissolution was its dissatisfaction with the request of Charles I to provide him with a subsidy for the conduct of the war with Scotland and the statement that no more subsidies would be presented to the king until he carried out reforms to exclude in the future the possibility of abuse of the power of the monarch.
After some time, the king realized that without parliament he would not be able to solve the military and political crisis, and in November 1640 he convened a new parliament, which turned out to be Long (lasted until 1653). The first stage of the revolution - constitutional - begins with the activities of the Long Parliament. During a revolution, there are usually 4 stages:
constitutional stage (1640-1642)
first civil war (1642-1647)
second civil war (1648-1649)
independent republic (1649-1653)
Chernilovsky Z. M. “General history of state and law” M; 2011 During 1640-1641 Parliament obtained from the king the approval of a number of important legal acts. The right of parliament to impeach senior officials was indirectly confirmed. From the middle of 1641, the parliament took over the execution of government functions due to the intensified confrontation of forces; it began to arbitrarily dispose of the treasury and military affairs. Parliament dissolved the royal army and created a new one - the parliamentary one. The new army produced a large number of talented generals, among whom Oliver Cromwell became one of the most prominent.
All acts of parliament of 1641 were aimed at limiting the power of the king and meant a transition to one of the varieties of constitutional monarchy. However, this form of the bourgeois state did not have time to establish itself due to the outbreak of civil wars between the king and parliament (1642-1647 and 1648-1649) - the second stage of the bourgeois revolution.
0Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences
Department of General History
GRADUATE WORK
The conflict between the crown and parliament under the first Stuarts (1603-1649)
annotation
This final qualifying work (GKR) examines the conflict between the crown and parliament under the first Stuarts (1603-1649).
The structure of this WRC is as follows.
The first chapter, “England in the first half of the 17th century: absolutism or the “free monarchy” of James I Stuart,” examines the general state of the English economy, the features of the social, political and ideological development of England by the beginning of the reign of the Stuart dynasty. Based on the analysis of the political treatises of James I, the political ideas of the king are characterized, as well as their influence on the relationship with parliament.
The second chapter is entitled “Confrontation between the crown and parliament in the first half of the 17th century.” It examines the most important aspects of the reign of James I, which caused the most heated controversy in Parliament. The political struggle in the parliaments of Charles I Stuart, which led to a break between the king and parliament and the English Revolution.
The work was printed on 163 pages using 10 sources.
Die Inhaltsangabe
In diesem letzten Qualifying Arbeit (SRS) wird als Kampf Krone und Parlament in den ersten Stuarts (1603-1649).
Die Struktur dieser Diplomarbeit sieht so aus.
In das erste Kapitel von "England in der ersten Hälfte des XVII Jahrhundert: Absolutismus, oder "frei Monarchie James I Stuar" gilt als der allgemeine Zustand der britischen Wirtschaft, vor allem die sozialen, politischen und ideologischen Entwicklung von England an die Spitze der Stuart -Dynastie. Basierend auf der Analyse der politischen Abhandlungen von James I beschreibt die politischen Ideen des Königs, sowie deren Auswirkungen auf die Beziehung mit dem Parlament.
Das zweite Kapitel heißt “Angesichts der Krone und Parlament in der ersten Hälfte des XVII Jahrhunderts.” Es werden die wichtigsten Aspekte der Regierungszeit von James I, die das umstrittenste Thema im Parlament hervorgerufen. Der politische Kampf in den Parlamenten von Charles I, die zum Bruch zwischen dem König und Parlament geführt, und der englischen Revolution.
Die Diplomarbeit wird auf 163 Seiten gedrückt und enthält 10 Quellen
Introduction
1 England in the first half of the 17th century: absolutism or the “free monarchy” of James I Stuart
1.1 Economic development
1.2 Social structure of English society
1.3 English ideology at the end of the 16th and beginning of the 17th centuries
1.4 The ideal of absolute monarchy in the works of James I Stuart
2 Confrontation between the crown and parliament in the first half of the 17th century
2.1 James I Stuart and Parliament
2.2 Charles I Stuart's struggle with parliamentary opposition
Conclusion
List of sources and literature used
Introduction
The first half of the 17th century was a period extremely rich in events that were most important for the entire subsequent development of England. In the conditions of the formation and subsequent strengthening of absolutist regimes in the monarchies of Western Europe, class-representative institutions almost everywhere “curtail” their work. In this sense, the English parliament of the first half of the 17th century is a unique phenomenon. Coexisting with the early Stuart monarchy, parliament not only retained one of the leading roles in the political life of the kingdom, but also, until 1629, significantly expanded or restored previously lost freedoms and privileges. The relationship between the English parliament and the royal government clearly illustrates the problem of dialogue between government and society, which does not lose its relevance today.
The history of the Stuart parliaments acquires special significance, since it turns out to be not only a reflection of the constitutional conflict of the early 17th century, but also an explanation of the reasons that led England to unparliamentary rule, and then to the civil wars of the middle of the same century. The clash of the pro-absolutist views of the first Stuarts and the principles of common law, defended by the emerging opposition in the dispute over parliamentary privileges and the boundaries of the royal prerogative, intertwined with religious motives and issues of an economic nature (voting of royal subsidies by the commoners, discussion of the monopolization of English trade and commodity production), provides a wide field for research. Focusing on the relationship between the crown and parliament, it seems impossible to give them an objective assessment, considering them in isolation from the era, without taking into account its nature, which to one degree or another influences all aspects of society. The parliamentary opposition in England during the reign of James I (1603-1625) and Charles I (1625-1649) Stuarts did not receive due attention in Russian historical science. The characteristics of the era of the early Stuarts are contained mainly in generalizing works on the history of England and the English Revolution, which, it seems, are not complete and often not objective. Domestic historical scholarship has not fully shown the evolution of the relationship between the crown and parliament from cooperation to confrontation; the dynamics of the struggle in the parliaments of the first Stuarts and the influence of the monarch’s beliefs on it have not been traced.
The object of this study is the crown and parliament of England in the first half of the 17th century. The subject of the study is limited to the struggle between the crown and parliament from the accession of James I Stuart to the English throne in 1603 until the dissolution of parliament by Charles I in 1629. Nevertheless, it seems advisable to give a general idea of the events connected with the life and work of Charles I, which were a consequence of the conflict between the crown and parliament, but which occurred after the dissolution of parliament in 1629. The Parliament, which met after an eleven-year break in 1640, was generated by the outbreak of the English Revolution and should be the subject of a separate historical study.
The purpose of the work is to explore the struggle between the crown and parliament under the first Stuarts, to show how its character was influenced by the doctrine of absolute monarchy developed by James I, and to identify the reasons for the growth of opposition in the parliaments of Charles I Stuart.
Achieving this goal seems possible by consistently solving the following research tasks:
To characterize the general state of the English economy at the beginning of the reign of the Stuart dynasty, to show the features of the social, political and ideological development of England at the end of the reign of Elizabeth Tudor, to point out the existing problems that were inherited by her successor, and also to determine the degree of their impact on the relationship between parliament and royal power.
Based on the analysis of the treatises of James I, characterize his political ideas and identify their influence on the relationship with parliament.
Consider the most important aspects of the reign of James I that caused the most heated controversy in Parliament.
Describe the political struggle in the parliaments of Charles I Stuart.
Of the early studies devoted to the history of pre-revolutionary England, the works of Russian historians of the last third of the 19th - early 20th centuries are of particular interest. One of the largest studies of this period is the work of M. M. Kovalevsky, who noted that the absolutist theory developed by the English monarchs goes back to the fundamental principles of Roman law, which ran counter to the parliament’s ideas about royal power. A set of issues related to the political and legal views of the crown and its opponents in parliament was considered by K. A. Kuznetsov. His monograph, dedicated to the state of the English House of Commons under the Tudors and the first Stuarts and work related to the ideology of the English monarchy of the early modern period 3, can still be recognized today as one of the largest studies in this field in Russian historical science. The famous Russian historian T. N. Granovsky addressed the problem of the relationship between parliament and royal power. 4 The conflict between parliament and royal power, which emerged during the reign of Elizabeth and received its further development under the Stuarts, is partly discussed by A. N. Savin in lectures on the history of the English revolution 5 .
During the Soviet period, the era of the reign of the early Stuarts was practically not studied. It has traditionally been viewed in the context of the growing political, economic and social crisis that followed the heyday of English absolutism in the 16th century and led to the revolution of the mid-17th century. Soviet historians constructed a certain hierarchy of prerequisites for the revolution, with economic factors in the first place, and then political and ideological factors, without taking into account the influence of the personal factor on the development of events in the period under review. The process of parliamentarians’ struggle to strengthen and expand their rights falls out of the field of view of researchers. The largest studies in this area can be called the works of M. A. Barg, V. M. Lavrovsky, N. V. Karev, A. E. Kudryavtsev. 6 These studies, of course, are a significant help for the new generation of historians, but one cannot help but note the certain bias of these works.
Modern historical science has, to a certain extent, freed itself from the limitations of the Marxist approach. The activities of the parliamentary opposition during the reign of the first Stuarts are still not highlighted as an independent object of study, but are most fully examined in works devoted to the political and legal aspect of the relationship between the crown and parliament in early Stuart England. An important contribution to the study of this aspect of English history are two monographs and a number of articles by the modern Russian historian S.V. Kondratiev, who analyzed in detail the activities of lawyers in pre-revolutionary England, many of whom were either active figures in the parliamentary opposition or spoke in parliament in defense of royal prerogatives. The author draws on new source material for Russian historiography, analyzes the political and legal views of the most prominent representatives of each side, and draws conclusions about the causes and essence of ideological divisions in English society during the reign of James, which became even more pronounced during the reign of Charles I 7 . An example of a modern approach to studying the problem of parliamentary opposition in England during the reign of Jacob Stuart is the dissertation of L. Yu. Serbinovich. The author characterizes in detail the personality of James I Stuart, dwells on the peculiarities of his upbringing, as well as on the difficult internal political situation in Scotland, which had a direct impact on the formation of the king’s political views; devotes enough space to the problem of Anglo-Scottish unification in society and parliament. However, it should be noted that when covering the king’s economic policy, the analysis of the debates in parliament fades into the background and the researcher’s close attention is focused more on the economy of England in the first quarter of the 17th century, rather than on the parliament’s defense of its privileges. L. Yu. Serbinovich also considers a complex of political and legal issues that cause controversy in parliament. She asks the question about the boundaries of the royal prerogative and analyzes the arguments of the conflicting parties, and comes to the conclusion that although Jacob made a significant contribution to the growing conflict between the crown and parliament, its preconditions arose during the era of the previous reign 8. The dissertation research of E. I. Etsina is also of interest. In his work, the author examines the political views of James I, which formed the basis of the official ideology of the English monarchy in the first decades of the 17th century; studies the political ideas that James adhered to on the eve of his accession to the English throne; tracks changes in his political doctrine that occurred during the years of English rule, while she analyzes the king’s speeches before the English Parliament, which were practically not studied by domestic medievalists. The analysis allows Ezina to compare the views of James I in the English period with his views set out in early Scottish treatises, and to assess the degree of continuity of the king’s political ideas. In conclusion, the author comes to the conclusion that although Jacob did not fundamentally change his beliefs, his ideas underwent a certain correction after ascending the English throne. Thus, the researcher rejects the widely accepted postulate that the first king of the Stuart dynasty did not take into account the peculiarities of English reality 9. For our work, this study is interesting because it helps to illuminate the ideas of James I Stuart about the ideal of an absolute monarchy, which were later adopted by Charles I Stuart, which directly affected his relations with the English Parliament. When writing our thesis, we also relied on the dissertation research of R.V. Savchenkov. He not only reconstructs the debates in the House of Commons of 1621, but also, drawing on a wide range of sources and literature, reveals the relationships between the debates in the Houses of Commons of previous Jacobite parliaments. In this regard, Savchenkov also examines the parliament of 1614, which researchers, as a rule, avoid, since they traditionally consider it “sterile” 10. In general, in Russian historical science there are relatively few works devoted to the problem of the relationship between parliament and royal power during the reign of the first Stuarts. And if the reign of Jacob Stuart, as we have seen, arouses a certain interest among researchers, then the reign of Charles is not considered outside the history of the English revolution. Most of the above works only to one degree or another touch on the problem that interests us.
In some ways, a similar situation occurs in foreign historiography, although there is incomparably more work on the topic under study and the study of this period of British history began much earlier. Traditionally, two concepts have become the basis for controversy about the relationship between the monarch and his parliament. According to the first of them - the Tory (conservative) - the blame for the escalation of the conflict was placed by its supporters on a handful of radicals who led England to civil war 11. The second concept marked the beginning of the Whig (liberal) point of view on the premises of the revolution. She says that the confrontation between the crown and parliament was the result of a fair reaction of the “middle class,” which was mainly represented in the House of Commons, to the growing oppression of absolutism. One of the earliest adherents of the Whig point of view was D. Hume, who in the mid-1700s wrote a number of works that are of lasting historical value 12 . A special contribution to the development of the Whig interpretation of the English Revolution was made by the largest of the Victorian historians who dealt with this topic, S. R. Gardiner. He not only created the concept of the “Puritan Revolution,” but most importantly, he considered the civil war as the culmination of a long conflict between the crown and parliament, which began with the accession of James I to the English throne. The confrontation between the first two Stuarts and parliament was considered by Gardiner as the most important component that determined the development of parliamentary democracy in England - the most civilized form of government 13 .
In the context of the strengthening of economic approaches and under the influence of Marxism, the idea of progress to a certain extent went out of fashion, giving way to the search for the origins of the conflict in the change in the structure of English society and the distribution of wealth. The approach of R. G. Tawney and K. Hill led to an understanding of the English revolution as a bourgeois revolution, caused by the growth of capitalism and the strengthening of the role of the gentry and bourgeoisie 14.
Since the late 1960s, previous orthodoxies, liberal and Marxist interpretations of the pre-revolutionary period and the causes of the English Revolution have been sharply criticized in the West by “revisionist” historians, who have declared the need to revise all previous concepts of studying the parliamentary history of England from the beginning of James’s reign to revolution and civil war. The revisionists based their research on the mass nature of the archival material they used. The work of the “revisionists” began with the works of K. Russell, in which he called for rejecting the two main postulates of his predecessors, namely: the belief in the “inevitability” of revolution, and the belief in parliament as a progressive instrument for constructing the future 15 . For him and his like-minded people, parliament was not a government body that had any real power. In his words: “...we should not be too surprised to realize the true function of parliament. Parliament [under James and Charles] was an instrument for filing complaints" 16 . In considering the Jacobite parliaments, Russell abandoned the theory of continuous conflict between parliament and the king that led to the revolution. According to the revisionist point of view, the revolution had no lasting causes. Russell was the first to try to justify the inability of the Jacobite parliaments to fight with the king for the highest power in the country. Firstly, each parliament was a separate event, the participants of which were looking for answers to the questions facing society “here and now”, and the decisions of each parliament did not have any significant consequences after its dissolution. Secondly, the commoners, first of all, represented the interests of the local group that delegated them, as well as the interests of their patron at court. Thirdly, there was no opposition in parliament until 1640. The internal parliamentary struggle, according to the revisionists, was not between the opposition and supporters of the king and government, but between various court factions that pursued their own benefits, as well as between regional factions for the right to be represented at the epicenter of the political life of the kingdom. Under such conditions, it was not very difficult for the king and parliament to find consensus. Russell, speaking about Jacob, is inclined to see in his relations with parliament a compromise that actually worked in modern conditions. Moreover, this compromise was determined rather by the personal qualities of the king. Despite a number of shortcomings (careless attitude towards money, insufficient intuition when choosing an environment), Jacob, unlike Charles, was a more subtle politician, which determined the existence of a compromise between the king and parliament. Under Charles, this stability was lost, which led to the revolution. To quote Russell: “The disappearance of this stability immediately after his [James] death is so rapid that the blame for it may be laid upon the character of Charles. Karl, unlike Jacob, suffered from excess energy. It may be valuable to observe that both the energetic Stuarts lost their thrones, while both the lazy members of the dynasty died in their beds." 17 Among Russell's followers, it is necessary to mention such researchers as K. Sharp, C. Carleton and J. Moril, who developed and supplemented his views 18 .
Already in the 1980s - 1990s, there was criticism of the concepts of revisionist historians from those who immediately began to be called “post-revisionists,” who called for abandoning the extremes of revisionist historiography. The main motive for their research was criticism of the excessive fragmentation of the revisionists' works: In their works, R. Kast, E. Hughes and D. Sommerville note the excessive faith of the revisionists in the isolation of provincial communities from court, political life, in particular the activities of parliament 19 . Unlike the revisionists, the post-revisionists, studying social problems and processes that originated in the previous reign (the impoverishment of the rural population of England, inflation and the global crisis in the English economy), saw in them long-term prerequisites for the revolution. Post-revisionists also rejected revisionism's thesis of broad ideological consensus between Crown and Parliament, criticizing Russell in particular. If the king and his parliament complemented each other well, where did the conflicts that occurred between them come from (the dissolution of parliaments in 1614, 1621, 1629)? Despite the criticism of revisionism, post-revisionists also note some positive aspects in the methodology used by the revisionists. In particular, they absolutely agree that it is necessary to analyze those topics of parliamentary debates that were permanently relevant in the first half of the 17th century, without being distracted by considering the reasons for convening a particular parliament, which were important in the short term 20 .
Despite the significant research achievements of these historians, the relationship between parliament and royal power has been studied rather fragmentarily. In British and American historiography, despite the presence of a very wide range of traditional and original interpretations that give a varied interpretation of the problem of interest to us, there has not been a holistic approach to considering the confrontation between royal power and parliament in the first half of the 17th century.
The outlined range of research tasks determined the choice of the main sources of this work. Of primary importance is a consideration of the political writings of James I himself. First of all, this is the “True Law of Free Monarchies.” The treatise was originally written in English and was first published anonymously in Edinburgh in 1598. The first author's edition, which did not contain any textual amendments, was published in London in 1603. The second treatise is “The Royal Gift”. The treatise was written in Scots, but an English translation was already made for the first edition in 1599. This work gained wide publicity after the first public edition in 1603, which contained significant amendments by the author. The previous edition was preceded by two sonnets and an address to the prince. The first sonnet, of purely didactic content, was removed from the 1603 edition, and a lengthy appeal to the reader was added, explaining the goals of the treatise, the history of its creation, as well as some harsh statements that could be misinterpreted by the general public. These works set out in detail his views on the institution of absolute monarchy, the privileges of parliament, and his vision of the rights and freedoms of subjects and royal prerogatives, stemming from the theory of the “sacred right of kings” he defended, becomes obvious. During the author's lifetime, the political works of James I (VI) Stuart went through several publications in English, Latin, French and some other European languages. However, a complete, official publication in Russian has not yet been undertaken. In this work, we used the classic publication of 1616, edited by McIlvaine 21, in the Russian handwritten translation by Igor Smirnov. The analysis also included the first public speech of Jacob Stuart before the English Parliament in 1604. 22. In this speech, the king, in fact, outlined the program of his reign, which he sought to follow throughout his life. The speeches of James's son, Charles I Stuart, are not so bright and meaningful, but nevertheless, turning to them, you can see what exactly worried the monarch, for what purpose he convened parliament and for what reason he dissolved it: (introductory speech of 1626 and speech before the dissolution of parliament in 1628) 23. Sources that allow us to get an idea of the opposition in the parliaments of the first Stuarts are, first of all, the Apology of the House of Commons of 1604. 24, Petition of Right 25, and Declaration of Protest of the House of Commons 26.
Although the Apology of the House of Commons was not presented to the king, it is believed that the Apology is the first clear manifestation of Parliament's struggle for its privileges. This is a document in which the House of Commons' claims to royal power are clearly formulated. An unconditional victory for the opposition - the Petition of Right, which Charles I Stuart was forced to accept in 1628. Her analysis helps to trace the development of the conflict between the crown and parliament. And finally, the Declaration of Protest of the House of Commons of 1629 reflects the culmination of the conflict between Parliament and the king. After which parliament was dissolved and eleven years of unparliamentary rule followed.
The listed documents, based on specific historical examples, make it possible to create a fairly complete picture of the relationship between the crown and parliament in the first half of the 17th century, understand the causes of the conflict and trace the stages of the confrontation between royal power and parliament.
Structure of the thesis: the work consists of an introduction, two chapters, a conclusion, a list of sources and literature, and an appendix.
Questions at the beginning of a paragraph
Question. What is absolutism? How did the features of absolutism manifest themselves in England at the end of the 16th – beginning of the 17th centuries?
Absolutism is a form of government in which supreme power belongs unlimitedly to one person - the monarch.
Features of absolutism in England at the end of the 16th – beginning of the 17th centuries. manifested itself in the fact that the kings tried to reduce the importance of Parliament, deprive the feudal lords of power (transfer local power and courts into the hands of royal officials and judges), create a regular army and navy and ban feudal armies.
Questions in a paragraph
Question. Explain the meaning of the image. How does the author evaluate Cromwell's activities?
The meaning of this image is that the oak tree was a symbol of royal power. By cutting it down, Cromwell abolished the monarchy in England.
Questions at the end of the paragraph
Question 1. Write down: a) the names of the participants in the revolution; 6) terms characterizing political bodies and political activities.
A) Charles I, O. Cromwell, Price. Cook.
B) The Long Parliament, cavaliers, roundheads, ironsides, a new model army, “pride purge”, “Great Remonstrance”.
Question 2. Who were the Puritans? Show the connection between their teaching and lifestyle.
Puritans (from the Latin “purus” - pure) were staunch Protestants who sought to cleanse the Anglican Church of the remnants of Catholicism. Many Puritans adhered to the teachings of John Calvin. The main virtue for the Puritans was a sense of duty. They monitored their behavior in society, tried to show restraint, led a measured lifestyle, got up early and never remained idle. A lifestyle developed in which thrift and hard work were the main values. The Puritans demanded that the Anglican Church be cleansed of lavish services, demanding the abolition of the office of bishops, accusing them of serving not God, but the king. The Puritans carefully studied the Holy Scriptures, trying to understand the will of God, whose laws they deeply revered. Many believed in the divine origin of royal power, but for them this power was legitimate only if it adhered to the old English laws and traditions and respected parliament .
Question 3. Make a plan in your notebook on the topic “Causes of the Revolution in England.”
New Dynasty;
Political reasons: the king’s desire for absolutism, the conflict between the king and parliament;
Economic reasons: new taxes, violation of trade laws;
Religious reasons: defense of Anglicanism and persecution of Puritans;
Foreign policy reasons: rapprochement with Catholic France and Spain;
The actions of King Charles I, which aggravated the contradictions.
Summoning of the Long Parliament
Question 5. Name the forces that supported the king and the forces that supported parliament. Explain this balance of power.
The king was supported by nobles - large landowners, who were called cavaliers; Parliament was supported by poor nobles and the urban bourgeoisie, who were called roundheads. The economically more backward northern and western counties came under the king's banner. The more economically developed southeast supported parliament.
Question 6. Explain the reasons for the victory of the army of parliament over the army of the king.
The main reason was the creation of a single army - a “new model army” consisting of volunteers, mainly peasants, artisans, and factory workers. At the head of the army was the energetic nobleman Oliver Cromwell, who proposed new battle tactics. The reason was also the belief of the parliamentary army that they were ridding the country of tyranny.
Question 7. Start compiling a calendar of events on the topic “English Revolution”. Complete the table “Reforms of the Long Parliament”. Columns of the table: “Year”, “Content of the reform”, “Significance of the reform”.
Assignments for the paragraph
Question 1. Assess the activities of Charles I.
Charles I, who had such character traits as pride, temper, instability, hypocrisy, did not resolve the contradictions in English society (between Catholics and Protestants. Between Anglicans and Puritans, between the crown and parliament), but in many ways contributed to their aggravation. He did not recognize the powers of Parliament and the traditions of parliamentarism in England and believed that the power of the king could not be limited by his subjects. Therefore, he considered it possible to refuse his own promises, as he did by refusing to comply with the “Petition of Right” he himself signed. Charles I further escalated the conflict by dissolving Parliament and imposing new taxes without its consent. Subsequently, Charles reconvened parliament, but refused to compromise with it. And even after defeat in the civil war, he remained unconvinced and did not want reconciliation. Therefore, the actions of Charles I can be assessed negatively; in many ways, his actions became the cause of the revolution.
Question 2. Do you think the execution of the king was necessary for the victory of the revolution? Give reasons for your point of view.
Yes, the execution of the king was necessary, because... he was not going to compromise with Parliament, but at the same time remained the legitimate king of England, even if Parliament decided to depose him. In addition, he had an heir and supporters, for whom he would always be the supreme ruler, which means they would not accept the power of parliament.
Question 3. Trace the relationship between reforms and revolutionary events. Draw a conclusion.
The relationship between reforms and revolutionary events lies in the fact that they were aimed at limiting the monarchy and strengthening the powers of parliament. The only difference was the radicality of the changes (the reforms offered softer forms of restrictions, the revolution decisively abolished the monarchy and introduced a republic).
Questions about the document
Question 1. What were the reasons for the creation of this document? Discuss with your classmates whether the demands of the “Great Remonstrance” meet the political traditions of English society.
The “Great Remonstrance” was an act of Parliament that was a list of abuses of royal power. The creation of the “Great Remonstrance” was caused by the desire to justify the actions of Charles I as violating English traditions and laws. Yes, they answer, because The king of England traditionally did not make political and economic decisions, especially those related to taxes, without parliament.
Question 2. Make a list of the main charges brought by the court against Charles I. Express your opinion on the court’s decision. Propose another solution and prove its feasibility under the given historical conditions.
Intentions to establish and hold in one's hands unlimited tyrannical power to rule the country at will, to destroy the rights and liberties of the people;
Declared a treasonous and criminal war against the real Parliament and the people;
He was the inspiration and reason why thousands of free people were killed.
The court's decision was political and unfair, because the verdict was known before it was pronounced by the court.
Another option could be the expulsion of the king from England.