Causes, prerequisites, main stages of the English bourgeois revolution. Background of the English bourgeois revolution of the 17th century Historical background of the Anglo-bourgeois revolution
The prerequisites for the English bourgeois revolution were the economic and political crisis in England in the 17th century.
Economic crisis:
Fencing.
The introduction of new duties by the king without the permission of parliament.
Monopoly of the king on the production and sale of certain goods within the country.
Illegal charges.
Monopoly trade.
Rising prices.
Disorder of trade and industry.
Increasing emigration.
Political crisis:
Change of the ruling dynasty.
Confrontation between king and parliament.
Embezzlement.
shortsighted foreign policy.
Marriage of Charles I to a Catholic.
Dissolution of Parliament by Charles I.
Persecution of the Puritans.
Tightening censorship
Stages:
Civil wars. Change of forms of government (1640-1649)
initial stage (1640-1642). A revolution is taking place. authorities. King out. b. convene parliament in connection with the resurrection. in Scotland. Parl-t declared himself Long (permanently working) - beg. revolutionary The end of the stage is the refusal of the king to accept the “Great. Remonstrance" about free. trade and reform of the church and the king's attempt to commit. counterrevol. coup and arrest of the leader. oppositions);
1642 - 1647 (1st civil war: the beginning of the war between the king and the parliament. The end of the stage - the publication by the Parliament of new plants that did not solve cross. agrarian problems. A new explosion of people. dissatisfaction);
1647 - 1648 (from b-by for the deepening of the rev-ii to the beginning of the 2nd civil war);
1648 - 1649 (2 civil war. The end of the stage - the destruction of the King's power and the House of Lords and the announcement of England as a republic);
Republican government (1650 - 1653)
1649 - 1653 (acceptance of the k-ii and the policy of the republic. End - Crisis of the republic due to its anti-democratic policy, economic crisis);
Military dictatorship - Cromwell protectorate (1653-1658).
1653 - 1659 (establishment of the Cromwell protectorate, which dispersed the Long Parliament and convened the Small Parliament. End of the stage: the death of Cromwell caused a crisis in the protectorate);
Restoration of the monarchy (1659 - 1660).
1659 - 1660 (Restoration of the monarchy. Attempts by the generals to establish a military dictator. Convening the Convention, which again invited the king. The fall of the republic). invitation to the throne of Charles II Stuart (the son of Charles I, who was executed in 1649 by the decision of the parliament of Charles I) - a return to the old on a higher basis (the establishment of an initially dualistic, and then - by the beginning of the 18th century - a constitutional, parliamentary monarchy).
Results: This is bourgeois. roar-iya (hand-in roar-it at the bourgeois-ii). Feature: union bourgeois. and new. yard-va; dem weakness. movement (the population did not unite: radical. The wing defended its interests: restored p / fencing, etc.).
Resolved main. eq. problem: the bourgeoisie received bourgeois agrarian legislation; abolishing the feudal system. own: nobles. landowner turned into the property of a bourgeois-legal content. A stormy district of capital began (weakened state guardianship over the eq-coy; freedom of competition and protection measures) and colonies. empire. Achieve a compromise between the upper bourgeoisie. and landlords (images of the classic variant of the 2-party system: Tories and Whigs). The rapid flowering of science, to-ry. Dangerous example English. rev-ii for the future. the fate of the feud. Europe.
At the end of May 1628, the English Parliament submitted to King Charles I a bill called the Petition of Rights, a document confirming the ancient rights and freedoms of his subjects. It contained a protest against the numerous violations by the monarchical government of the rights and freedoms of citizens protected by British law since the early Middle Ages. Manifestations of monarchical arbitrariness were: forced cash loans from the population, arrests without trial or investigation, the establishment of punitive military courts and illegal camps of the military on the maintenance of the civilian population. Despite the king's threatening speech in Parliament, the House of Commons, representing the interests of medium and small landowners, as well as wealthy citizens, raised the issue of restoring the rights of the nation, violated by the royal will. Parliament did not seek any innovations. He only wanted a royal confirmation of the old rights of the nation, "so that no evil will dare to attack them." The king tried to interfere with the discussion of the petition and threatened to dissolve Parliament. He even promised to refrain from violating the ancient ordinances in the future, although he was indignant at the contestation of his right to arrest people without trial. Nevertheless, the Petition was approved: by both the House of Commons and the House of Lords, representing the aristocratic elite of the kingdom. Needing funds for the war with France and faced with the refusal of the House of Commons to allocate money to equip the fleet before the approval of the Petition, the king was forced to retreat. On June 7, 1628, he approved the Petition of Rights, which became law. The text of the document was printed in huge circulation for distribution among the people. There was general rejoicing in England. And only then the House of Commons gave the king a subsidy for military needs.
The reason for the emergence of this conflict was the case of five knights who refused to pay to the state treasury the sums of money for a forced loan announced by the Privy Council in the autumn of 1626. They motivated their refusal by the fact that the collection was appointed without the consent of parliament. On October 27, 1627, the refusenik knights were imprisoned. Similar measures had previously been taken by the royal authorities against other persons who refused to lend, but they, as a rule, accepted their imprisonment with humility or submitted a humble request to the king for release with a confession of their guilt. And the king set them free. However, the above-named knights decided to achieve release from arrest not by royal grace, but on the basis of the current law of England.
The House of Lords decided to bring under the royal prerogative, based on common law and the statutes of England, an additional basis in the form of divine law. Members of the House of Commons rejected the proposals of the Lords. They saw in them a dangerous tendency to confuse the ordinary prerogative of the king with his absolute and divine prerogatives. More acceptable to the House of Commons turned out to be another way to eliminate the revealed uncertainty of common law and statutes - the adoption of a special law that would confirm and clarify the articles of the Magna Carta and six statutes adopted during the reigns of Edward I and Edward III. His Majesty declared that he intended to uphold the personal liberties and property rights of his subjects, that he would govern "in accordance with the Laws and Statutes of this Kingdom". In response to this message, the House of Commons adopted on May 3 a special appeal to the king saying that the lower house of parliament had full confidence in the words and promise of His Majesty. However, the parliamentarians declared to the king, since illegal actions were often committed by ministers, there is no better way to "inspire the oppressed souls of your devoted subjects to the cheerful support of Majesty" than to pass a law on their rights and freedoms. As a result, on May 6, 1628, the House of Commons decided to put its demands in the form of a petition of right. June 2, 1628 The petition for the right, approved by both houses of the English Parliament, was read to Charles I. The petition entered into force on June 7, 1628 - adopted by Parliament.
The petition documented the demands of the opposition:
Against illegal "without general consent, given by an act of Parliament, taxes and other fees";
Against illegal arbitrary arrests "against the laws and free customs of the kingdom"; -against violations of the Habeas Corpus procedure allowing the detention of subjects without charge;
Great Remonstrance - an act that was a list of abuses of royal power, transferred to the King of England Charles I Stuart by the English Parliament on December 1, 1641, but adopted by the House of Commons on November 22 of the same year, during the Long Parliament. It is considered one of the most important documents of the first stage of the English Revolution, which preceded the start of the Civil War.
The document consisted of 204 articles that counted the abuses of royal power. Among the signatories were such well-known political figures as John Pym, George Dyby), John Hampden, and the rising Oliver Cromwell. Expressing the economic interests of the bourgeoisie and the new nobility, the "Great Remonstrance" demanded that private property be protected from the claims of the crown, freedom of trade and entrepreneurship, and an end to financial arbitrariness. It also contained a requirement that the king henceforth appoint only those officials whom parliament had reason to trust.
Further, the signatories put forward hypocritical clauses on the cessation of religious persecution - and themselves demanded that all bishops be expelled from parliament. And also - persistently urged Charles I to start selling land confiscated from the Irish rebels (Catholics). The text of the document did not contain direct accusations against the king, but one of the points demanded that parliament be given the right to veto the decisions of the monarch. The Great Remonstrance was passed by a majority of only 11 votes.
After receiving the document, Charles I paused. Members of Parliament began to circulate the text of the "Great Remonstrance" without waiting for the King's official response. On December 23, the king gave a balanced and wise answer, emphasizing in particular:
that he cannot expel the bishops from parliament, because he sees no fault in any of them,
and that he was not going to start selling Irish lands until the end of the war with the rebellious subjects and the signing of their surrender.
As a result, the reconciliation of Parliament and the king did not come, which led to a further crisis in the English state.
3. independent republic. In February 1649, the royal title was abolished. England was declared a republic. In March 1649, the House of Lords was abolished. The House of Commons was declared the supreme legislative body.
The State Council, which consisted of 40 people, became the supreme executive body of power.
Its tasks are: a) to counteract the restoration of the monarchy; b) exercise control over the armed forces; c) impose taxes; d) take measures to develop trade; e) manage the foreign policy of the state. The Council of State was responsible for its activities to the House of Commons. During this period there is a further struggle for power and influence of Cromwell and his supporters. This was facilitated by the success of the republican army in pacifying measures in Ireland and Scotland, as well as the expansion of trade, industry and navigation.
However, after the establishment of the republic, the social struggle did not weaken. The position of the new republic was very difficult. It faced difficult tasks that had to be solved in a situation of severe decline and disorder in economic activity, ever-increasing contradictions within them, and a whole series of most serious dangers that threatened the young bourgeois state from outside. In order to strengthen the new political system, it was necessary to protect it from encroachments by the old, powerless feudal forces operating within the country and outside it. On the other hand, the new rulers of England, in order to retain power in their hands, had to avert the threat to their domination from the masses of the people, who could not be satisfied with a bourgeois republic, moreover, devoid of even those features of democracy that had already been put forward by representatives of radical political movements in revolutions - levelers and diggers. The Independent army elite and officers, as well as the forces supporting them, who managed to gain power and fortune during the revolution and were satisfied with the transformations carried out in the country, were ardent opponents of continuing the revolution and transferring even a small part of their power to the people. They were just as reactionary as the Presbyterians before them. Thus, the republic “caught itself between two fires”: the royalists who raised their heads and the levellers and diggers who yearned for reforms, capable of leading the masses.
For the Levellers, the proclamation of a republic was the initial stage for deepening change. The Levellers were the ideologists of the revolutionary petty bourgeoisie and defended the principles of bourgeois democracy, reflecting in this respect the interests of the broad masses of the English people: the peasantry, artisans, rural and urban "lower classes", and the mass of soldiers. In their numerous pamphlets and policy documents, they subjected the Independent Republic to sharp criticism, imbued with democratic radicalism and the spirit of the masses. First of all, the Levellers fought for the adoption of a constitution by England. They called their version "People's Agreement" and submitted it to the officers' meeting, where it was subjected to significant distortions, and the main points of the program were released. The influence of the Levellers on the army, consisting of the peasantry and artisans, continued to grow. Under these conditions, the leaders of the Independents, relying on the army elite, resorted to establishing a dictatorship regime, which led to the proclamation of a “protectorate”.
Cromwell's Protectorate and the "Instrument of Control". English Society of the 17th century. not yet ripe for a republican form of government. Monarchist traditions were too strong. This is the reason for the weakness and imminent death of the Republic.
In December 1653, a constitution was introduced in England, drawn up by a council of army officers. It was called the "Instrument of Control" and secured the military dictatorship of Cromwell. Legislative power was concentrated in the hands of the Lord Protector and a unicameral parliament. The property qualification established for participation in elections was 100 times higher than that which existed before the revolution.
The supreme executive power was vested in the Lord Protector, together with the Council of State, which consisted of not less than 13 and not more than 21 members. The appointment of councillors depended on the Lord Protector. Between sessions of Parliament, the Lord Protector commanded the armed forces, carried out diplomatic relations with other states, and appointed senior officials. He also had the right of suspensive "veto" over laws passed by Parliament. The constitution expressly declared Cromwell to be Lord Protector for life.
Soon Cromwell stopped convening Parliament, he appointed members of the Council of State at his own discretion. Local administration was entrusted to the major generals of the Cromwellian army who were at the head of the districts.
Consequently, the "Instrument of Control" consolidated the regime of sole power, in terms of the breadth of powers corresponding to the monarchy. Since that time, the reverse movement from the republic to the monarchy begins. After the death of Cromwell (1658), the remnant of the Long Parliament declared itself the founding power and in 1660 elevated Charles II, the son of the executed king, to the throne. Representatives of the bourgeoisie and the new nobility forced Charles II to sign the Breda Declaration. In it, the king promised: a) not to persecute anyone who fought against the king during the years of the revolution; b) preserve freedom of conscience for all subjects; c) to refer all disputes over land to the discretion of parliament (thus, those changes in land use that were carried out during the revolution were placed under the protection of parliament).
However, these promises were broken. The restoration of the monarchy was accompanied by the revival of the old order. The House of Lords, the Privy Council and the Anglican Church were restored in their old form. Revolutionaries were persecuted and Presbyterians were persecuted. It was Lambert and his assistants who made up the so-called. “Instrument of government” - the new constitution of the English state (adopted on December 16, 1653), according to which an elected unicameral parliament was established, convened every three years, members of the Council of State appointed for life and the Lord Protector as head of the legislative and executive power. The supreme executive power was vested in the Lord Protector, together with the Council of State, which consisted of not less than 13 and not more than 21 members. The appointment of councillors depended on the Lord Protector. Between sessions of Parliament, the Lord Protector commanded the armed forces, carried out diplomatic relations with other states, and appointed senior officials. He also had the right of suspensive "veto" over laws passed by Parliament. The constitution expressly declared Cromwell to be Lord Protector for life. Soon Cromwell stopped convening Parliament, he appointed members of the Council of State at his own discretion. Local administration was entrusted to the major generals of the Cromwellian army who were at the head of the districts. Consequently, the "Instrument of Control" consolidated the regime of sole power, in terms of the breadth of powers corresponding to the monarchy. The post of Lord Protector, not a dictator, but the first servant of the Commonwealth (Republic), in which the conquered Scotland and Ireland were included, was, of course, offered to Cromwell.
4. By the end of the 50s of the XVII century. the regime of military dictatorship began to meet opposition, both from the right and from the left. Royalists dreamed of restoring the monarchy. The republicans were also not satisfied with the new form of government, which bears little resemblance to the republican one. In 1659, the remnant of the Long Parliament declared itself the founding power.
On April 25, the newly elected Parliament, in which the Presbyterians and Royalists won the majority, invited Charles to take the throne of the three kingdoms. At the same time, the House of Lords was reinstated in its former composition. On May 29, 1660, on his thirtieth birthday, Charles II triumphantly returned to London and was proclaimed king.
and the old constitutional monarchy, proclaiming Charles II Stuart king of England. The restoration of the monarchy entailed the restoration of the former electoral system, the structure of the parliament, and some state bodies. In order to preserve their own security and the results of the revolution, the new nobility obtained from Charles II the signing of the Breda Declaration, where the king promised a number of political guarantees:
ü amnesty for participants in the revolution;
ü granting freedom of religion (with the exception of the Catholic);
ü Preservation for the new owners of royalist lands confiscated during the revolution, the crown and the church.
Having established himself on the throne, Charles II forgot about these promises. Participants in the revolution began to be persecuted. The corpses of Cromwell and other participants in the revolution were thrown out of the graves and hung up on the gallows. The Anglican Church was declared the state religion, and the Puritans were again persecuted. The Stuarts made an attempt to return to the feudal nobleman and the church the lands confiscated during the revolution. But they met the open resistance of the new owners - the bourgeoisie and the gentry, the attempt was unsuccessful. This testified to the fact that the main social shifts produced by the revolution had not been changed. The country followed the capitalist path of development and the monarchy had to adapt to this. Differences among the ruling classes again made parliament the center of political struggle.
In the 70s of the XVII century. in the English parliament, 2 political parties gradually took shape: Tories and Whigs (originally swearing nicknames: whig - in Scottish - curdled milk; tory - a street thief in Ireland). The Tories were supporters of strengthening royal power and the Anglican Church. The social base of the party was the landowning aristocracy - the old feudal nobility. The Whigs, relying on the new nobility and the bourgeoisie, advocated the preservation of a constitutional monarchy with a strong parliamentary power. During the reign of Charles II, the Tories dominated the English Parliament.
Another law, which later became an important element of bourgeois-democratic law, was adopted in 1679 by the Habeas Corpus Act. Its full name is "The Act for the Better Ensuring of the Freedom of the Subject and for the Prevention of Imprisonment Beyond the Seas" (that is, outside of England). According to this law, judges were obliged, on the complaint of a person who considers his arrest or the arrest of someone else unlawful, to demand the urgent presentation of the arrested person to the court for verification of the lawfulness of the arrest or for trial; the conclusion of the accused in prison could be carried out only upon presentation of an order indicating the reason for the arrest. Its adoption was due to the fact that in 1679 King Charles II dissolved the old parliament and announced new elections. By that time, two parties had already been fully formed - the Tories and the Whigs. The Whigs, who received a majority in the new parliament, passed this act, fearing reprisals, since they were in opposition to the king.
The habeas corpus act of 1679 consists of 21 articles.
No free man could be imprisoned without a writ of habeas corpus, whereby the judge ordered that the person (lit. body, corpus) of the accused be delivered to him.
5. "Glorious Revolution" - the name of the coup d'état of 1688-1689 adopted in historical literature. in England (the removal from the throne of James II Stuart and the proclamation of William III of Orange as king), as a result of which the rights of the crown were limited.
At the end of the 1670s. the parliamentary opposition in England took shape in the Whig party, and the supporters of the king were called the Tories. The former relied on the nobility and the bourgeoisie, while the latter relied on the old feudal nobility, the royal court, and officials.
Under James II (1685-1688), the feudal-absolutist reaction to the opposition assumed the most ferocious character. The general fear for their safety prompted even a significant part of the Tories to recoil from the king. The leaders of the opposition prepared a conspiracy to expel James and invite the Stadtholder of Holland, William of Orange, to the English throne. The organizers of the coup counted on the fact that William of Orange would not claim supremacy over Parliament, and in addition, his invitation to the throne would ensure England's union and alliance with Holland against France. Despite the limited nature of the coup of 1688, it was important for the subsequent development of English capitalism. The establishment of a constitutional monarchy meant real access to power for the big bourgeoisie and the bourgeois nobility. For the propertied classes of England, the "Glorious Revolution" of 1688 really did a lot, providing them with the possibility of unlimited accumulation of capital at the expense of the popular masses of Great Britain itself and through the robbery and ruthless exploitation of the population of its many colonies. The main result of the coup - the strengthening of the constitutional monarchy - corresponded to the needs of bourgeois progress in the country, meant the transfer of supreme power to the parliament, in whose hands were concentrated legislative and partially executive functions, curtailed by the king. With the final elimination of absolutism, the coup consolidated in the political sphere the successes of the revolution of the middle of the 17th century.
Basic constitutional acts. After the coup, Parliament adopted a series of legislative acts that formalized a constitutional monarchy in England. The first constitutional law of England of the period under review was the "Bill of Rights" of 1689, which significantly limited royal power in favor of Parliament. Its main points were as follows:
the principle of parliamentary supremacy. The king was forbidden without the consent of parliament to suspend the operation of laws and make exceptions from them (Art. 1-2).
ü a ban on the collection of fees in favor of the crown without the consent of Parliament (Article 3).
ü it was forbidden to recruit and maintain the army in peacetime without the permission of parliament (Article 6).
ü elections of members of parliament were declared free (art. 8), and the convocation of parliament was quite frequent (art. 13).
ü freedom of speech and debate in parliament, persecution for speaking was prohibited (Article 9).
Another important constitutional law was the "Decree of the Organization" of 1701, which marked the beginning of the establishment of new principles of bourgeois state law. First of all it is:
ü The principle of countersignature, according to which an act issued by the king was considered invalid if it was not countersigned by the relevant minister (member of the Privy Council) (Article II). In this regard, the political role of ministers, who could be held accountable by parliament, increased, this marked the beginning of the forming principle of "responsible government".
ü The principle of irremovability of judges. It was established that judges could perform their duties as long as "as long as they behave well". Their removal from office could only take place on the proposal of both houses of parliament (Article II).
In addition, the "Deed of Dispensation" determined the order of succession, according to which the English throne could only be occupied by a person of the Anglican faith.
Thus, in England, as a result of the revolution of 1640-1660 and the palace coup of 1688, absolutism was finally buried, and a constitutional monarchy was firmly established. The "Bill of Rights" and the "Deed of Dispensation" laid the foundation for important institutions of bourgeois constitutional law:
ü the principle of the supremacy of parliament in the legislative sphere;
the principle of "government responsibility";
ü the principle of "irremovability of judges".
This formula meant the abolition of the old formula, according to which the judges performed their duties "as long as the king pleased." Changes in the political sphere gave impetus to the development of capitalism, ensuring the freedom of action of the bourgeois class and paving the way for the industrial revolution of the 18th century.
6. Reforms of local government and courts. Until 1835, the old system of local government, which took shape in the Middle Ages, was preserved in the cities of England. In the interests of the industrial bourgeoisie, immediately after the first electoral reform, a reform of urban self-government was also carried out. Under the law of 1835, city administration was transferred to elected city councils. All taxpayers - householders and tenants of apartments of both sexes - could participate in the elections. The city council elected the mayor of the city for one year. The municipal reform, however, did not affect the administration of the counties, which meant another compromise with the landed aristocracy, which retained control of the countryside in their hands.
In the XVIII-XIX centuries. along with the evolution of the form of government and the political regime, there were changes in the state structure of the country. After the formalization of the so-called unions with Scotland (1707) and Ireland (1801), the English Parliament extended its power to the entire territory of the British Isles. These regions received a certain number of seats for their deputies in the British Parliament. In addition, Scotland retained its own legal and judicial systems, as well as the Presbyterian Church. C l801, the state education was called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
The local government reform in England in 1835 changed government only in the towns, leaving the counties alone. This task was accomplished by the reform of 1888, laying the foundations for the system of local government which continued in England for the next century. Similar representative bodies - councils - were created for cities and counties. At the same time, the entire previous system of counties was revised, and the largest cities were separated into independent counties. The county councils were given the administrative powers of justices of the peace. The reform did not change the management at the parish level, but in 1894 a law was passed that deprived the parish councils of the right to consider non-church affairs. To solve them, parish assemblies were created in parishes, which could elect parish councils in large settlements. The created system of self-government bodies was distinguished by significant independence and the absence of "administrative guardianship" from the central government, which became a characteristic feature of the English model of local government, which distinguishes it from the continental (French).
At the end of the XIX century. important reform of the judiciary was carried out. A series of acts 1873-1876. and 1880 on the Supreme Court and appellate jurisdiction, the division of the highest courts of England into courts of "common law" and courts of "justice", which had developed in the feudal era, was abolished. The new structure of the higher courts provided for the use of the procedural rules of both of the English "branches" of case law. Created to replace the former central courts, the Supreme Court consisted of two divisions:
The High Court, which in turn was divided into divisions (clerical, royal bench, etc.), and the Court of Appeal for civil cases. At the same time, the assize courts, formed from judges of the High Court, continued to exist, as well as lower courts - quarter sessions, magistrates' courts and county courts, established in the middle of the 19th century. only for civil cases. A special place was occupied by the Central Criminal Court in London ("Old Bailey"), which was the court of assizes for Greater London. This court included the Lord Chancellor and the Mayor of the City of London.
Modernization of the political system of Great Britain in the 19th century. ended, thus, with the establishment of the dominant position of parliament in relations with the government and the transformation of parliament into a body that determines the current policy of the state (the second third of the 19th - the end of the 19th century). The system of responsible government became the basis of the "Westminster model", which served as a model for the state system in many countries of the world.
10. The reason for the transition. A confederation with a weak government did not meet the needs of the development of capitalism, which needed a strong central government capable of overcoming the political and economic disunity of individual states, centralized management of foreign trade and trade between the states, pursuing a unified customs policy, etc. The creation of such a government was also dictated by foreign policy considerations - the need to increase the international prestige of the new state.
The resolution of this issue was accelerated by the intensification of the class struggle in the states after the end of the war for independence. The broad masses of the people gained nothing from the victory over England and the internal counter-revolution. A significant part of small farmers found themselves in debt bondage to usurers. Prisons were filled with debtors, farmers' lands were sold for debts, and so on.
Insurrections broke out in several states, the most violent of which was the uprising of the poor led by Daniel Shays in Massachusetts (1786-1787). These uprisings, put down with great difficulty, showed the ruling classes the need for a strong central government capable of keeping the masses in subjection.
Federalists - businessmen, large merchants, defended the idea of a strong federal government, had a clear plan for building a political system. The most famous federalist is the second president of the United States, John Adams. He advocated the financial independence of the federal government, but disagreed with the economic program of Alexander Hamilton, which placed the debts of all states, accumulated during the war, on the federal center. To pay off the emerging national debt, Hamilton proposed the creation of a national bank.
The most prominent public figures of that time turned out to be in the federalist camp. In New York, the ratification campaign was marked by the publication of The Federalist, a series of outstanding essays written by Madison, Hamilton, and Jay during the autumn and winter of 1787-88. National newspapers looked up primarily to the new government. Federalist orators reproached their opponents for their limited perspective. The Constitution deserved general support only because it provided future Americans with decent representation - the so-called "natural aristocrats", people with more understanding, skills and training than the average citizen. These gifted leaders, the Federalists insisted, could share and represent the interests of the entire population. They will not be tied to the selfish needs of local communities.
Anti-Federalists advocated the idea of a Bill of Rights and minimal intervention by the federal government in state affairs. They saw its purpose only in international activities. Unlike the Federalists, they did not have a plan for organizing a new government. Most of them were farmers and small traders. The anti-federalists opposed the authoritarian national government, fearing that it might take away their rights, including the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The number of supporters of the anti-federalists was somewhat higher than that of the federalists. Like the extreme Republicans who drafted the first state constitutions, the Anti-Federalists had a deep distrust of political authority. Throughout the ratification debate, they warned that public officials, once elected, would use their position to extend their power rather than work in the public interest.
12. The US Constitution established a republican form of government based on the theory of separation of powers.
Legislative power was entrusted to the Congress, consisting of two chambers: the House of Representatives (elected for a period of two years by direct elections) and the Senate. The Senate was elected by the legislatures of the states and this order was maintained until 1913, when senators began to be elected by the people of the states themselves through direct elections (17th amendment to the constitution) for a period of six years with the renewal of the Senate by 1/3 every two years. A bill passed by one house needs to be approved by the other. The US Congress has the right to legislate on all matters within the jurisdiction of the federation.
The US Constitution provided for the creation of a strong executive power, which was entrusted to the president, elected for four years by indirect elections (through an electoral college, elected directly by the voters in the states). He could be re-elected, but the first US President D. Washington set a precedent: no president should be elected for more than two consecutive terms.
The Federation was in charge of:
establish and levy duties and taxes;
to mint a coin;
make loans;
to regulate domestic (between states) and foreign trade;
establish courts;
declare war and make peace;
recruit and maintain an army and navy;
handle external relations.
13. Legislators understood that most Americans want to see in the constitution, first of all, a guarantee against any encroachment of state authorities on their rights and freedoms.
D. Madison, who made a decisive contribution to the preparation of constitutional amendments to the state assemblies in 1789 and approved by them in 1789 - 1791, which became known as the Bill of Rights, proceeded from this.
* The fundamental idea underlying them was the recognition of the inadmissibility of adopting any laws that violate the freedom of citizens: freedom of religion, freedom of speech and the press, peaceful assembly, the right to appeal to the government with a request to stop abuses (Article I).
* The right to own and bear arms was proclaimed (Article 2).
* It was forbidden in peacetime for soldiers to stay in private houses without the consent of their owners (Article 3).
* Detention of persons, search, seizure of things and papers without legally justified permits issued by the relevant official was recognized as inadmissible (Article 4).
* No one could be prosecuted otherwise than by the decision of a jury, with the exception of cases that arose in the army. No one could be subjected to repeated punishment for the same crime, be deprived of life, freedom, property without a legal trial (Article 5).
* Criminal cases must be tried by jury. The accused has the right to a confrontation with witnesses who testify not in his favor, he was allowed to call witnesses from his side and resort to the advice of a lawyer (Article 6).
* Harsh and unusual punishments were forbidden (v. 8).
* As a general principle, it was established that the rights named in the constitution, including the Bill of 1791, should not detract from all other rights and freedoms "remaining the property of the people" (v. 5) and inextricably linked with it. Another, no less important, "truth not represented by the constitution of the United States, and not taken away from the states by it, belongs to the states or to the people" (Article 10).
Combined with these provisions, the US Constitution became even more progressive. It was created, as subsequent history showed, the most optimal version of the political system for the United States.
The Bill of Rights of 1791 was one of the first amendments to the US Constitution, made a huge shift in the development of democratic institutions of the bourgeois state.
15. Reasons for Roosevelt's New Deal
From 1929 to 1932, there was a severe decline in production, which assumed global proportions: the number of unemployed in industrial countries amounted to from 1/5 to 1/3 of all able-bodied. The all-encompassing crisis was later called the Great Depression.
By the beginning of the 30s. production in the country fell by half, national income by 48%, 40% of banks went bankrupt, unemployment reached an unprecedented scale in the history of this country - every fourth worker and employee was unemployed, ruined depositors and brokers often committed suicide. The unemployed and the homeless filled the wastelands in the city center with barn settlements. The administration of President H. Hoover hoped for a spontaneous overcoming of the crisis and relied on the healthy forces of the social organism - private initiative, free competition and customs barriers. The state was assigned the role of an independent arbiter in the struggle of competing groups.
Essence of the New Deal
The policy aimed at getting the US out of the crisis and which turned out to be the initial stage of a series of socio-political reforms was called the "new course".
The 1932 presidential election campaign was won by Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1882-1945), who had previously been elected Governor of New York twice. Roosevelt, with the support of his closest advisers, dubbed the "Thinker Trust", carefully prepared a positive social program that included:
issues of reforming the administrative and partly the judiciary;
questions of economic planning (here his advisers partly took into account the results of Soviet planning experience) and legislative regulation of the economy by industry;
in the last section there was a great variety - from the design of the construction of a hydroelectric power plant with the simultaneous development of a river valley in Tennessee to the production of canned food.
New Deal measures
1. Economic:
a ban on the export of gold abroad in order to ensure the stabilization of the monetary system;
consolidation of banks with the provision of loans and subsidies to them;
prohibition of financial transactions with foreign governments that do not fulfill their obligations to the United States;
measures to reduce unemployment and reduce its negative consequences (the unemployed were usually sent to specially created organizations - "labor camps", where they were used in the construction and repair of roads, bridges, airfields and other facilities);
2. Legal:
regulation of the economy by special laws - the so-called codes of fair competition, in which quotas for output were given, sales markets were distributed, credit terms and product prices were specified, working hours and wages were established;
a shift in the field of labor (working) and social legislation governing the relationship of employers and employees (reducing the powers of the courts to issue "judicial orders" in connection with labor disputes, a ban on forced signing by workers of an employment contract obliging them to join a trade union);
legalization of the activities of trade unions at the federal level, criminal liability for their creation or participation in legal strikes was abolished, and the “closed shop” rule was adopted, according to which the entrepreneur was obliged to conclude a collective agreement with the trade union and hire only those persons who are members of the trade union. The law recognized the right to strike when the provisions of the law were violated;
a law on fair employment of labor, fixing the maximum hours of work for certain groups and the minimum wage;
the law on social insurance (1935), which laid the foundations of modern social legislation in the country.
Results of Roosevelt's New Deal
As a result, the New Deal, which was a direct massive intervention of the state into the sphere of socio-economic relations and included significant elements of regulation, contributed to mitigating the manifestations of the crisis.
As the crisis emerged, corporations, primarily through the Supreme Court, began to seek the repeal of the New Deal legislation. In order to mitigate future crisis phenomena, new types of state regulation began to be widely introduced, implemented mainly with the help of financial and economic means. After the end of the Second World War, there was a departure from the won positions in the field of labor legislation.
16. Suffrage reforms
In 1961, the voters of the metropolitan District of Columbia received the right to participate in the elections of the President and Vice President of the United States (Amendment XXIII).
In 1962, it was recognized that the electoral districts needed to be changed so that there would be approximately the same number of voters in each of them. Such a change was all the more justified because, under the majoritarian election system in force in the United States, the candidate who receives a relative majority of votes in the district is considered elected.
In 1964, it is prohibited to restrict the electoral rights of citizens due to their non-payment of taxes, including the election tax (Amendment XXIV).
In 1971, voting rights are granted to all citizens who have reached the age of 18 (Amendment XXVI).
suffrage became basically equal and universal. Also, laws were passed at the federal and local levels that protected human rights and were directed against racial, religious and other discrimination.
An important manifestation of centralization was the expansion of the powers of the federal government headed by the president, although there are limitations: in 1951, the ratification of the XXII amendment to the constitution on the election of the president for no more than two terms.
After the Second World War, individual government departments - the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the National Security Council, the Department of Defense (Pentagon) - acquired particular importance. Based on them, the presidents have the opportunity to make decisions, exceeding the powers granted to them by the Constitution, including in matters of war and peace.
In 1939, the Hatch Political Activities Act prohibited government employees from participating in "political campaigns." In 1947, President Truman's executive order required the Civil Service Commission to check the political integrity of candidates for public office. This practice was further tightened by the executive order of President D. Eisenhower (1953) "On checking the political reliability and loyalty of civil servants", which provided for the possibility of their early dismissal.
Only the two largest bourgeois parties in the country, the Democratic and the Republican, are represented in the US Congress. In each of the chambers of Congress, party factions of both parties are formed: the majority faction, i.e. the faction of the party with the most seats in that house, and the minority faction.
17. US Anti-Democratic Legislation
After the Second World War, there was a retreat in the field of labor legislation. A wide arsenal of punitive means was used against the labor and democratic movement:
infringement of the rights of workers;
persecution for dissent;
expansion of the reactionary activity of the police apparatus;
persecution of members of leftist organizations.
In 1947, the Taft-Hartley Labor Regulation Act was passed to create a means of suppressing strikes as well as preventing the politicization of trade unions. The law suppressed a number of areas of labor practice of trade unions, prohibited certain types of strikes. Permissible types of strikes were stipulated by a number of conditions:
the introduction of a "cooling period";
obligatory notification of the entrepreneur of the intention to strike;
solidarity strikes were not allowed, participation in strikes of employees was prohibited;
entrepreneurs were given the right to recover in court damages caused by a strike that goes beyond the limits prescribed by law;
established control over trade union funds;
trade unions were prohibited from making contributions to election funds of persons seeking election to federal office;
the legal regulation of the activities of trade unions was strengthened (the law regulated in detail the procedure for concluding collective agreements, required the leaders of trade unions to sign a signature stating that they were not involved in the activities of the Communist Party);
a federal mediation and reconciliation service was created (conducted negotiations between entrepreneurs and representatives of the working class).
The law also created a permanent presidential emergency mechanism to crack down on unauthorized trade union activity. The president could ban a strike for 80 days if, from his point of view, it threatened national interests, he could go to court to issue a court order to ban the strike, appoint an arbitration commission to consider labor conflicts.
The anti-union activity of the Taft-Hartley Act was strengthened by the Landrum-Griffin Act of 1959, which placed trade unions under even greater control of state bodies, which received the right to regulate the conduct of elections to trade union bodies, determine the size of membership dues, require reports, copies of charters, trade union regulations, etc.
The central place among anti-communist legal acts belongs to the Internal Security Act of 1950 (McCarran-Wood law), which provided for a wide list of restrictions for members of communist organizations: work in the state apparatus, at military enterprises, travel abroad, etc. Each registered organization was deprived of the right to use the services of the mail to send their publications, radio to publish programs.
In 1954, the Humphrey-Butler Control of Communist Activities Act was passed, which explicitly declared the Communist Party of the United States an instrument of conspiracy and an outlaw. Thus, the process of creating a legal basis for a broad offensive by reactionary forces against the democratic rights of American citizens, called McCarthyism (after Senator D. McCarthy), was completed.
In September 1959, the Landrum-Griffin anti-labor law was passed, which finally eliminated the right of trade unions to function freely, placing them completely under the control of the government.
United States antitrust law
Producer monopolies also strive for a monopoly in the sale of goods and the provision of services. In this regard, a number of countries have adopted specialized legislation aimed at ensuring fair competition in the field of trade and suppressing all kinds of violations or outright fraudulent tricks.
The Sherman Act of 1894 and the Clayton Act of 1914 were devoted to this task. They are usually combined under the name of antitrust legislation and are aimed against the creation of such trust (trust) associations with trusted property and beneficiaries that derive profit and income through the creation of monopolies and other constraints in interstate commerce or in dealings with foreign countries. Sanctions were imposed in the form of monetary fines and imprisonment, but these measures proved ineffective.
Among other things, such laws began to apply, in addition to trusts, to those unions that tried to coordinate efforts with unions in other states.
The antitrust nature of the current legislation should also be understood in a narrower sense - in the sense of prohibiting certain types of contracts that lead to unlawful discrimination and weaken free trade: when contracts "bind" or "restrict" competition.
In 1936, the United States introduced a ban on contracts providing for the support of a single price scheme for goods and on the sale of goods at dumping (unreasonably low) prices. The antimonopoly legislation is directly adjacent to the legislation on consumer protection, in particular, on the protection of measures to maintain the "quality" of competition or against the "dishonest methods" of competition (false advertising, the sale of goods without proper labeling, the sale of low-quality goods, and many other ways). In the United States, this legislation dates back to 1914.
After the Second World War, the most significant change in antitrust law came with the passage of the Celler-Kefauver Act in 1950, which was an amendment to Section 7 of the Clayton Act. The greatest changes were made to the antitrust laws, which, without affecting the substantive law, formally provided for measures for their more effective implementation. Thus, in 1955, Congress increased the fine under the Sherman Act to $50,000 by a special act.
In 1952, the "McGuire Act" (amendments to the "Federal Trade Commission Act") was passed, in which the parties to the agreements received the express right to demand compliance with the prices fixed by them not only from firms directly acceding to the agreement, but also from those companies and individual persons who are not participants in such collusions. This law was passed under the pretext of protecting the interests of small industrial and commercial firms. He actually legalized the practice of setting monopoly prices, which is also willingly used by the largest corporations.
In 1962, Congress passed the "Civil Antitrust Litigation Act," which essentially aims to reduce criminal antitrust cases at the expense of some increase in civil cases.
The characteristic methods used by Congress to weaken antitrust laws have been prominently shown in recent acts on bank mergers.
The main principles of antitrust regulation (restrictions on market monopolization, mergers, price fixing and vertical competition restrictions):
antitrust regulation should not affect companies that are growing intensively at the expense of internal resources;
mergers should be regulated only if they can result in a significant limitation of production (in terms of volume, assortment, etc.) due to an increase in the market share of newly created companies;
cartel practices should be pursued most intensively, i.e. price collusion horizontally between the leading companies of the same industry, as well as the division of the market, etc.;
restrictions on vertical competition (i.e. agreements between producers and dealers on the division of territories, setting prices and terms of delivery) are quite legal and should not be regulated, as they ensure the efficiency of the distribution network.
.Socio-economic: England, by type of economy, is an agrarian country 4/5 of the population lived in villages and was engaged in agriculture. Nevertheless, industry appears, cloth-making comes to the fore. New capitalist relations develop => aggravation of new class differences. Changes are taking place in the countryside (fencing, landlessness of peasants => 3 types of peasants: 1) freeholders (free peasants), 2) copyholders (hereditary tenants of landowners' lands, performing a number of duties).
3) agricultural workers - the proletariat (most) were deprived of their basic means of subsistence and were forced to go to the city in search of work. The nobility is divided into 2 types: new (gentry) and old (lives on dues from the peasant class).
56. Prerequisites for the bourgeois revolution in England (economic, political, ideological).
E. Prerequisites England, earlier than other states of Europe, embarked on the capitalist path of development. Here the classical version of the establishment of bourgeois relations was realized, which allowed England to seize world economic leadership at the end of the 17th-18th centuries. The main role in this was played by the fact that the field of development of English capitalism was not only the city, but also the countryside. The village in other countries was a stronghold of feudalism and traditionalism, and in England, on the contrary, it became the base for the development of the most important industry of the 17th-18th centuries - cloth making. Capitalist production relations began to penetrate the English countryside as early as the 16th century. They manifested themselves in the fact that 1) most of the nobility began to engage in entrepreneurial activities, creating sheep farms and turning into a new bourgeois nobility - the gentry. 2) in an effort to increase income, the feudal lords turned arable land into profitable pastures for livestock, drove their holders - peasants (fenced) from them and thereby created an army of paupers - people who had no choice but to become civilian workers. The development of the capitalist structure in England led to the aggravation of class contradictions and the division of the country into supporters and opponents of the feudal-absolutist system. Absolutism was opposed by all bourgeois elements: the new nobility (gentry), who aspired to become full owners of the land by abolishing knightly holdings and speeding up the process of enclosing; the bourgeoisie itself (merchants, financiers, merchants, industrialists, etc.), who wished to limit royal power and force it to serve the interests of the capitalist development of the country. But the opposition drew its main strength from the dissatisfaction with its position of the general population and, above all, the rural and urban poor. The defenders of the feudal foundations remained a significant part of the nobility (the old nobility) and the highest aristocracy, who received their income from the collection of old feudal rents, and the guarantor of their preservation was the royal power and the Anglican Church. I. background and socio-political aspirations of the opposition. And the prerequisite for the first bourgeois revolutions in Europe was the Reformation, which gave rise to a new model of consciousness based on individualism, practicality and enterprise. In the middle of the 16th century, England, having survived the Reformation, became a Protestant country. The Anglican Church was a mixture of Catholicism and Protestantism. From Catholicism, 7 sacraments, rites, the order of worship and all 3 degrees of priesthood were withheld; from Protestantism was taken the doctrine of the ecclesiastical supremacy of state power, of justification by faith, of the significance of Holy Scripture as the sole basis of dogma, worship in the native language, and the abolition of monasticism. The king was declared the head of the church, so the Anglican Church arose during the reign of Henry VIII, who approved the Anglican catechism ("42 articles of faith" and
a special service) speaking out against the church meant speaking out against the royal power. The same Protestantism, but more extreme, became the ideological opposition to absolutism and the Anglican Church. The most consistent supporters of the Reformation were the English Puritan Calvinists.
(in Latin "purus" - clean) demanded changes both in the church (cleansing it from the remnants of Catholicism) and in
state. There were several currents in Puritanism that were in opposition to absolutism and the Anglican Church. During the revolution, they were divided into independent political groups. The moderate course of the Puritans is the Prosbyterians, (the top of the new nobility and the wealthy merchants). It was believed that the church should not be controlled by the king, but by an assembly of priests - presbyters (as in Scotland). In the public sphere, they also sought the subordination of royal power to parliament. More to the left was the course of the Independents ("independent"), (the middle bourgeoisie and the new nobility). In the religious sphere, they advocated the independence of each religious community, and in the state they desired the establishment of a constitutional monarchy and demanded a redistribution of voting rights in order to increase the number of their voters in the House of Commons. The Levellers (equalizers), (artisans and free peasants) were a radical religious and political grouping. The Levellers advocated the proclamation of a republic and the introduction of universal male suffrage. Diggers (diggers), (urban and rural poor) went even further. They demanded the elimination of private property and property inequality. P. preconditions for revolution. After the death of Elizabeth I, the English throne passed to her relative - the Scottish king, who was crowned in 1603 under the name of James Stuart, King of England. Leaving behind the Scottish crown, Jacob moved to London. John Lilburn was the leader of the Levellers. The Levellers believed that if everyone is equal before God, then in life the differences between people must be eliminated by establishing equality of rights. The diggers got their name from the fact that in April 1649 they began joint cultivation of the land on the wasteland of a hill 30 miles from London. Their leader Gerald Winstanley said: "The earth was created so that all the sons and daughters of the human race could freely use it", "The earth was created in order to be the common property of all who live on it." The first representative of the Stuart dynasty was obsessed with the idea of the divine origin of royal power and the need for the complete abolition of the power of Parliament. The course towards strengthening absolutism was continued during the reign of his son, Charles I. The first Stuarts regularly introduced new taxes without the sanction of parliament, which did not suit the majority of the population. 2 commissions continued to operate in the country: the "Star Chamber", which dealt with issues of state security, and in fact the persecution of those who dared to speak out against the lawlessness, and the "High Commission",
which served as the court inquisition over the Puritans. In 1628, Parliament presented the King with a "Petition of Rights", which contained a number of demands: - not to levy taxes without the general consent of this act of Parliament (Article 10); - not to make arrests contrary to the customs of the kingdom (art. 2); - to stop the practice of military outposts among the population, etc. (Article 6). After some hesitation, the king signed the petition. However, the expected reconciliation did not come. In 1629, the refusal of Parliament to approve new royal requisitions provoked the wrath of Charles I and the dissolution of Parliament. Non-parliamentary rule continued until 1640, when, as a result of an unsuccessful war with Scotland, a financial crisis occurred in the country. In search of a way out, Charles I convened a parliament, called the "Short". By refusing to immediately discuss the issue of financial
subsidies, it was dissolved without even a month of operation. The dispersal of parliament gave a decisive impetus to the struggle of the masses, the bourgeoisie and the new nobility against absolutism. Thus, in England by the middle of the XVII century. the economic, ideological and political prerequisites for the bourgeois revolution took shape. The socio-economic development of the country came into conflict with a more rigid political system. The situation was aggravated by a severe financial crisis, which caused in the early 40s of the XVII century. revolutionary situation in the country.
1. Prerequisites for the revolution.
2. The main stages of the revolution.
3. Restoration of the Stuarts.
4. "Glorious Revolution" 1689
1. In the history of the countries of Western Europe in the 17th century. was marked by a crisis that engulfed most countries in the region and had an impact on almost all aspects of public life. The economy was in a depression. Many European countries in the XVII century. were covered by socio-political mass movements, the cause of which was a deep crisis in the existing socio-political systems. Under these conditions, the English bourgeois revolution of the 17th century. marked the beginning of a new era. It proclaimed the principles of a new, bourgeois society, made irreversible the process of the formation of bourgeois social and political orders, not only in England, but in Europe as a whole.
By the beginning of the XVII century. in England, the economic, political and ideological preconditions for a bourgeois revolution matured. The bourgeoisie and the new nobility, armed with the ideology of puritanism, increasingly came into conflict with the royal power. The presence of this religious ideology as a religious one was one of the most important features of the English Revolution. In general, the most important consequence of the Puritan movement was the dissemination in large sections of society of the consciousness of the urgent need for change in both church and state.
Puritanism was not a homogeneous movement. In its ranks, three main currents can be distinguished, which set different tasks during the revolution:
1. Presbyterianism - united the big bourgeoisie and the landed aristocracy, who adhered to the idea of establishing a constitutional monarchy.
2. Independence found supporters in the ranks of the middle and petty bourgeoisie. Generally agreeing with the idea of a constitutional monarchy, the Independents at the same time demanded a redistribution of electoral districts, which would allow them to increase the number of their representatives in Parliament, as well as the recognition of such rights as freedom of conscience, speech, etc., for a free person.
3. The Levellers are the most radical movement. It united artisans, free peasants, who demanded the establishment of a republic, equality of all citizens. The most militant positions in the ranks of the Levellers were the so-called diggers.
Conflicts began to escalate in connection with the policy of the first kings from the Stuart dynasty. In 1603, after the death of Elizabeth, the Scottish king James VI acceded to the English throne; in England he was James I (1603-1625). The two states were united by a dynastic union, although each of them retained its own governments and parliaments; this was some step towards the peaceful unification of the two states.
James I and his son Charles I (Charles) (1625-1649) were faced with a choice: either abandon the position of absolute monarchs, submit to the dictates of the bourgeoisie and the new nobility and sacrifice the interests of the secular and spiritual nobility, or take the path of feudal reaction. The choice that the first Stuarts made - in favor of feudal reaction - was determined primarily by the fact that the interests of the feudal lords for an absolute monarchy were always higher than the interests of the bourgeoisie and the bourgeois nobility. Of course, the fact that the Stuarts did not have a tradition of seeking support in the "middle classes" was of some importance, and even the fact that James I - the son of the executed Mary Stuart - belonged to a group closely associated with international Catholic reaction.
The new king directed the entire power of the state apparatus not against the opposition from the right - the Catholic elements, but against the Puritans - the bearers of the bourgeois revolutionary ideology. The persecution of the Puritans, which had a religious character, in essence, was a repression directed against political opponents.
The most severe repression fell upon the Puritans. Submissive to the king and bishops, the judges sentenced the Puritans to imprisonment, cruel torture, cutting off their ears, and nailing them to the pillory. The Star Chamber, created by Henry VII to fight against political opponents from among the big feudal lords, has now become an organ for reprisals against the bourgeois opposition. The High Commission, the highest judicial body of the Anglican Church, was especially raging, having the right to judge secular persons who committed "crimes against religion and morality." The most severe censorship was introduced in the country, but Puritan literature printed in Holland was secretly delivered to England and distributed in Puritan circles. The massacre of political opponents not only exacerbated the contradictions, but also brought economic damage to the state. The Protestants from the Netherlands, Germany, and France, who had found shelter in England, predominantly the artisan and merchant population, were now leaving the country en masse. Moreover, at least 60,000 English yeoman Puritans, artisans, and merchants left England. It was due to these emigrants that the settlement of Virginia and other North American colonies - the future United States of America - began.
And the foreign policy of the Stuarts was contrary to the national interests of England. The Stuarts preferred an alliance with this Catholic power to the traditional struggle against Spain. It was precisely on the basis of international reaction that the new dynasty opposed the growing progressive forces. The king even planned to strengthen the alliance with Spain through a dynastic marriage and marry the heir to the throne to the Spanish infanta. When this plan met with strong resistance, James I married Charles to the Catholic French princess Henrietta Maria, thereby securing the support of French absolutism. This turn in foreign policy was directly related to the political and ideological reaction within the country. Although Anglican Protestantism remained the official religion, Catholics received de facto freedom of religion, approached the court, and Henrietta Maria's entourage openly celebrated mass.
But nothing caused such indignation among the broad sections of the people, among the bourgeoisie and squires, as the economic policy of the first Stuarts. Pensions and festivities, the maintenance of a huge staff of the clergy were very expensive, and the monarchy was looking for more and more new sources of income. From time to time, parliaments convened systematically denied appropriations to the king and made the provision of money dependent on all domestic and foreign policy. Then parliament would dissolve, and the king would intensify the sale of patents and privileges, the collection of fines for violating senseless restrictions on trade and industry, and so on.
Spurred on by mass actions of the urban and rural lower classes, which undermined the strength of the monarchy, the members of parliament became more and more determined. In March 1628, Parliament declared that it would not agree to any appropriations or new taxes until the king recognized some of the principles of government set forth in the Petition of Right. It was the first clearly formulated document that reflected the demands of the opposition: the elimination of royal arbitrariness and some limitation of royal power - such was the essence of the requirements. The petition forbade arrests without trial, i.e. was directed against illegal repressions. Equally important was the clause prohibiting the collection of taxes, "gifts", loans without the sanction of Parliament. Thus, the king was placed in complete dependence on the parliament, which received the opportunity to decide annually whether to release or not to release certain amounts. Finally, two points of the petition were calculated to prevent the creation of a standing royal army, which could become an instrument of despotism. The very fact that these demands were put forward meant that an organized force of the bourgeois opposition had already formed in parliament. Charles I needed money so much that he agreed to all the conditions. The petition was accepted, the money released, but the king did not intend to fulfill these promises. In 1629 he dissolved parliament and for 11 years ruled the country uncontrollably. It was during this period, when, it would seem, absolutism won completely, a revolutionary situation began to take shape in the country.
The cruelties of the Star Chamber and the High Commission during the period of "non-parliamentary government" were monstrous. The closest advisers to the king were Earl Strafford, a defector from the camp of the parliamentary opposition, and Archbishop William Laud. Both of them deserve universal hatred. Lod sent the Puritans on the rack and pillory, Strafford, who held the whole of England in the grip of terror, left a particularly bloody trail in Ireland, where he was appointed Lord Lieutenant in 1633. Confident that they could crush any opposition, the king and his entourage went ahead. Contrary to the decrees of Parliament, royal officials levied customs duties. In 1635, the king resumed levying a long-forgotten tax - the so-called ship's money, which was paid "to combat piracy" in the coastal counties. Now, in the presence of a powerful English fleet, pirates had not been heard of for a long time, and the tax, which, moreover, was extended to all of England, caused a storm of indignation.
The fanatical opponent of the Presbyterian Church, Laud, had long been contriving a means of subjugating the Scottish Church. Although Scotland, connected with England since 1603 by a dynastic union, completely retained its independence, in 1637 Laud, inspired by the "successes" of absolutism, announced that Anglican worship was being introduced in Scotland. This was the first step towards the liquidation of the Presbyterian organization of the church. But it didn't take the next step. The Scottish Calvinists refused to obey this order, concluded, as in the 16th century, a covenant and began to prepare for armed struggle. The popular masses of Scotland, who had repelled the English invading armies more than once in the past, went after the nobility and the bourgeoisie, since they saw in this conflict not so much a church dispute as a struggle for the independence of their country.
The Scottish struggle for independence, begun under the slogan of resistance to the Anglican Church, very close and understandable to the Puritans, met with sympathy in the broad strata of the English people. The army assembled by Charles did not want to fight against the Scots, and the king, trying to gain time, offered the enemy a truce. This first defeat of the hated king caused a storm of delight in England; London merchants even held a feast in honor of the defeat of Charles I.
Meanwhile, the reactionary economic policy of the Stuarts by the end of the 30s. brought the country to the brink of disaster. Production was reduced, thousands of artisans and factory workers lost their jobs. This caused widespread unrest in London and other parts of the country. The majority of the population stopped paying the "ship tax", and the officials could no longer cope with this mass movement. The long-pent-up popular anger finally broke through, and this, along with the Scottish example, whipped up the leaders of the opposition.
When, in April 1640, for the first time since the Petition of Right, Charles convened Parliament, demanding subsidies for the war with Scotland, the members of the House of Commons spoke in a different language. By categorically refusing subsidies, Parliament attacked the king and his advisers with sharp criticism. But even in this situation, Charles I, Strafford, Lod did not make concessions. Parliament was dissolved three weeks after it was convened, hence it was called the "Short Parliament".
The renewed war with Scotland brought new defeats to the English army, now led by Strafford. The Scots occupied the northern counties. The monarchy turned out to be powerless both in the face of an external enemy and in the fight against internal opposition. Stay in power by ruling in the old way, i.e. in the spirit of absolutism, the tops of English society could no longer.
2. After the dissolution of the obstinate Parliament, the position of Charles I became even more critical.
Realizing that without a parliament it would be impossible to resolve the military and political crisis, the king in November 1640 convened a new parliament, which later became known as the Long Parliament: it lasted until 1653.
With the activities of the Long Parliament, the first stage of the revolution begins - the constitutional one.
In general, the history of the English bourgeois revolution is usually divided into four stages: 1) the constitutional stage (November 3, 1640 - August 22, 1642); 2) the first civil war (1642-1646); 3) the second civil war and the struggle to deepen the democratic content of the revolution (1646-1649); 4) independent republic (1649-1653).
Elections to the Long Parliament did not produce a composition of Parliament favorable to the king. In order to protect itself from unexpected dissolution, the Long Parliament passed two important acts: a three-year act providing for the convocation of a parliament every three years regardless of the will of the king, and an act according to which this parliament could not be dissolved except by his own decision. These documents, for the first time in the history of England, put Parliament, if not above the king, then in a position independent of him. Just at this time, crowds of demonstrators surrounded the parliament building, demanding radical legislation, and even threatened to sack the royal palace. This decided the matter. The king was forced to sign the bill. Parliament therefore became "long" because the people forced the king to sign a law that sharply limited his rights.
Within a year (until the autumn of 1641) Parliament passed and the king signed a whole series of bills that undermined the absolutist system and its state apparatus. All illegal taxes, including ship money, were abolished; henceforth it was forbidden to levy any taxes without the sanction of Parliament. In other words, the parliament took control over the country's finances and received a powerful lever to put pressure on the crown. Patents for monopolies and privileges were also abolished. The Star Chamber, the High Commission and other organs of political terror were abolished.
On December 1, 1641, Parliament adopted the Great Remonstrance, which outlined the program of the allied classes in the revolution as it was seen by them at that stage. The Remonstrance began by pointing out the danger that hung over the kingdom, the source of which was a "malicious party" in its desire to change the religion and political system of England. The actions of this "party" explained the wars with Scotland, and the uprising in Ireland, and the constitutional conflict between the king and parliament. In the Remonstrance, demands were made to remove bishops from the House of Lords and reduce their power over subjects. To this end, it was proposed to carry out a complete reformation of the church. Many articles of the Remonstrance are devoted to the issues of the inviolability of property, both movable and immovable. The illegality of the fencing of communal lands and the ruin of the cloth industry were also noted. A number of articles pointed to the destruction and impossibility of arbitrariness in the collection of taxes on the part of royal power and non-parliamentary government.
All the documents adopted by the Long Parliament limited the royal power and contributed to the establishment of a constitutional monarchy.
Karl approved all these documents, which was explained by his fear of an armed crowd. The threatening behavior of the crowd was the decisive argument of the House of Commons in the implementation of the most important acts of the constitutional period of the revolution. The constitutional conflict was not resolved, but by the autumn of 1642, it escalated into an armed conflict.
In general, two stages can be distinguished in the course of the civil war: 1) when the military leadership was in the hands of the Presbyterians and the troops of Parliament fought with the royal troops; 2) when the leadership passed to the Independents and the army was already fighting with the top of the parliament. At the first stage of the war, the advantage was on the side of the royal army, better trained and armed. The failures of the parliamentary army forced it to be reorganized according to the plan proposed by General O. Cromwell.
Oliver Cromwell (1599-1658) is one of the most prominent leaders of the revolution, who later became its strangler.
He was a typical representative of the new nobility, and in particular of that group of it, which became rich during the period of confiscation of church lands. Like other squires, Cromwell was no stranger to capitalist enterprise and attached very little importance to whether he would own his ancestral land (which was very important for the old nobility) or get rich in other ways. He bought and leased land and, when it was profitable, sold his ancestral holdings. The flesh of the flesh of his class, Cromwell possessed both its virtues - disdain for nobility, enterprise, a penchant for using the achievements of science, and its vices - acquisitiveness, respect for property, puritanical narrow-mindedness. One of the distinguished members of parliament left a description of the appearance of Cromwell - a typical rich village puritan: “One morning I, well dressed, appeared in parliament and saw a gentleman making a speech ... , a simple country tailor; his linen was plain and not very clean; ... he had a large figure, and his sword fit snugly to his side, his face was red and puffy, his voice was sharp and unmelodious, and his speech was extremely ardent.
In this mediocrity, proximity to the external and spiritual appearance of the average landowner was the strength of Cromwell, since the new nobility considered him theirs and subsequently obeyed his orders more willingly than the will of politicians and military leaders from the aristocratic environment. But Cromwell, of course, differed from the average representatives of his class with extraordinary energy, willpower, determination, oratorical and especially organizational skills.
As a result of the reform proposed by O. Cromwell, an army was created, called the "new model". Soldiers began to be recruited from people of military origin, the army was subordinated to a single command, capable people from the people were promoted to command positions. Cromwell, being an Independent, secured a leading role in the army for members of the Independent communities. To eliminate aristocrats from the military leadership, the "Bill of Self-denial" was adopted, according to which members of parliament could not hold command positions in the army. An exception was made only for Cromwell.
As a result, in 1645 the royal troops were defeated, and the king fled to Scotland, where he was handed over to Parliament.
By this time, the differences between parliament and the army were becoming more and more distinct. For the Presbyterians in Parliament, the revolution was essentially complete. They were quite satisfied with the idea of the supremacy of the parliament, which exercises power in the country together with the king, i.e. the idea of a political system like a constitutional monarchy. The Independents, and especially the Levellers, demanded more radical reforms.
The struggle between the Independents and the Presbyterians escalated in the spring of 1648 - a second civil war broke out, unleashed by the king and the Presbyterian Parliament. Only the support of the Levellers ensured the victory of the Independent army, within which a split occurred between the top commanders (grands) and the rank and file.
After Cromwell's victory, he removed active Presbyterian members from Parliament. The remaining members of Parliament formed a "parliamentary rump" obedient to the Independents.
After the execution of the king in 1649, Parliament declared England a republic. The House of Lords was abolished and the House of Commons declared itself the supreme power. The State Council became the supreme executive body. His tasks included: opposition to the restoration of the monarchy, the management of the country's armed forces, the establishment of taxes, the management of trade and the country's foreign policy.
Cromwell's power increasingly acquired the character of a personal dictatorship. Having not received support in Parliament, Cromwell dispersed it in 1653.
At the end of 1653, a constitution was introduced, called the "Instrument of Management" ("Instrument of Management") and consolidated the military dictatorship of Cromwell.
Under the new constitution, the supreme legislative power was concentrated in the hands of the Lord Protector and Parliament. Parliament was unicameral. Participation in elections was limited to a rather high property qualification, which was 100 times higher than that existed before the revolution.
The supreme executive power was given to the Lord Protector and the Council of State, the appointment of whose members was entirely dependent on the Lord Protector.
Between sessions of Parliament, the Lord Protector commanded the armed forces, carried out diplomatic relations with other states, and appointed senior officials.
The constitution directly declared Cromwell Lord Protector for life, thus securing his personal dictatorship.
Soon Cromwell ceased to convene Parliament, he appointed members of the State Council at his own discretion. In 1657 the upper chamber was restored. Local government was concentrated in the hands of the generals of the Cromwellian army.
It can be said that the “Instrument of Management” contained monarchical principles, it consolidated the regime of sole power, corresponding to the monarchic one in terms of the breadth of powers, and in some ways even wider. Since that time, the movement back begins - from the republic to the monarchy.
3. The death of Cromwell in 1658 changed the course of events. For some time, power passed into the hands of his son, Richard Cromwell, who did not enjoy either authority or influence in society. In 1659, the remnant of the Long Parliament declared itself the founding power and in 1660 elevated Charles II (1630-1685), the son of the executed king, to the throne. Upon accession to the throne, he signed the Breda Declaration, which contained his main promises and obligations. He promised to keep their revolutionary gains for the nobles and the bourgeoisie and not to persecute those who fought against the king during the years of the revolution. But these promises were broken. The restoration of the monarchy was accompanied by the revival of the old order.
During these years, the first two political parties appeared in England. One of them - the Tories - united the supporters of the king, supporters of strengthening his power. The second party - the Whigs - represented the interests of the bourgeoisie and the middle nobility, opposed to the crown.
For a long time, representatives of the Tories dominated the Parliament of England. The Whigs, being in opposition and being persecuted, tried to pass a law on guarantees of the inviolability of citizens through Parliament. They managed to do this only in 1679, when the Whigs had a majority in Parliament.
The new law was called the Habeas Corpus Act, or "An Act for the better provision of subjects and for the prevention of imprisonment overseas." According to this law, in the event of arrest, the detainee was to be charged within 24 hours. And the court was obliged either to release the arrested person on bail until the trial, or to leave him under arrest, or to release him completely. The procedure for release pending trial on bail was known in England before. However, for the first time, the responsibility of persons guilty of failure to comply with the instructions provided for in the act was established.
Persons imprisoned for debt, arrested for high treason or a felony, and persons arrested on civil lawsuits were not covered by the law. It was difficult for the poor to take advantage of the benefits of this law, since they did not have a real opportunity to appeal against its violation and reach the highest judicial instances - all this required money.
At the same time, the parliament retained the right to suspend the habeas corpus act in the event of popular unrest and hostilities.
The immediate significance of this Act at the time of its promulgation was to create a guarantee of immunity for members of the Whig Parliament and their adherents from persecution of royal power. The Act later became one of the most important constitutional documents in England.
The habeas corpus act was approved by Charles II on the condition that the Whigs would not oppose the occupation of the throne by James II. This was the first constitutional compromise in post-revolutionary England, whose history has subsequently developed under the influence of such compromises.
4. The new King James II (1633-1701) ascended the throne in 1685. He openly pursued an anti-bourgeois policy, and Parliament, although predominantly Tory, did not support him. Under these conditions, the Tories and the Whigs compromised and, having united their forces, made the so-called "Glorious Revolution". As a result of this event, William of Orange (1650-1702) was elevated to the English throne in 1689. The wife of William of Orange was Mary, the daughter of Jacob Stuart, and this gave an element of legitimacy, continuity to the plans for inviting William to the English throne. In addition, Wilhelm was a Protestant and an active opponent of French hegemony, which corresponded to the foreign policy interests of the bourgeois-noble bloc. From that moment on, a constitutional monarchy was finally established in England. The essence of the new compromise was that political power, both in the center and in the localities, remained in the hands of the landowners, who pledged to respect the interests of the bourgeoisie.
The new king, upon accession to the throne, signed the Declaration of Rights, which later received the name "Bill of Rights". The main significance of the Bill is in the approval of the supremacy of Parliament in the field of legislation.
The document stated that the king had no right, without the consent of parliament, to suspend the operation of laws, to release anyone from their action, to allow any exceptions to laws. The King may not levy fees for his own benefit without the consent of Parliament. Recruitment and maintenance of troops is possible only with the consent of Parliament.
Parliamentary elections must be free. Freedom of speech and debate is ensured in parliament; Prosecution for speaking in Parliament is prohibited.
The subjects of the king have the right to apply to him with petitions and no one can be prosecuted for such petitions.
It is forbidden to demand excessive bails, fines, apply penalties not provided for by law.
Thus, the Bill of Rights determined the position of Parliament in the system of government and, giving it broad powers in the field of legislation, drew, however, not very clearly the boundary between the executive and legislative branches of government. The king, along with parliament, participates in legislative activity, he has the right of absolute veto. In addition, the king retains significant executive and judicial powers.
Another very important constitutional law of England was passed in 1701. It was the Act of Dispensation or the Act of Succession. An important place in this law was occupied by the question of the order of succession to the throne after the childless William of Orange and his wife. The act established the Castilian system of succession to the throne. This means that both a man and a woman can inherit the throne. The eldest son of the king or queen, who bears the title of Prince of Wales, is considered to be the rightful heir. The next heir is the second, third son, etc. (in descending order), bypassing daughters. If the monarch has no sons at all, then I inherit daughters - according to seniority. At the same time, a Catholic (only a Protestant) cannot be a monarch, and the husband (wife) of a monarch cannot be a Catholic. The throne is transferred only to the heir and his children, but not to the spouse.
In addition, the law confirmed the limitation of royal power in favor of Parliament. For the development of the constitutional order of England, two provisions were most important. One of them established the so-called principle of countersignature, according to which acts issued by the king are valid only if the signature of the relevant minister is present (a kind of sighting).
The second important provision was the establishment of the principle of irremovability of judges. Until that time, judges held their offices as long as it was "pleasing to the king." Under the Act, they perform their duties as long as they "behave well." They can only be removed from office by a decision of Parliament. This rule was of great importance for the development of the English constitution, as it proclaimed the separation of the judiciary from the executive.
Thus, under the influence of the revolution in England by the beginning of the XVIII century. Three important constitutional laws were adopted (the Habeas Corpus Act, the Bill of Rights, the Dispensation Act), which still constitute the written part of the English constitution and laid the foundation for the formation of a constitutional monarchy.
At the beginning of the XVII century. England experienced rapid economic development. In the century preceding the revolution, the extraction of coal increased 14 times in the country, and the extraction of iron ore increased 3 times. Great success was achieved by industry and trade. Nevertheless, discontent ripened in society. The bourgeoisie was annoyed by shop regulation, petty tutelage of production on the part of the state. Wide sections of the population expressed disagreement with the tax, foreign, religious policy of the king, protested against the arbitrariness perpetrated by royal officials. The special hatred of the people, the bourgeoisie, and the parliament was caused by the activities of the Star Chamber and the High Commission - extrajudicial justice bodies that suppressed political and religious opposition to the existing regime. Religious slogans had a great influence on the course of the English bourgeois revolution. It was impossible to crush absolutism without crushing its ideological support, without discrediting in the eyes of the masses the old faith that sanctified the old order; it was impossible to rouse the people to fight for the triumph of bourgeois relations without substantiating the sanctity of the new relations. The "religious garments" of the English Revolution are a vivid manifestation of its early character.
The originality of the English revolution consisted in the fact that, together with the bourgeoisie, the gentry, the new nobility, who did not shy away from bourgeois methods of enrichment, opposed the king and the feudal system. The backbone of the revolutionary army was made up of yeomen - peasants who owned land plots on the basis of actual ownership.
In the camp of the opponents of the king, united under religious banners, three main currents emerged during the revolution: the Presbyterians, the Independents, and the Levellers. The Presbyterians advocated the reform of the Anglican Church, cleansing it of Catholicism so that church affairs were decided at meetings of church elders (presbyters), and at the same time for limiting the power of the king. The meaning of their demands was figuratively described by the king himself: "You want a meeting of presbyters in the Scottish manner, but this is also inconsistent with the monarchy, like hell with God." During the revolution, the Independents put forward more radical demands: the complete independence of church communities, the establishment of a constitutional monarchy in the country, and later a republic with freedom of speech and conscience. Finally, the Levellers insisted on the proclamation of a republic with suffrage for the entire male population, with the annual election of parliament and the election of officials, as well as the return to the communities of the lands taken from them as a result of "enclosure". The most radical trend of the English Revolution was expressed by the Diggers, who demanded the abolition of private property. However, their influence on the course of events was insignificant.
The camp of the supporters of the king, who advocated the preservation of the existing order, consisted of the court aristocracy and the feudal nobility, as well as the Anglican Church, which had great material wealth and significant influence among part of the population.
The maturing of a revolutionary explosion dates back to the first decades of the 17th century. To the demands of parliament to respect his historical rights, the king replied that "there are only favors that can be given and can be taken away."
Parliament refuses to provide money to the king, and at the session in 1628
Adopts the "Petition of Rights" in which he asks the King that no one should henceforth be compelled to pay taxes and fees to the royal treasury "without the general consent given by Parliament" and that no person be imprisoned for refusing to pay illegal taxes. The petition noted the illegal activities of the Star Chamber and the High Commission, and reminded the King that no English subject could be captured, imprisoned, dispossessed, or exiled without a judgment. In the Petition, Parliament asked the king not to house soldiers in the houses of his subjects.
The petition for rights of 1628 in many respects only repeated the content of articles 12 and 14, 39 and 40 of the Magna Carta, but in the new conditions it acquired the significance of a document that foreshadowed the end of royal absolutism and the transition to a different statehood. The king was forced to sign the Petition, but did not comply with it, he dispersed Parliament and did not convene it for eleven whole years.
The next, liberal-democratic stage of the revolution begins in 1640, when the king, in dire need of money to wage war with Scotland, was forced to convene parliament. The new, Long Parliament (it lasted until 1653), in which the majority were Presbyterians, disobeys the king and leads a broad anti-feudal movement that has developed into an armed struggle between the armies of the king and parliament.
With the activities of the Long Parliament is associated with the elimination of the absolute monarchy in England. The right of the king to command the army is limited and a parliamentary army is created. The Star Chamber and the High Commission are abolished. Condemnation at the insistence of Parliament and the subsequent execution of the adviser to the King, Earl Stafford, establishes the rule of impeachment - the right of Parliament to bring high dignitaries to trial.
In 1641, Parliament adopts the Triennial Act, according to which the time interval between sessions of Parliament should not exceed three years. Soon, the Triennial Act was supplemented by a new law: Parliament could not be dissolved, its sessions were interrupted or postponed except with the consent of the Parliament itself.
In the same year, Parliament adopted a document called the "Great Remonstrance", which contained an extensive list of abuses committed by the royal administration, and proposed to reform the Anglican Church, as well as to appoint persons who enjoy the confidence of Parliament to important public positions. Such a demand expressed the intention of Parliament to put the executive power under its control. The Great Remonstrance, however, was not approved by the king.
With the outbreak of the civil war, the legislative and executive powers are concentrated in the hands of Parliament; the episcopate is abolished and the Presbyterian structure of the church is introduced. Major changes are taking place in property relations. Lands belonging to the episcopate and royalists are being confiscated and sold. In 1646, an act was adopted with a pronounced bourgeois content - on the abolition of "knightly holdings", by which the noble lands were freed from duties to the king (service to the king, later replaced by monetary contributions). These lands now became full private property. But the lands of the copyholder peasants were not freed from feudal obligations in favor of the landlords, with which the limited, even "conservative" nature of the liberal democratic stage and the entire English revolution is usually associated.
In the course of the unfolding civil war, the army of Parliament, led by Cromwell, won, the king was captured. But at the same time, contradictions within the revolutionary camp are intensifying. The Independents, backed by the army, are pushing for more radical changes. As a result, “to protect the freedom of Parliament”, the army enters London and disperses the “rump” of the Long Parliament (before that, “Purges of parliament from unwanted army deputies” were carried out). Somewhat earlier, on January 30, 1649, the English king Charles I was executed. England becomes a republic. The executive power was handed over to the State Council of 40 people, the parliament was preserved, but the upper house - the House of Lords - was liquidated.
Cromwell protectorate. It seemed that the revolution had won a complete victory, but discontent grew in the country. “Oh, members of parliament and soldiers,” said one of the Levellers’ petitions, “listen to the children crying:“ Bread, bread ... ”. We have gone through all the difficulties and dangers of war in order to win for the people ... an abundant harvest of freedom. Instead, to the deep chagrin and grief of our hearts, we see that the oppression remains as great as before, if not more. As a result of the agitation of the Levellers, fermentation intensifies in the army. There were demonstrations in some army units against officers. In order to stop the revolutionary ferment in the country, suppress the discontent of the masses, consolidate the achievements of the previous period and achieve the stabilization of the state order, the top of the officers, led by Cromwell, proceeds to repressive measures to suppress the opposition - several soldiers from among the supporters of the Levellers were shot. The revolution passes to the stage of military dictatorship.
The constitution, which consolidated the new state order, was a document developed by the top officers - the instrument of government in 1653.
The Instrument of Government did not explicitly state that England was becoming a republic. Parliament, the Lord Protector and the Council of State were recognized as the highest state organs. At the same time, the Lord Protector was vested with exceptionally broad powers; Oliver Cromwell was named him. It can be said that a dictatorship of one person was established in the country, veiled and embellished by the preservation of the parliament. In the history of modern times, the instrument of control is a vivid example of the fact that in the forms of the republic the power of one person is affirmed, acquiring the character of a military dictatorship.
Parliament. Parliament was elected on the basis of an extremely high property qualification of £200, which greatly limited the circle of people who participated in the elections.
Legislative power, if retained by Parliament, was simultaneously given to the Lord Protector. “The supreme legislative power ... is concentrated and resides in one person and the people, represented in the parliamentarian” (Article 1). Parliament was to be convened every three years, its sessions were not to be adjourned or interrupted within five months from the date of the first meeting. Parliament also had financial powers, but a "permanent annual fee" was established for the maintenance of the army, the administration of justice and other expenses of the government. In reality, the role of parliament was significantly limited.
Lord Protector. He did not have the right to change, suspend or repeal laws, but he could issue acts equivalent to laws. Executive power was entrusted to the Lord Protector and the Council of State. However, the Lord Protector appointed to all positions, including members of the Council of State, as well as officers appointed at the head of administrative districts. He exercised command of the military forces (with the consent of Parliament or the State Council), was in charge of international affairs up to the right to declare war and conclude peace (with the consent of the State Council). As the de facto head of state, he had the right to pardon.
The Council of State shared executive power with the Lord Protector. However, the members of the council, as already noted, were appointed by the Lord Protector. The activities of the executive power had an independent financial base in the form of a "permanent annual fee", which made it independent of the right of Parliament to set public expenditures.
Thus, if Parliament had the supreme right to legislate and decide on the finances of the country (which later became traditional), then this right was seriously limited in favor of Cromwell and the State Council.
The implementation of the Tool of Government in the subsequent political life of England led for a time (until the death of Cromwell) to the establishment of a military dictatorship. In exercising power, Cromwell relied on the army and the top officers. He did not get along with Parliament, though he convened it, but soon dispersed it. England was divided into 11 districts, in which all power was actually transferred to major generals. Police orders are established in the country. England becomes silent, suspicious, there are cases of secret conspiracies. Fearing popular uprisings, in his instructions to major generals, Cromwell ordered to fight resolutely against wickedness, not to allow "neither equestrian competitions, nor cockfights ... because rebellions arise, taking advantage of such cases."
The Navigation Acts vividly characterize Cromwell's dictatorship. In the interests of the English bourgeoisie, these acts, in particular, established: first, non-European goods are imported into the possessions of England only on English ships; the second - European goods - either on English ships or on the ships of the country that produces these goods. Under Cromwell, the foundations of the British colonial empire were laid.
Wars of Cromwell. An important aspect of Cromwell's protectorate was the almost continuous wars waged by England against Ireland, Scotland, Spain, Portugal, etc. In 1658 was taken
Dunkirk - the keys to Europe were in Cromwell's belt. His death interrupted the chain of conquests, but later it was continued, leading to the seizure of vast territories of other peoples and the formation of the British colonial empire.
Of course, these wars were also directed against feudal, counter-revolutionary forces, but they also had a wider significance. During the wars, Cromwell solved the problem of establishing a new system, a new state order, the strength and authority of the head of state and overcoming revolutionary ferment in the country (“the English revolution crashed against Ireland”). The war in Ireland was waged not only against the counter-revolutionary forces that had taken refuge there, but also against the freedom-loving people. Before the war, one and a half million people lived in Ireland, after the war - half a million. Many Irish were forced to leave their homeland, to flee the country. During the wars, the incitement of chauvinistic sentiments contributed to the distraction of the English nation from solving internal problems. Military discipline was established in the army with automatic execution of orders, making the army an obedient instrument of military leaders. Thanks to the loot during the wars, its revolutionary spirit was etched out of the army. By generously distributing the loot to those close to him, Cromwell created a new aristocracy, on which he relied in carrying out his policy.
In 1658 Cromwell dies. Of course, Cromwell to a large extent contributed to the establishment of the bourgeois order in England, but he could not achieve the stabilization of the new system and, in particular, the new state order. Shortly after his death, the monarchy was restored in England.
Restoration of the monarchy. The son of the executed king becomes the new king of England. Transferring the throne, the parliament forced the king to sign an important document - the Breda Declaration of 1660, in which the king: a) promised not to persecute the participants in the revolution; b) preserve freedom of conscience in the country; c) recognized the order of land use established during the revolution. Later, the king repeatedly violated the provisions of the Breda Declaration, even the dead Cromwell was dug out of the ground and hanged. However, it was no longer possible to return England to the pre-revolutionary past, to eliminate the gains of the revolution, in particular in the field of land use. There was no return to the past. Nor could the king break the power of parliament. On the contrary, even in the conditions of the onset of the counter-revolution, the parliament managed to somewhat strengthen its position.
In 1679, Parliament adopted an important constitutional document - the Habeas Corpus Amedment Act, otherwise, an act to better ensure the freedom of citizens and to prevent imprisonment across the seas. By this act, Parliament tried primarily to protect its members from the persecution of the royal administration, but in subsequent times it acquired a more general meaning and became one of the foundations of the English unwritten constitution.
The habeas corpus act established the following main provisions: -any person who considers an arrest unlawful could demand the issuance of an order of habeas corpus act and the delivery of the arrested person to court;
The officials in charge of the arrested person are obliged to deliver the arrested person to the court within three days;
The court, in the order of reduced proceedings, mainly decided on the legality of the arrest. The court could leave the arrested person under arrest or release him on bail, guarantee until the final decision of the case.
Finally, and most importantly, fines of 100, 200 and even 500 pounds sterling, huge for that time, were established for violation of the provisions of this act.
Despite a number of restrictions, in subsequent times, the habeas corpus act acquired a more general meaning, became a guarantee against arbitrary arrests, contributed to the establishment of democratic orders in England and was considered as one of the foundations of the English constitution.
The adoption of the habeas corpus act was one of the expressions of dissatisfaction with the parliament, the bourgeoisie and the new nobility with the policy of the king. In 1688 the opponents of the king united. As a result, the Glorious Revolution occurs - the king fled the country. Parliament passes the English throne to the daughter of the king - Mary and her husband, the stadtholder of Holland, William of Orange. The glorious revolution took place easily and bloodlessly, because the foundations of feudalism had already been seriously undermined.
As you can see, the English bourgeois revolution did not lead to the establishment of a republican form of government in the country. The monarchy was more in line with the British ideas about the nature of power. The Glorious Revolution and the preservation of the monarchy showed the strength of tradition, the compromise nature of transformations with a certain degree of their limitation.
Consolidation of the constitutional dualistic monarchy. The new position of the monarchy that took shape in England after the revolution was determined by a number of documents, sometimes adopted long before the Glorious Revolution, for example, the Magna Carta, the Petition of Rights of 1628, the Habeas Corpus Act, etc. Under the new conditions, some provisions of these documents were given a different meaning (new wine was poured into old wineskins), their other provisions became outdated and lost their practical value. However, the ruling classes of England emphasized in every possible way the significance of the old legal acts in their new meaning, striving to strengthen state power by the force of historical tradition. At the same time, after the Glorious Revolution, new legal acts appeared that confirmed the main provisions of the old legal documents, and also contained new norms.
The Bill of Rights of 1689 became such an act. This document most fully characterizes the important aspects of the legal design of the constitutional dualistic monarchy in England.
The Bill of Rights, after a long enumeration of grievances, injustices and violations of the laws committed by the deposed king, confirmed the basic rights of Parliament:
The supremacy of Parliament in the field of legislation. The Bill stated that the King could not, by command, suspend or repeal a law without the consent of Parliament;
The bill confirmed the supremacy of parliament in the field of finance, declared illegal any fees in favor of the king without the consent of parliament;
The bill forbade recruitment into the army, maintenance of the army without the consent of parliament.
Some democratic rights and freedoms were also proclaimed (freedom of petition, freedom to elect a member of parliament, freedom of speech and debate in parliament, and ways of forming a jury).
It should be noted that in the Bill the institution of democratic rights and freedoms is presented in a truncated form and throughout the entire 18th and first half of the 19th centuries, for example, the freedom to elect members of parliament meant the right to participate in elections for only a small part of the population.
The legal document that formalized the constitutional monarchy in England was also the Act of 1701 "On dispensation". It established the rule of countersignature, according to which the acts of the king were considered invalid if they were not countersigned by the corresponding minister. It was believed that “the king cannot do evil”, which freed the king from responsibility for his decisions, and at the same time led to the transfer of real executive power to the ministers.
The next step was the establishment of the principle of irremovability of judges. It was admitted that judges appointed by the king held their offices as long as they "behave blamelessly." They can be dismissed from office only on the proposal of both houses of Parliament. Both of the above decrees limited the possibility for the king to interfere in the exercise of executive and judicial power and significantly strengthened the position of parliament in the state.
In addition, the act "On dispensation", expressing fears that with the accession of a new king of foreign origin, important posts in the state could be taken by his compatriots, established a ban on persons born outside of England, Scotland and Ireland, to be members of Parliament, the Privy Council, to hold any trust position.
The separation of the legislative from the executive and both of them from the judiciary that developed in England after the Glorious Revolution became one of the origins and justification of Montesquieu's doctrine of the separation of powers. Montesquieu considered the best state system to be a constitutional monarchy, in which the executive power was entrusted to the king, the legislative power to the body of popular representation (one chamber of which was elected, the other was composed of representatives of the nobility), and the judicial power was entrusted to independent judges. Such a division, according to Montesquieu, should be a tool for achieving democracy and freedom. “If the legislative and executive powers are united in a single person or institution, then there will be no freedom, since it can be feared that this monarch or senate will issue tyrannical laws in order to also tyrannically apply them. There will be no freedom even if the judiciary is not separated from the legislative and executive powers.”
A departure from the ideal political system described by Montesquieu was the restriction of the prerogatives of the English king by the rule of counter-signature. The subsequent constitutional development of England led to even more restrictions on the powers of the king. The principle of separation of powers was violated, but this did not prevent the establishment of a bourgeois democracy regime in the country with the omnipotence of parliament and the evolution of a dualistic monarchy into a parliamentary one.
In the XVIII century. The country is undergoing an industrial revolution. Trade is developing rapidly. England becomes the "industrial workshop of the world." New cities grew, and the social composition of the population was updated. While maintaining the positions of the aristocracy, the urban population and, in particular, the industrial bourgeoisie, gained more and more weight in the economic and political life of the country.
Against this background, the position of the constitutional monarchy also changed. It is noteworthy that major transformations in the state system were carried out not only peacefully, but, which is very typical for England, even in addition to legislation, through the gradual rooting of experience accumulated by practice. The precedent becomes a source that feeds changes in the state and law, as undeniable as the law. In the XVIII-XIX centuries. in England, an empirical path of state-legal transformations is traced, which distinguishes its history from the history of, for example, France or Germany.
The Tory and Whig parties that appeared back in the Restoration period, which initially differed as supporters and opponents of the king, are increasingly expressing the interests of development, the growing new (Whigs) or defending the foundations that have been preserved from the past, defending the stability of the social and state-legal order (Tory). A two-party system is emerging. Party already in the XVIII century. become a solid foundation for a constitutional monarchy. Later they are transformed into parties of liberals and conservatives.
From the beginning of the XVIII century. English kings cease to exercise executive power. It went from the time when King George I, who did not know English, stopped attending cabinet meetings. Then it became a constitutional custom, a binding precedent. The leadership of the cabinet passes into the hands of the first minister. The Cabinet begins to rule the country in "the name of His Majesty", but practically independently. It is then that the principle is established - "the king reigns, but does not rule."
Another precedent is being born - "responsible government". It is recognized that the Cabinet of Ministers cannot remain in power for a long time without the support of Parliament. The cabinet begins to be formed by the majority party in parliament; if the government does not enjoy the support of parliament (its majority), it is forced to resign. The first collective resignation of the government took place in 1782 as a result of England's losing the war with the American colonies fighting for their independence. A little later, another rule appears - a government that does not enjoy the support of parliament can temporarily remain in power, but is obliged, having dissolved the parliament, to call its new elections. The party that won the elections formed the new government.
Over time, the decisive powers to govern the country are transferred to the parliament. At that time, the expression "parliament can do everything except the transformation of a man into a woman" appears.
Electoral reforms of 1832 and 1867 The fundamentally democratic transformations of the state system were carried out in England simultaneously with the preservation of the old electoral system, which had developed mainly before the 17th century. and hopelessly outdated. Only a small part of the adult population took part in the elections. Suffrage was considered not a political right, but an inborn privilege.
The election of deputies was carried out by establishing personal contacts of the candidate with the voters, largely with the help of various kinds of bribery. Electoral corruption has become one of the foundations of the electoral system.
The price of a vote was subject to considerable fluctuations, depending, for example, on the number of voters in a given parliamentary burgh. So, if in the town of Ganiton the number of voters was about 350 people and the price of a vote ranged from 5 to 15 guineas, then in the town of Grumpound there were only 42 voters, and they managed to receive 300 guineas during the elections. The customs of some cities set the price of a vote rather obscurely, and it was considered unfair to demand more: for example, “by virtue of a long-established custom, one vote in Hertzle was paid with two guineas, two votes with four.”
The forms of bribery were very diverse. Often there was the simplest way to acquire votes: the candidate bought voters with money. One voter said that he, like every voter, dropped his ballot into one hole in the wall, and received the corresponding amount through the other.
The most common means of bribery was feasting voters at the candidate's expense. Over a snack or a glass of coffee in a restaurant, if a candidate did not receive a direct promise to vote for him, he could still count on a general feeling of gratitude. Needless to say, a prominent place in the treat was given to alcoholic beverages. Rossel argued that the drunkenness of the voters is the aspect of English life that is most striking to foreigners.
Individual bribery of voters was carried out in a variety of ways. Candidates or their agents bought, for example, worthless things from voters, rented rooms for a very high fee, or paid voters unusually large sums for transportation to the election site.
Often, those wishing to be elected to parliament entered into an agreement with members of the city duma. The "fathers of the city" promised to elect this person to parliament, and in return they often demanded payment of the city's debts. In 1768, the Oxford City Council, burdened with debts, wrote to its two MPs in Parliament that they would be re-elected only upon payment of a large sum of 6-7 thousand. pounds. The case received wide publicity, and the members of the Duma had to go to prison. In conclusion, however, they did not lose heart and continued negotiations for the sale of the Oxford representation. When they were released, it turned out that the deal had already been concluded.
Even more interesting is the case that occurred in 1711, when Colonel Gledheel bought himself a seat in Parliament by enrolling in the shoemakers' guild and promising the guild to order boots for his regiment. Sir James Thornhill built an almshouse as a bribe for his election, and two MPs for Weymouth built a bridge. In Toksbury, the electors explicitly stated that only those persons who pledged to contribute £1,500 to the costs of the construction of roads would be elected to Parliament. Interested people were immediately found. The candidates entered the city in a solemn procession: the candidates rode in front, and behind them came the workers with spades and shovels as a sign that they were ready to start work. They immediately carried a banner, on one side of which the names of the candidates were written, and on the other - the electoral slogan: "Good roads."
Another way in which persons who possessed property got into the lower house was by acquiring the right of representation in actual ownership by purchasing a "pocket" or "rotten" parliamentary burgh, which did not have or
with almost no population. Old Sarum is usually mentioned in the literature as an example. Even in the XIII century. it was the residence of a count and a bishop, but by the 19th century. represented a green lawn, the owner of which sent two deputies to parliament.
“Since the reign of Charles II, the sale of burghs has become commonplace. The ownership of the burghs was recognized and could be assigned or sold like any other right." In 1785, Pitt the Younger, being Prime Minister, officially recognized the parliamentary seats from the "pocket" towns as private property: he submitted to Parliament a draft reform of the electoral law, according to which 36 owners of "pocket" towns were redeemed for 1 million pounds sterling their right send deputies to parliament.
Representatives of the intelligentsia who defended liberal principles, including supporters of the reform of the electoral law, often got into parliament from "rotten" and "pocket" places. From the most ridiculed "pocket" town - Old Sarum, John Gairn Took - a prominent figure in the reform movement, got into parliament, and from other "pocket" towns Sir Francis Bardet, David Ricardo, Broom, McCaulay - one of the best Whig orators and a major historian were elected , Sheridan - leader of the society for constitutional information - a society that fought for reform, Fox and several others. The election of a number of representatives of the intelligentsia from the "rotten" boroughs gave the Tories reason to assert that the "rotten" boroughs are necessary to maintain the intellectual level of the House of Commons at a height. According to Walpole, "the best people of that time did not see anything wrong with buying seats."
The sale of parliamentary burghs must be distinguished from the sale of parliamentary seats. If in the first case the buyer acquired the right to freely dispose of the parliamentary seat in the property forever, then in the second case the parliamentary seat was transferred only for a while. The hiring of parliamentary seats in the 18th century. was more common than buying the right of representation in parliament. The hiring of a parliamentary seat was made in two forms: hiring with a condition and without a condition. In the second case, the person who received the right to sit in parliament was free in his deputy activity from the will of the patron of the burgh. When selling a place with a condition, the owner of a “rotten” or “pocket” place to some extent limited, determined the activities of the elected deputy. As a condition, the deputy was often required to "make every effort so that the owner of the burgh receives a profitable sinecure or a new title." Thus, Lord Darling, "thanks to the zeal of his members of parliament, passed from title to title until he received the title of duke" *.
Kosarev A.I. Electoral corruption in eighteenth-century England. // News of higher educational institutions. Jurisprudence. 1961. No. 4.
A broad movement for electoral reform is unfolding in the country, which is carried out by parliamentary acts of 1832 and 1867.
By that time, the issue of reform had acquired fundamental importance - on a different basis, the task of eliminating medieval remnants was again solved with the admission of grown and strengthened new forces to participate in public affairs. The significance of the forthcoming reform is at least indicated by the fact that shortly before his death, Hegel specially dedicated his last work to it. In his article "On the Electoral Reform in England," Hegel expressed his fear that as a result of the reform, the significance of real interests would be weakened by the influence of so-called principles that came to the fore and abstract thinking would acquire more influence than it should, while they are equally necessary for application in real life. life.
The second part of the reform was the expansion of active suffrage - the right to vote was given to males who owned real estate with an annual income of 10 pounds sterling. In restricting the rights of the poor, one should hardly see, for example, a manifestation of classism. Montesquieu believed that suffrage should not be granted to persons "whose position is so low that they are looked upon as incapable of having free will." Such were public consciousness and legal theory. Later, largely in an effort to secure votes, political parties seek universal suffrage. The eternal dispute - who should govern the state (only those who have mastered true knowledge, wisdom, "the best people" or elected by anyone, by deceit, bribery or by lot) - in New History began to be resolved by political parties and the media by "educating the voter".
The electoral reform of 1832 had a limited content. It did not establish equal parliamentary representation for territories and constituencies, and only marginally expanded active suffrage. At the same time, the reform implied a change in the balance of power in parliament with the strengthening of the influence of the bourgeois sections of the population. It was impossible to predict how the renewed parliament would behave. That is why the reform was characterized as a "jump into the dark." One can also talk about the radical significance of the reform, since, despite the limited changes in the electoral law, it made a breach in the long-established one and opened the “age of reforms”.
The electoral reform of 1867 also carried out a redistribution of parliamentary representation. Part of the small burghs was deprived of the right to send deputies to parliament, and the vacant 43 seats were transferred mainly to the cities. Much more important was the expansion of active suffrage and, in particular, the granting of the right to vote in the cities by tenants. As a result, artisans, the petty bourgeoisie, and the wealthy part of the workers were allowed to vote.
Reforms of 1832 and 1867 laid the foundations of bourgeois democracy in England. Now the House of Commons to a certain extent could consider itself the representation of all classes, of the whole nation, which increased its political weight and gave it an advantage over the House of Lords. From now on, it was recognized that "in case of disagreement between the chambers, the House of Lords at a certain moment must yield to the House of Commons." And another thing: the expansion of the electoral corps overshadowed the importance of bribing voters. The decisive factor is the conduct of extensive agitation among voters with the help of party organizations. The new conditions led to the creation of parties of a modern type with a wide network of local organizations and a strict centralization of leadership. "Both parties in their modern form," one can read in the Encyclopædia Britannica, "have their origins in 1832."
Later (in 1884, 1885 and 1918, 1928) other electoral reforms were carried out in England, which corrected and continued what had been started earlier. As a result, universal suffrage is established in the country. The formation of electoral districts with equal representation in parliament was also carried out (districts with 50-54 thousand voters sent one deputy to parliament). In 1872, a system of secret voting in elections was introduced.
The relationships between the chambers of parliament are also undergoing changes. Act of 1911 The House of Lords was deprived of the right to impede the passage of jnans bills. However, the lords retained the right to delay the passage of non-financial bills that were objectionable to them for two years.
In the years following the reforms of 1832 and 1867. years in England, the entire state mechanism was gradually rebuilt. A number of new ministries appear, and the scope of their powers expands. Reforms of 1835 and 1888 transform local government. Management in the cities passes to elected city councils, which elect the mayors of the cities; county government was carried out by county councils. The judicial system is also being reorganized, eliminating the separate existence of "common law" courts and "justice" courts. A unified judicial system is being created using the procedural norms of both "branches" of case law.
The country affirms freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, as well as freedom of conscience as the right to profess any religion. Workers seek the legal existence of trade unions; criminal punishment for organizing strikes is abolished. In the regime of freedom, the leading place is given not to the nobility of the family, but to wealth. At the same time, “social motives”, “concern for the poor” begin to play an increasingly prominent role in law. Workers seek economic advantages.
When studying the history of England, following the coup of 1640, attention is drawn to the special nature and methods of transformation. Here, with the exception of the brief existence of Cromwell's Instrument of Government, there was (and is not) a constitution as a single written document. The English constitution is made up of acts of the distant past, such as the Magna Carta, the Habeas Corpus Act, as well as the established and changing practice of state work. In England there is "a whole system of political morality, a whole set of rules for government ... which cannot be found on a single page of statute or customary law, but which in practice are almost less sacredly observed than the principles embodied in the Magna Carta or in the Petition about law" 1. In addition to the law, for example, a cabinet of ministers is formed, a rule is established for its meetings in the absence of the king, the king's right to veto a bill of parliament becomes a fiction. Also, outside the framework of the law, the parliament begins to determine the main directions of the cabinet's activities, the joint responsibility of ministers, the concept of a responsible government, etc. appear.
The characteristic and typical features of the English unwritten constitution were determined not by the general arguments of the ruling classes about what was due, but mainly by specific practical considerations about the restructuring of individual links of state administration. Only those parts of the state mechanism that were not only outdated and proved to be unviable, but also openly compromised those in power, were eliminated or changed. Features of the constitutional development of England were noticed by a number of authors who studied the history of its political system. So, A. Dicey stated that the English constitution “has not been established - it has grown; it is the fruit not of an abstract theory, but of instinct”, it was built “just as bees build honeycombs, without stooping to understand the rules by which they build a structure”2. The Russian historian B. Chicherin wrote in detail about the empirical nature of the development of the English constitution. He emphasized the wary attitude of the English bourgeoisie towards any kind of major, untested in practice changes in the state system, he also noted the fact that the English constitution was built not so much in order
1 Freeman E. Development of the English constitution. M., 1905. S. 120.
2 Dicey A. Fundamentals of public law in England. 1907. S. 3.
ke the implementation of philosophical concepts, but on the basis of practical experience1.
The transition to democracy and a "disguised republic" was carried out with the help of reforms. Particularly noticeable is the use of such means as gradualism, compromises, respect for acquired rights, the introduction of the new in parts and under the guise of old forms. The condition for such a path was the existence of a “legal and respected” opposition capable of absorbing the best of the past and continuing forward in other forms. The decisions made did not claim to be logically complete, but they served to eliminate the shortcomings, turned out to be the only possible ones in a peaceful way of transformation.
The pronounced effect of continuity in the development of the English constitution of the 19th century. - the direct result of the compromise of the ruling classes. Thus, the reform law of 1832 far from solved all the problems of eliminating the old, archaic electoral system. He made only limited changes to the suffrage. No defining principle was found for this case, and the issue was resolved only on the basis of a compromise of political forces. Also, on the basis of a compromise, the distribution of the vacant seats in parliament was carried out: half was given to large cities, and the other to the counties.
One of the means by which peaceful transformations were carried out in the state structure of the country was a careful attitude to the acquired rights. For example, it was considered undesirable to retain the right to vote for voters of the "old rights", but all persons who already had the right to vote retained it for life. In order to weaken resistance to the new, the ruling classes of England sought to disguise innovations with old forms, which was clearly manifested during the struggle for the first electoral reform in the speech of John Russell. Wishing to make imperceptible the fact that the reform of 1832 transferred part of the political power to the industrial bourgeoisie, he argued, contrary to evidence, that the reform did not mean the creation of anything new, but only pursued the goal of restoring the constitution to its original form.
Compromises and mutual concessions, careful attitude to acquired rights, partiality, gradual changes, retention of old, traditional forms of legal institutions - all this had a negative side, allowing feudal remnants to persist for a long time. However, this method of transformation had the invaluable advantage that it made it possible to avoid revolutionary upheavals.
At the beginning of the XVII century. England has entered a historical period of crisis of the former state structure. The crisis was largely historically objective: as a result of significant changes in the economic life and in the agrarian system of the country over the previous century, a new socio-political situation had developed, and English absolutism showed no desire to modernize either its system or its legal policy.
English absolutism arose during the period of the decline of feudalism and the development of the capitalist system, which, in comparison with other European countries, established itself in England quite early. Its peculiarity was that it developed not only in cities, but also in rural areas, where the nobility (gentry) ran its economy on a capitalist basis, using the labor of hired workers and tenants, selling their products on the market. Those. the nobility merged with the bourgeoisie. Together they were interested in a single national market and the elimination of the arbitrariness of the old feudal nobility who aspired to wars, both on the continent and in their own country. And this could happen only if a strong centralized government was created.
During the reign of the first kings from the Stuart dynasty (1603-1649), the crisis took on an open form of political confrontation between the absolute monarchy (and the aristocracy, part of the nobility, especially the northwestern regions, the Anglican clergy who fully supported the old order) and the modernizing sections of society. This was facilitated by the unsuccessful domestic policy of the monarchy, which, among other things, violated traditional ideas about the tasks of the state and the goals of its activities.
As long as the capitalist structure was relatively weak, it could develop within the framework of the feudal system, especially since the policy of absolute monarchy as a whole contributed to its success. But as market relations strengthened, it became increasingly clear that feudalism and the absolutism that stood guard over it fettered the development of productive forces.
The archaic economic and legal policy of the monarchy retained a class-corporate character. While in the country a new layer of the nobility was formed, the logic of economic development involved in commercial and industrial activities. As a result of the breakdown of the medieval agrarian system during the "enclosures" of the 16th century. a significant stratum of large and medium-sized land tenants formed the basis of the entrepreneurial class. By the system of crown monopolies and ubiquitous state tutelage, they were pushed aside from the benefits of foreign and colonial trade, from the possibilities of promising development of domestic production.
The state apparatus of absolutism, despite the numerical growth and complexity of the structure, turned out to be less and less capable of governing the country in the interests of society and in accordance with established law. The purchase of administrative posts, including titles of nobility, became a practice. The absolutist administration resorted to forced loans to prevent chronic financial shortages. Immeasurably increased corruption caused general discontent. Traditional British self-government, especially city government, gradually dissociated itself from the absolutist administration.
Religious contradictions became the most important prerequisite for the socio-political conflict. The policy of the absolutist government was aimed at strengthening the position of the Anglican Church and practically forcing the public to participate in the cult of the state church.
The revolutionary ideology of the bourgeoisie was puritanism - a religious movement that demanded the complete purification of the church organization and the creed from Catholicism. Demanding the separation of church and state, the election of church officials, the conduct of free preaching not related to canonical texts, the Puritans thereby opposed the absolutist state, its official ideology. From the conviction that there are no intermediaries between man and God, the conclusion followed that a social organization was created by people who fulfill the will of God. Royal power is not established by God, i.e. does not have a divine origin, but is formed as a result of an agreement between the people and the king. Thus, within the framework of Puritanism, a purely political theory of the “social contract” was born, according to which the people have the right and even the obligation to overthrow the king if he violates the contract, rules to the detriment of society.
However, the moderate wing of the Puritans, consisting of the largest financiers, merchants and part of the gentry, was inclined to confine themselves to peaceful pressure. They were called Presbyterians - from the presbyter - the elected religious foreman of the parishioners. The radical wing was represented by the Independents, who insisted on the complete ecclesiastical self-government of the communities and, as a result, proclaimed at least a partial release of the citizen from the power of the state.
A series of unsuccessful political decisions by James I and Charles I, attempts to reconcile with Spain on a dynastic basis, a marriage alliance with Catholic France, including secret agreements on indulgences at the English court for Catholic priests - all this caused an unprecedented increase in public opposition. The crisis of relations between the absolutist statehood and society acquired a specific form of confrontation between the crown and parliament.
Long Parliament.
At the beginning of the XVII century. A new dynasty of Stuarts came to the throne. After the death of Elizabeth I in 1603, the Scottish king James I became king of England, the two countries were united by a dynastic union. Jacob and his son Charles I (1625-49) . ) were faced with a choice: either to abandon the position of absolute monarchs, and submit to the dictates of the bourgeoisie and gentry, to sacrifice the interests of the secular and spiritual nobility, or to take the path of feudal reaction. The Stuarts chose the latter and directed the entire power of the state apparatus against the Puritans.
Submissive to the king and bishops, the judges sentenced the Puritans to imprisonment, torture, cutting off their ears, and nailing them to the pillory. The Star Chamber - an emergency court created by Henry VII (the first king of the Tudor dynasty) became the body of reprisals against the opposition. The High Commission, the highest church body, which included members of the royal Privy Council, was especially raging. Severe censorship was introduced. The reprisals also caused economic damage: Protestants from Europe and more than 60 thousand English Puritans left the country.
James I and Charles I consistently defended the prerogatives of the crown and the priority of the principles of absolutism to the detriment of the historical constitution of England. The practical influence of parliament on state affairs weakened: from 1611 to 1640, parliament did not sit in total for two years. The crown preferred to do without Parliament, because it met with constant opposition, and could not do without taxes and subsidies approved by Parliament, because the opposition population refused to pay taxes, and the courts took a twofold position in this, following the principles of "common law" (in 1629 d. Parliament directly decided that "the enemy of English freedom is the one who will pay taxes not approved by Parliament").
Since 1614, the composition of Parliament was 2/3 Puritan. The constant motive of his studies was the adoption of various kinds of resolutions about his political priority. This led, as a rule, to the rapid dissolution of the representation. Parliament's claim to supremacy in particular was stated in a resolution of December 18, 1621: “All the liberties, privileges, powers, and judicial power of Parliament are the hereditary property of every Englishman; Parliament has the right to intervene in all state affairs, no one but the House itself has power over any of its members. Enraged, James I personally appeared in parliament and tore out a sheet from the protocol with this entry, then dissolving the parliament.
Ended in failure, and the first attempts of Charles I to find political agreement with Parliament. Convened in 1626 in Oxford Parliament - denied the crown in subsidies due to disagreement over the war with Spain and the policy of the government of the Duke of Buckingham. The parliament, which met again in 1628, proposed to the king a special act - the Petition of Right. A more resolute opposition formed in the new parliament (around the deputies O. Cromwell, G. Pym, Gampden, etc.), which led the political discussion without the usual reverence for the crown: the king is called to help the kingdom or the parliament will do without him.
The petition basically declared the foundations of the historical constitution of the kingdom, confirmed the rights of the parliament, including the exclusive vote of taxes, and condemned the actions of the royal administration in violation of the established laws of the kingdom. The petition was at first accepted by the king. But then, relying on the opposition of the Anglican Church, Charles I practically annulled its significance and dissolved Parliament. Explaining the reason for the dissolution of Parliament and the reservations regarding the Petition of Right before the House of Lords, Charles I directly named among them "the rebellious behavior of several vipers."
After the dissolution of parliament in 1629, 11 years of non-parliamentary rule followed, during which the crisis of power and opposition to the crown took on forms that anticipated civil war. The government of the new minister of the king, the earl of Strafford, acted "to the point", regardless of either tradition or the agreements in the Petition of Right. Emigration from the country to the New World intensified (over the years, about 20 thousand people left, most of them supporters of new religious movements).
It was the reign of the Earl of Strafford and Archbishop William Laud. The latter decided to extend the Anglican Church to Scotland, where Calvinism was established. The country was on the verge of an economic disaster: unrest among the peasants , workers, artisans and merchants. In 1636, due to attempts by the crown to introduce episcopal administration and new church rites in Scotland, an armed Scottish rebellion began, which proved impossible to suppress due to the weakness of the internal army and the lack of subsidies for it. In fact, during the uprising, which grew into an open Anglo-Scottish war, English absolutism was actually broken.
The newly convened parliament turned out to be puritanical again and was called the "long parliament", because. he sat from 1640 to 1653. The activities of the Long Parliament (1640-1653), which opened on November 3, 1640, became the main political form of state transformations in the country. Behind this activity was a broad public movement of opposition to the monarchy and, on the contrary, in its support, religious disputes and ethnic conflicts, which eventually resulted in two successive civil wars in the country.
The Long Parliament consisted of 516 members of the House of Commons and 150 of the House of Lords. The most significant part - more than 250 deputies - was the new chivalry, mainly representing the cities and - secondarily - the counties. There were many deputies who were members of the memorable parliament of 1628, including the leaders of the opposition Grimston, Pym, Bagshaw who increased their political influence. Presbyterians and other opponents of the established church entered the House of Commons overwhelmingly.
The position of the Church of England was the first object of political attack by Parliament and forced concessions by the Crown. At the suggestion of the leaders of the House of Commons, Parliament considered a list of clear abuses and violations of freedoms and rights, including the Cases of three previously convicted citizens for pamphlets against bishops (by decision of the Star Chamber, the ears were cut off as "slanderous and insulting speeches"). The verdicts were overturned, the Star Chamber was convicted, recognized as "harmful", and it was ordered by the power of Parliament to pay significant compensation to the convicted.
At the beginning of 1641, Parliament began to discuss the petition (and then the bill) "On Roots and Branches", which provided for the destruction of episcopal power. Although the bill was passed later, the episcopal structure of the Church of England ceased to exist. And more importantly, the bishops were expelled from the House of Lords. This significantly changed the political weight of the chambers in favor of the Commons.
With a series of other decisions, the parliament tried to create an administration responsible to the representation. One of the main supporters of the crown, Archbishop V. Lod, several senior dignitaries, and then the head of the royal administration, Count Strafford, were convicted for political activities. Moreover, having failed to achieve conviction in the usual legal way, Parliament adopted a special “Act of Conviction” against Strafford on charges of high treason (in the tradition of the revived law of impeachment). The King was forced to approve the Act, and in May 1641 Strafford was executed. At the end of the struggle for the supremacy of Parliament in executive affairs, decisions were made (July 7, 1641) on the liquidation of the High Commission, the Star Chamber, and some other administrative committees.
The judicial powers of the crown were reduced. Parliament liquidated the courts of royal prerogative (extraordinary judicial chambers), the Councils for the North and Wales, and limited the jurisdiction of the Privy Council. All courts of justice (except the chancellor's) were abolished, and in return, the exclusive powers of the common law courts, which historically were in the sphere of influence of the statutory law of Parliament, were confirmed. Thus, the parliament ensured its supremacy in the field of justice.