Confrontation between the king and parliament. Short and long parliament. Causes of the conflict between the king and parliament. Petition of Right and the Great Remonstrance Struggle between King and Parliament in England
Famous in England (1642-1660) is known in our country by this name thanks to Soviet textbooks, which focused on the class struggle in English society of the 17th century. At the same time, these events in Europe are simply known as the “civil war.” It became one of the key phenomena of its era and determined the vector of development of England over the following centuries.
Dispute between King and Parliament
The main cause of the war was the conflict between the executive and, on the one hand, King Charles I of the Stuart dynasty, who ruled England as an absolute monarch, depriving citizens of their rights. It was opposed by parliament, which had existed in the country since the 12th century, when the Magna Carta was granted. The House of Representatives of different classes did not want to put up with the fact that the king was taking away its powers and pursuing dubious policies.
The bourgeois revolution in England had other important prerequisites. During the war, representatives of different Christian movements (Catholics, Anglicans, Puritans) tried to sort things out. This conflict became an echo of another important European event. In 1618-1648. The Thirty Years' War raged on the territory of the Holy Roman Empire. It began as a struggle of Protestants for their rights, which was opposed by Catholics. Over time, all the strongest European powers, except England, were drawn into the war. However, even on an isolated island, a religious dispute had to be resolved with the help of weapons.
Another feature that distinguished the bourgeois revolution in England was the national confrontation between the British, as well as the Scots, Welsh and Irish. These three peoples were subjugated by the monarchy and wanted to achieve independence by taking advantage of the war within the kingdom.
The beginning of the revolution
Main reasons bourgeois revolution in England, as described above, must sooner or later lead to the use of arms. However, a compelling reason was needed for this. He was found in 1642. A few months earlier, a national uprising began in Ireland, the local population of which did everything to expel the English invaders from their island.
In London, they immediately began to prepare to send an army to the west in order to pacify the dissatisfied. But the start of the campaign was prevented by a dispute between parliament and the king. The parties could not agree on who would lead the army. According to recently adopted laws, the army was subordinate to parliament. However, Charles I wanted to take the initiative into his own hands. To intimidate the deputies, he decided to suddenly arrest his most violent opponents in parliament. Among them were such politicians as John Pym and Denzil Hollis. But they all escaped from the guard loyal to the king at the last moment.
Then Charles, afraid that because of his mistake he himself would become a victim of the backlash, fled to York. The king remotely began testing the waters and convincing moderate members of parliament to come over to his side. Some of them actually went to Stuart. The same applied to part of the army. Representatives of the conservative nobility, who wanted to preserve the old order of the absolute monarchy, turned out to be the layer of society that supported the king. Then Charles, believing in his own strength, headed to London with his army to deal with the rebellious parliament. His campaign started on August 22, 1642, and with it the bourgeois revolution began in England.
"Roundheads" vs. "Cavaliers"
Supporters of parliament were called roundheads, and defenders of royal power were called cavaliers. The first serious battle between the two warring forces took place on October 23, 1642 near the town of Edgehill. Thanks to their first victory, the cavaliers managed to defend Oxford, which became the residence of Charles I.
The king made his nephew Rupert his chief military leader. He was the son of the Elector of the Palatinate, Frederick, because of whom the Thirty Years' War began in Germany. Eventually, the emperor expelled Rupert's family from the country, and the young man became a mercenary. Before appearing in England, he had gained rich military experience thanks to his service in the Netherlands, and now the king's nephew led the royalist troops forward, wanting to capture London, which remained in the hands of supporters of parliament. Thus, England was split into two halves during the bourgeois revolution.
The Roundheads were supported by the emerging bourgeoisie and merchants. These social classes were the most proactive in their country. The economy rested on them, and innovations developed thanks to them. Due to the king's indiscriminate domestic policies, it became increasingly difficult to remain an entrepreneur in England. That is why the bourgeoisie sided with parliament, hoping that in case of victory they would receive the promised freedom to conduct their affairs.
Cromwell's personality
He became a political leader in London. He came from a poor landowner family. He earned his influence and fortune through cunning deals with church real estate. At the outbreak of war he became an officer in the parliamentary army. His talent as a commander was revealed during the Battle of Marston Moor, which took place on July 2, 1644.
In it, not only the Roundheads, but also the Scots opposed the king. This nation has been fighting for its independence from its southern neighbors for several centuries. Parliament in England entered into an alliance with the Scots against Charles. Thus the king found himself between two fronts. When the Allied armies united, they set off towards York.
A total of about 40 thousand people on both sides took part in the Battle of Marston Moor. The king's supporters, led by Prince Rupert, suffered a crushing defeat, after which the entire north of England was cleared of royalists. Oliver Cromwell and his cavalry received the nickname "Ironsides" for their steadfastness and endurance at a critical moment.
Reforms in the army of parliament
Thanks to the victory at Marston Moor, Oliver Cromwell became one of the leaders within Parliament. In the fall of 1644, representatives of the counties, which were subject to the largest taxes (to ensure the normal functioning of the army), spoke in the chamber. They reported that they could no longer contribute money to the treasury. This event became the impetus for reforms within the Roundhead army.
For the first two years, the results of the war were unsatisfactory for parliament. Success at Marston Moor was the first victory of the Roundheads, but no one could say with certainty that luck would continue to favor the king’s opponents. The army of parliament was different low level discipline, since it was replenished mainly by incompetent recruits who, among other things, also fought with reluctance. Some recruits were suspected of connections with cavaliers and treason.
New model army
Parliament in England wanted to get rid of this painful situation in their army. Therefore, in the fall of 1644, a vote took place, as a result of which control of the army passed solely to Cromwell. He was entrusted with carrying out reforms, which was successfully done in a short time.
The new army was called the “new model army.” It was created on the model of the Ironsides regiment, which Cromwell himself led from the very beginning. Now the army of parliament was subject to strict discipline (drinking alcohol, playing cards, etc. was prohibited). In addition, the Puritans became its main backbone. It was a reformist movement, completely opposite to the monarchical Catholicism of the Stuarts.
The Puritans were distinguished by their harsh lifestyle and sacred attitude towards the Bible. In the New Model Army, reading the Gospel before battle and other Protestant rituals became the norm.
Final defeat of Charles I
After the reform, Cromwell and his army faced a decisive test in battle against the cavaliers. On June 14, 1645, the Battle of Nesby took place in Northamptonshire. The royalists suffered a crushing defeat. After this, the first bourgeois revolution in England moved to a new stage. The king was not just defeated. The Roundheads captured his convoy and gained access to secret correspondence in which Charles Stuart called for help from the French. From the correspondence it became clear that the monarch was ready to literally sell his country to foreigners just to stay on the throne.
These documents soon received wide publicity, and the public finally turned away from Karl. The king himself first ended up in the hands of the Scots, who sold him to the English for a large sum of money. At first the monarch was kept in prison, but was not yet formally overthrown. They tried to come to an agreement with Charles (parliament, Cromwell, foreigners), offering different conditions return to power. After he escaped from his cell and was then captured again, his fate was sealed. Carl Stewart was put on trial and sentenced to death penalty. On January 30, 1649, he was beheaded.
Pride's purge of parliament
If we consider the revolution in England as a conflict between Charles and Parliament, then it ended back in 1646. However, a broader interpretation of this term is common in historiography, which covers the entire period of the unstable state of power in the country in the middle of the 17th century. After the king was defeated, conflicts began within parliament. Different groups fought for power, wanting to get rid of competitors.
The main criterion by which politicians were divided was religious affiliation. In Parliament, Presbyterians and Independents fought among themselves. These were representatives of different On December 6, 1648, Pride's purge of parliament took place. The army supported the Independents and expelled the Presbyterians. A new parliament, called the Rump, briefly established a republic in 1649.
War with the Scots
Large-scale historical events lead to unexpected consequences. The overthrow of the monarchy only intensified national discord. The Irish and Scots tried to achieve independence with the help of weapons. Parliament sent an army against them, led again by Oliver Cromwell. The reasons for the bourgeois revolution in England also lay in the unequal position different nations, therefore, until this conflict was exhausted, it could not end peacefully. In 1651, Cromwell's army defeated the Scots at the Battle of Worcester, ending their struggle for independence.
Cromwell's dictatorship
Thanks to his successes, Cromwell became not only popular, but also an influential politician. In 1653 he dissolved parliament and established a protectorate. In other words, Cromwell became the sole dictator. He assumed the title of Lord Protector of England, Scotland and Ireland.
Cromwell managed to calm the country for a short time thanks to his harsh measures towards his opponents. In essence, the republic found itself in a state of war, which was led to by the bourgeois revolution in England. The table shows how power in the country has changed over the years civil war.
End of the protectorate
In 1658, Cromwell died suddenly of typhus. His son Richard came to power, but his character was the complete opposite of his strong-willed father. Under him, anarchy began, and the country was filled with various adventurers who wanted to seize power.
Historical events happened one after another. In May 1659, Richard Cromwell voluntarily resigned, yielding to the demands of the army. In the current circumstances of chaos, Parliament began to negotiate with the son of the executed Charles I (also Charles) about the restoration of the monarchy.
Restoration of the monarchy
The new king returned to his homeland from exile. In 1660, he became the next monarch from the Stuart dynasty. Thus ended the revolution. However, the restoration led to the end of absolutism. The old feudalism was completely destroyed. The bourgeois revolution in England, in short, led to the birth of capitalism. It enabled England (and later Great Britain) to become the world's leading economic power in the 19th century. These were the results of the bourgeois revolution in England. The industrial and scientific revolution began, which became a key event for the progress of all mankind.
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 early XVII
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, 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, indicating in its memorandum that the discussion of all critical issues, relating to the crown, the state, the protection of religion, and the Church of England, is an ancient and undoubted, inherent 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”.
Parliament was then dissolved again and was not convened until 1624. last year 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).
However, the system of medieval relations in the first third of the 17th century. was already seriously hindering the further development of England. Power in England was in the hands of the feudal nobility, whose interests were represented by the king. Absolutism especially strengthened in England in the 16th century, when parliament was completely subjugated to the king and royal power. Privy Council and emergency courts operated "Star Chamber", "High Commission". At the same time, the English king did not have the right to collect taxes without the permission of Parliament. In the event of the outbreak of war, the king needed to convene parliament to obtain permission for a one-time tax and establish its size. House of Commons
At the end of the 16th century. relations between the king and parliament became strained because the English kings sought to strengthen absolutism, believing that the power of the king was given by God and could not be bound by any earthly laws. The English Parliament consisted of two houses - upper and lower; top - House of Lords- was a hereditary assembly of the English nobility, it enjoyed the right of veto. Lower - House of Commons - more representative, but less noble. Voting rights Only owners used it, so nobles sat in the House of Commons from the county. They could also represent cities, since cities were on the land of a noble and wealthy nobleman.
In 1603, after the death of the childless Queen Elizabeth Tudor, the throne passed to James VI, King of Scotland, the first king of the dynasty Stuarts on the English throne. He was crowned King of England under the name Jacob (Jacob) I. The king simultaneously ruled both England and Scotland. Without the permission of parliament, James I began to collect old duties and introduce new ones, thereby violating the established customs of the country. Parliament did not approve subsidies to the king. James I began to resort to the mass sale of titles. Thus, in 1611, a new title of baronet was established, which could be received by any nobleman who paid 1 thousand pounds to the treasury. Art. The king defended guild restrictions and prohibited new inventions. The foreign policy of the king also caused dissatisfaction, who, contrary to the expectations of the fight against Catholic Spain - England's rival in the seizure of colonies - spent ten years seeking an alliance with her. The confrontation between parliament and the king continued throughout the reign of the king. The king dissolved parliament three times and did not convene it at all for seven years.
In 1625, after the death of James I, the English throne was taken by the king Charles/, who shared the absolutist beliefs of his father King James I. The illegal collection of taxes (contrary to the Bill of Rights) aroused indignation in Parliament, and in 1629 it was again dissolved by Charles I. After this, he ruled himself for 11 years, extracting money through extortions, fines and monopolies. Wanting to introduce a unified Episcopal Church, the king persecuted Puritanism. The majority in the House of Commons of Parliament were Puritans. Distrust of him increased when, against the wishes of English society, he married a French princess, a Catholic daughter of King Henry IV. Therefore, the ideological banner of the struggle of the revolutionary opposition to absolutism became puritanism, and was headed by parliament.
The new nobility and dissident clergy were completely excluded from participating in government affairs, and censorship was tightened. Trade in monopolies again became unlimited, which caused prices to rise. The disruption of trade and industry, increased emigration - the result of the policy of Charles I. The population in the country was starving and rioting, street riots began in the capital, and Scotland declared war on England.
Already by the beginning of the 17th century. Royal power in England became a stronghold of the obsolete feudal-absolutist order. The economically and socially strengthened bourgeoisie and the new nobility sought to independently direct government policy in their own interests. In the lower house of parliament they found a ready-made political weapon to achieve their goals. The struggle between the Crown and Parliament, which began under Elizabeth I, led under Charles I to the dissolution of Parliament (1629), and in 1640 to a bourgeois revolution called the Great Rebellion. Causes English bourgeois revolution: 1. Contradictions between the emerging capitalist and old feudal structures. 2. Dissatisfaction with the policies of the Stuarts, worsening relations and an open gap between parliament and the king during the reign of Charles I. 3. Contradictions between the Anglican Church and the ideology of Puritanism. The main driving forces of the revolution: the urban lower classes and the peasantry, led by the bourgeoisie and the new bourgeois nobility - the gentry. Occasion- dissolution of the “Short Parliament” by King Charles I Stuart (April-May 1640), which he convened after an 11-year break in order to obtain subsidies for waging war against Scotland. It was at this time that the public religious and political movement - Puritanism, which became an ideological weapon of opposition to absolutism. In addition, the beginning of the revolution was accelerated by the defeat of England in the Anglo-Scottish War of 1637-1639. Continuous peasant and urban uprisings, lack of money, discontent not only among the lower classes, but also among financiers and merchants made the situation of the monarchy hopeless and forced Charles I Stuart to convene a new parliament.I. Constitutional stage of the revolution (1640-1642) November 1640 - convening of a new parliament, called the “Long Parliament” (1640-20.04.1653). Parliament passed a number of laws to limit royal power and democratize public life. Discussion of the "Great Remonstrance" - a declaration containing an accusation against absolutism and a program of action: the completion of the reformation, freedom of trade and entrepreneurship, the establishment of a bourgeois constitutional monarchy. This composition of the Parliament, which went down in history under the name "Long", from the moment of its convocation and worked from November 3 1640 to April 20, 1653, the constitutional stage of the revolution begins. Long Parliament in 1641 adopted three important acts:
1. The “Triennial Act”, which provided for the convening of parliament every three years regardless of the will of the king;
2. Bill on self-dissolution of parliament (on the inadmissibility of dissolving the existing parliament without its consent);
3. The Great Remonstrance - a political pamphlet that contained an extensive (204 articles) list of abuses of the Crown and reflected the interests of the bourgeoisie and the new nobility. It was based on issues of ensuring ownership of land and protection of movable property from the claims of the crown, freedom of trade and business, the cessation of religious persecution and financial arbitrariness, and political responsibility. officials before parliament; demands were also made to reform the church.
The foundations of absolutism were destroyed by the Long Parliament. In 1641, the extraordinary royal courts - the "Star Chamber" and the "High Commission" - were liquidated; the jurisdiction and composition of the Privy Council is limited; All monopoly patents and privileges were destroyed. The documents adopted by the Long Parliament significantly limited royal power and contributed to the establishment of a constitutional monarchy. However, the Presbyterians (landlords and big bourgeoisie), who occupied a dominant position in parliament, feared the deepening of the revolution, and by the autumn of 1642 the political conflict escalated into an armed one.
First Civil War. Presbyterian dominance in Parliament (1642-1646) Aug. 1642 - Charles I declared war on Parliament (the northern counties supported the king). Parliament organized a Defense Committee and adopted a resolution to recruit an army of 10,000 under the command of the Earl of Essex. The military failures of the parliamentary army (defeat at Edgehill on October 23, 1642, etc.) required its reorganization. In August 1642, the king declared war on parliament. Those. The first civil war began. Regular armies were created on both sides. The indecisive policy of the Presbyterians led to the fact that the parliamentary army was defeated in the first battle. After this, military leadership passed into the hands of the Independents, led by Cromwell. In the winter of 1645, in accordance with the “New Model Ordinance” adopted by Parliament, a new parliamentary army was created, which was to be maintained at the expense of the state. In the summer of 1645, the reorganized parliamentary army defeated the royal troops. By the end of 1646, the first civil war ended in the victory of parliament. The establishment of a constitutional monarchy in England in the 17th - 18th centuries. did not happen immediately and was enshrined in the following acts of parliament:
1. Habeas corpus act ("Act for better ensuring the freedom of subjects and for preventing imprisonment overseas") - - 1679;
2. Bill of Rights - - 1689;
3. Act of arrangement - - 1701
The Habeas Corpus Act ("An Act for the better provision of the liberty of subjects and the prevention of imprisonment overseas"), adopted in 1679, acquired the significance of one of the main constitutional documents of England. It established the rules for the arrest and bringing the accused to trial, gave the court the right to control the legality of the detention and arrest of citizens and contained a number of principles of fair and democratic justice: the presumption of innocence; compliance with the law when detaining a person; the principle of a quick and expeditious trial carried out with due process and at the place where the offense was committed. The name of this document comes from the Latin initial line of the court order for the delivery of the arrested person (literally - the act of moving the body).
The Bill of Rights of 1689 sharply limited the prerogatives of the Crown and guaranteed the rights of Parliament. It established, in particular, freedom of speech and debate in parliament, freedom of elections to parliament, and the right of subjects to petition the king. The term of office of parliament was set at 3 years, and was subsequently increased to 7 years. The supremacy of parliament in the field of legislative power and financial policy was asserted. From now on, without the consent of parliament, the king had no right to take any significant actions.
The king continued to participate in legislative activities and was also given the right of absolute veto.
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 general state the English economy, 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 retains one of the leading roles in political life kingdom, but even up to 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 meaning, 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.
Object this study are 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 .
IN Soviet period the reign of the early Stuarts has been virtually unstudied. 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 . Example modern approach The dissertation of L. Yu. Serbinovich can serve to study the problem of parliamentary opposition in England during the reign of Jacob Stuart. 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 lighting economic policy king, the analysis of 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 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 government agency who 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, post-revisionists, studying social problems and the processes that began 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 very wide range Traditional and original interpretations that give a varied interpretation of the problem of interest to us did not develop 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 already for the first edition in 1599 it was made English translation. 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. The political works of James I (VI) Stuart, during the author's lifetime, went through several publications in English, Latin, French and some others. 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.
Loading...
