The British Parliament: Origins and development

In fact, the guilds were declining in importance because of a new force in the national economy. During the 14^th century a number of English merchants established trading stations, "factories". The merchant organizations necessary to operate these factories became important at a national level, and began to replace the old town guilds as the most powerful trading institutions. However, they copied the aims and methods of the guilds, making sure English merchants could only export through their factories, and making sure that prices and quality were maintained. [7, pp. 123-124]

Meanwhile, in the towns a new middle class was developing. By the 14^th century most merchants were well educated, and considered themselves to be the equals of the esquires and gentlemen of the countryside. The lawyers were another class of city people. In London they were considered equal in importance to the big merchants and cloth manufactures. By the end of the Middle Ages the more successful of these lawyers, merchants, exporters, esquires, manufactures, gentlemen and yeoman farmers were increasingly forming a single class of people with interests in both town and country. The growth of this new middle class, educated and skilled in law, administration and trade, created a new atmosphere in Britain. This was partly because of the increase of literacy. Indeed, the middle class could be described as the "literate class". This literate class questioned the way in which the Church and the state were organized, for both religious and practical reasons. They disliked serfdom partly because it was now increasingly viewed as unchristian, but also for the practical reason that it was not economic. The middle class also questioned the value of the feudal system because it did not create wealth. [4, pp.57-61]

2.3.2 The Growth of Parliamentary Power in the 14^th - 15^th Centuries

The development of Parliament at this time showed the beginnings of a new relationship between the middle class and the king. Edward I had invited knights from the country and merchants from the towns to his parliament because he wanted money and they, more than any other group, could provide it. But when Edward III asked for money from his parliament, they asked to see the royal accounts. It was an important development because for the first time the king allowed himself to be "accountable" to Parliament. Merchants and country gentlemen were very anxious to influence the king's policies both at home and abroad. They wanted to protect their interests. When France threatened the wool trade with Flanders, for example, they supported Edward III in his war. [8, p.253]

The alliance between esquires and merchants made Parliament more powerful, and separated the Commons more and more from the Lords. Many European countries had the same kind of parliaments at this time, but in most cases these disappeared when feudalism died out. In England, however, the death of feudalism helped to strengthen the House of Commons in Parliament.

There was another important change that had taken place in the country. King had been taking law cases away from local lords' courts since the 12^th century, and by the middle of the 14^th century the courts of local lords no longer existed. But the king's courts could not deal with all the work. In 1363 Edward III appointed "justices of the peace" to deal with smaller crimes and offences, and to hold court four times a year.

These JPs, as they became known, were usually less important lords or members of the landed gentry. They were, and still are, chosen for their fairness and honesty. The appointment of landed gentry as JPs made the middle classes, that class of people who were neither nobles nor peasants, still stronger. Through the system of JPs the landed gentry took the place of the nobility as the local authority. During the Wars of the Roses the nobles used their private armies to force JPs and judges to do what they wanted. But this was the last time the nobility in Britain tried to destroy the authority of the king. The JPs remained the only form of local government in the countryside until 1888.They still exist to deal with small offences. [4, pp.61-62]

2.4 Tudor Absolutism and the Decline of Parliament

historical parliament saxon witenagemot

During the Tudor period (1485-1603) the changes in government, society and the economy of England were more far-reaching than they had been for centuries. But the most far-reaching of all were the changes in ideas, partly as a result of the rebirth of intellectual attitudes known as the Renaissance, which had spread slowly northwards from its beginning in Italy. In England the nature of the Renaissance was also affected by the Protestant Reformation and the economic changes that followed from it. [4, p.79]

The century of the Tudor rule is often thought as the most glorious period in English history. Henry VII built the foundations of a wealthy state and a powerful monarchy. His son, Henry VIII, kept a magnificent court, and made the Church of England truly English by breaking away from the Roman Catholic Church. Finally, his daughter Elizabeth brought glory to the new state by defeating the powerful navy of Spain, the greatest European power of the time. During the Tudor age England experienced one of the greatest artistic periods in its history.

There is, however, a less glorious view of the Tudor century. Henry VIII wasted the wealth saved by his father Henry VII. Elizabeth weakened the quality of government by selling official posts. She did this to avoid asking Parliament for money. And although her government tried to deal with the problem of poor and homeless people at a time when prices rose much faster than wages, its laws and actions were often cruel in effect. [9, p. 124]

The Tudor monarchs did not like governing through Parliament. Henry VII had used Parliament only for law making. He seldom called it together, and then only when he had a particular job for it. Henry VIII had used it first to raise money for his military adventures, and then for his struggle with Rome. His aim was to make sure that the powerful members from the shires and towns supported him, because they had a great deal of control over popular feeling. He also wanted to frighten the priests and bishops into obeying him, and to frighten the Pope into giving in to his demands. [4, p.79]

2.4.1 The Age of Henry VII Tudor's Reign (1485-1509)

The expropriation of the peasant lands created a dangerous tension in the country so it was only natural that the expropriator, the nobles, wanted security and protection from the peasants' wrath. Feudal feuds plagued the country to the detriment of economic and industrial development; a centralized state with a strong reigning hand at the wheel was at the moment an alternative to feudal brawls. The merchants were clamouring for trade development: foreign trade had suffered from the futile wars, its interests were to be promoted. Well aware of what was expected of him, supported by the gentry, new nobles and newer bourgeoisie, Henry VII settled down to business preparing to live up to the requirements. From what historians say of him, one can see that feudal ferocity and bourgeois business sense, calculation and greed were merged in his nature so as to guarantee the durability of the new dynasty he founded. [6, p.174]

In 1488 he passed the law of high treason according to which those nobles who persisted in resisting his absolute power were to be accused of high treason, no matter how highly they were placed and whose support they enjoyed. He also created a special court to deal with cases like this, the so-called Star Chamber. The law proved to be quite effective, and about eight thousand people were promptly found to have been plotting and so were accused of treason, their estates increasing the king's rapidly growing wealth.

Though he was immensely fond of money, the king was diplomatic enough to share with the new nobles. They were given the titles and some of the lands of the beheaded old nobles. To make assurance doubly sure, the king prohibited the use of cannons by the feudal nobles whose castles were formerly veritable artillery centres. He also depopulated their strongholds by an order prohibiting the practice of keeping retainers. Those of the nobles who persisted on keeping crowds of followers ready to accompany their masters to Parliament intimidating his opponents were severely fined, the money flowing in a gratifying stream in the same direction, the king's treasury.

Henry's instrument for bringing the nobles to their senses was the Privy Council (the court of Star Chamber represented the Privy Council in its judicial capacity). The role of Parliament was somewhat reduced; the House of Lords had so many of its members persecuted for various offences against the king, and the House of Commons was seldom called to vote taxes and agree to subsidies, for Henry, with his thrifty ways and business approach to the exploitation of his great estate - England, seldom resorted to the Parliament's financial help. When he did, he might require funds for a war that he never meant to begin, and the money would rest in his coffers; giving the titles and lands of the old nobility to the gentry and merchants he preferred the gratitude of the recipient to be materialized in jingling coin. His motto "cash before all" had gratifyingly palpable consequences: this "warmest" of kings left a lot of money to his son when he died. [3, pp.82-83]

2.4.2 Tudor Parliaments in the 16^th Century

The second Tudor monarch, Henry VIII (1509-1547), inherited a realm that was quite different from the one his father had wrested from that master of feudal intrigue, Richard III. Peace, the old nobles cowed, and a brimming treasury; Spain friendly, satisfied with English support for Spanish hostilities against France; the Pope mollified by customary tribute and the skillful diplomacy of cardinal Wolsey whom the Pope's favour made archbishop of York and cardinal while the king's favour made him chancellor. Like his father, Henry VIII leaned upon the new nobles and the bourgeoisie. His idea was to consolidate his position as absolute sovereign. He reorganized his administrative aids giving more importance to his Privy Council and choosing its members from among civil servants, and not feudal nobles. The Parliament was his obedient tool trusting him to do the right thing though voting the taxes (that cardinal Wolsey, the chancellor of the time, was steadily increasing) with wry faces especially when the cardinal introduced some compulsory loans. [3, p.83]

Perhaps Henry VIII himself did not realize that by inviting Parliament to make new laws for the Reformation he was giving it a level of authority it never had before. Tudor monarchs were certainly not more democratic than earlier kings, but by using Parliament to strengthen their policy, they actually increased Parliament's authority.

Parliament strengthened its position again during Edward VI's reign by ordering the new prayer book to be used in all churches, and forbidding the Catholic mass. When the Catholic Queen Mary came to the throne she succeeded in making Parliament cancel all the new Reformation laws, and agree to her marriage to Philip of Spain. But she could not persuade Parliament to accept him as king of England after her death. [10, p. 146]

Only two things persuaded Tudor monarchs not to get rid of Parliament altogether: they needed money and they needed the support of the merchants and landowners. In 1566 Queen Elizabeth told the French ambassador that the three parliaments she had already held were enough for any reign and she would have no more. Today Parliament must meet every year and remain "in session" for three quarters of it. This was not at all the case in the sixteenth century.

In the early 16^th century Parliament only met when the monarch ordered it. Sometimes it met twice in one year, but then it might not meet again for six years. In the first forty-four years of Tudor rule Parliament met only twenty times. Henry VIII assembled Parliament a little more often to make the laws for Church reformation. But Elizabeth, like her grandfather Henry VII, tried not to use Parliament after her Reformation Settlement of 1559, and in forty-four years she only let Parliament meet thirteen times. [8, p.322]

During the century power moved from the House of Lords to the House of Commons. The reason for this was simple. The Members of Parliament (MPs) in the Commons represented richer and more influential classes than the Lords. In fact, the idea of getting rid of the House of Lords, still a real question in British politics today, was first suggested in the 16^th century.

The old system of representation in the Commons, with two men from each county and two from each "borough", or town, remained the rule. However, during the 16^th century the size of the Commons nearly doubled, as a result of the inclusion of Welsh boroughs and counties and the inclusion of more English boroughs.

But Parliament did not really represent the people. Few MPs followed the rule of living in the area they represented, and the monarchy used its influence to make sure that many MPs would support royal policy, rather than the wishes of their electors.

In order to control discussion in Parliament, the Crown appointed a "Speaker". Even today the Speaker is responsible for good behaviour during debates in the House of Commons. His job in Tudor times was to make sure that Parliament discussed what the monarch wanted Parliament to discuss, and that it made the decision which he or she wanted. [10, p.147]

Until the end of the Tudor period Parliament was supposed to do three things: agree to the taxes needed; make the laws which the Crown suggested; and advise the Crown, but only when asked to do so. In order for Parliament to be able to do these things, MPs were given important rights: freedom of speech (that is freedom to speak their thoughts freely without fear), freedom from fear of arrest, and freedom to meet and speak to the monarch.

The Tudor monarchs realized that by asking Parliament for money they were giving it power in the running of the kingdom. All the Tudor monarchs tried to get money in other ways. By 1600 Elizabeth had found ways to raise money that were extremely unwise. She sold "monopolies", which gave a particular person or company total control over a trade. In 1601, the last parliament of Elizabeth's reign complained to her about the bad effect on free trade that these monopolies had.

Elizabeth and her advisers used other methods. She and her chief adviser, Lord Burghley, sold official positions in government. Burghley was paid about Ј860 a year, but he actually made at least Ј4,000 by selling official positions. He kept this secret from Parliament. Elizabeth's methods of raising money would today be considered dishonest as well as foolish.

In their old age Elizabeth and Burghley noticed less, and became more careless and slower in making decisions. They allowed the tax system to become less effective, and failed to keep information on how much money people should be paying. England needed tax reform, which could only be carried out with the agreement of Parliament. Parliament wanted to avoid the matter of tax, and so did local government because the JPs who were responsible for collecting taxes were also landlords who would have to pay them. As JPs were not paid, they saw no reason for collecting unpopular taxes. Elizabeth left her successors to deal with the problem.

Elizabeth avoided open discussion on money matters with Parliament. There was clearly an unanswered question about the limits of Parliament's power. Who should decide what Parliament could discuss: the Crown or Parliament itself ? Both the Tudor monarchs and their MPs would have agreed that it was the Crown that decided. However, during the 16^th century the Tudors asked Parliament to discuss, law-make and advise on almost every subject.

Parliament naturally began to think it had a right to discuss these questions. By the end of the 16^th century it was beginning to show new confidence, and in the 17^th century, when the gentry and merchant classes were far more aware of their own strength, it was obvious that Parliament would challenge the Crown. Eventually this resulted in civil war. [4, pp.79-80]

When the feudal wars of the 13^th and 14^th centuries became history, the conflicts between the kings and the parliaments became an everyday matter. Usually they were about the right to impose taxes. For some brief periods, such as the reign of Henry VIII, English monarchy seemed to move towards absolutism. But as soon as the "firm hand" of this or that monarch stopped threatening the lives of the troublemakers in Parliament, this institution renewed the demands for control over finance of the state. Parliament gained strength after the death of Henry VIII and was strong enough even in the days of his powerful daughter, Elizabeth I, but she preserved her popularity with Parliament by keeping her expenses as small as possible. When James I, the son of Mary Stuart, succeeded Elizabeth on the English throne, he expected to rule the country in his own way, without interference from Parliament. Charles I, his son, had been brought up to believe that he ruled by "divine right" and could therefore call for as much money as he liked. But these conflicts over money matters between the King and Parliament were but a reflection of a deeper conflict that had been splitting the country for a long time. [11, p.36]

3. Stuart Parliaments in the 17th Century

3.1 Social Structure

The social structure of 17^th-century England was topped after the king by the feudal nobility and the highest clergy, bishops and the like.

Lower down, the next rung of the social ladder was occupied by the gentry, smaller landowners turned bourgeois in their interests and way of life, and the bourgeoisie, in its turn divided into three layers: the great city magnates, the middle merchant class and the petty bourgeoisie, small shop owners and the like. Still lower down were the workmen, some of them close to the petty workshop owners, and also enjoying some sort of property, others (in big centralized manufacturies) working fifteen or more hours, deprived of political rights. In the countryside the yeomanry, freeholders (whose status implied almost actual ownership of land which they held on general grounds and could lease it if they wished ), copyholders, holding their land for life, paying rent to the owner, paying when they came into it after their parents' death and even having to pay for it in labour if the owner so desired; leaseholders (anybody wishing to augment his holding could get some on lease for payment agreed upon for a certain term). Economically the wealthy copyholders and freeholders whose lands were more or less extensive, constituted the yeomanry's top layers. [6, p.142]

The lowest and poorest layers of the peasantry were the cotters, landless hired men exploited by the capitalist farmers, the gentry and the top layers of the yeomanry. The gentry were a sort of link between landowner and merchant for they exploited the land they possessed or leased, and the laboures they hired, organizing agricultural production along capitalist lines.

When absolute monarchy was established by the first of the Tudors, it was welcomed by the merchants and the landed gentry as a rescue from the bloody feudal conflicts deadlocking the country, precluding any chance of bourgeois development. The merchants and the gentry, "the new nobles" were ready to give the crown every support and aid, so that no permanent army or any sort of paid bureaucratic service was wanted, soldiers being hired and paid out of the city coffers when those coffers' interests were at stake. After the founder of the Tudor House, the thrifty, parsimonious, and resourceful Henry VII no Tudor had any superfluous income to make him independent of the moneyed nobles, for every Tudor could always rely upon the Parliament to vote the necessary supplies, and Elizabeth is said to have always being on friendly terms with the London goldsmiths acting as bankers, ready to lend any sum - in reason of course.

So the bourgeoisie supported monarchy as long as they wanted the Crown's protection. But the other feudal component of monarchy was always there and when those feudal survivals came to be felt as obstacles while the bourgeoisie came to realize its economic power, they started getting impatient to feel the chains of absolute monarchy hindering the progress of the bourgeois growth. [3, pp.98-99]

3.2 The Growth of Contradictions between the Crown and the Parliament

3.2.1 The Age of James I Stuart's Reign (1603-1625)

The first signs of trouble between the Crown and Parliament came in 1601, when the Commons were angry over Elizabeth's policy of selling monopolies. But Parliament did not demand any changes. It did not wish to upset the ageing queen whom it feared and respected. Elizabeth knew that the value of the support offered by the growing merchant class and spared no efforts to promote the interests of trade and commerce (hence her struggle against Spanish rivalry on the seas). When she died and James I was crowned (1603-1625) the situation was quite different. [3, p.99]

Like Elizabeth, James I tried to rule without Parliament as much as possible. He was afraid it would interfere, and he preferred to rule with a small council.

James was clever and well educated. He had strong beliefs and opinions. The most important of these was his belief in the divine right of kings. He believed that the king was chosen by God and therefore only God could judge him. James's ideas were not different from those of earlier monarchs, or other monarchs in Europe. He expressed these opinions openly, however, and this led to trouble with Parliament.

When Elizabeth died she left James with a huge debt, larger than the total yearly income of the Crown. James had to ask Parliament to raise a tax to pay the debt. Parliament agreed, but in return insisted on the right to discuss James's home and foreign policy. James, however, insisted that he alone had the "divine right" to make these decisions. Parliament disagreed, and it was supported by the law.

James had made a mistake of appointing Elizabeth's minister, Sir Edward Coke, as Chief Justice. Coke made decisions based on the law which limited the king's power. He judged that the king was not above the law, and even more important, that the king and his council could not make new laws. Laws could only be made by Act of Parliament. James removed Coke from the position of Chief Justice, but as an MP Coke continued to make trouble. He reminded Parliament of Magna Carta, interpreting it as the great charter of English freedom. Although this was not really true, his claim was politically useful to Parliament. This was the first quarrel between James and Parliament, and it started the bad feeling which lasted during his entire reign. [4, p.88]

James came from Scotland where industry and foreign trade were practically undeveloped, and the merchant class was not half so influential as in London. He was lavish, for, being unused to the glamour of the English court and the country's apparent wealth by contrast with Scottish comparative poverty, he committed errors of judgement and so very soon had to approach the Parliament with money requests. Where Elizabeth took things as a matter of course and thought little ofpompous speech-making and the putting on of airs, he kept voicing his royal theories of the divine right of kings. Where Elizabeth was understandable and protective, James proved to be obtuse paying no attention to the suppression of Spanish marine power, doing little or nothing to uphold the power of the English fleet so that English merchant ships suffered from piracy. He made peace with Spain that did not promise the London merchants any profit for it did not stipulate their right of trading with the colonies of Spain. No wonder the king made enemies of the powerful London merchants while he made friends of those merchants' ancient enemies; he became friendly with the Spanish king. [3, pp.99-100]

Thus neglecting the interests of the historically progressive classes of the period, James Stuart had a Parliament opposition formed against him, growing during his reign and culminating to a head during the reign of his son Charles I.

James was successful in ruling without Parliament between 1611 and 1621, but it was only possible because Britain remained at peace. James could not afford the cost of an army. In 1618, at the beginning of the Thirty Years War in Europe, Parliament wished to go to war against the Catholics. James would not agree. Until his death in 1625 James was always quarrelling with Parliament over money and over its desire to play a part in his foreign policy. [4, p.88]

3.2.2 The Age of Charles I Stuart's Reign (1625-1649)

Charles I found himself quarrelling even more bitterly with the Commons than his father had done, mainly over money. Finally he said, "Parliaments are altogether in my power... As I find the fruits of them good or evil, they are to continue or not to be." And Charles dissolved Parliament.

However, the King's need for money forced him to recall Parliament, but each time he did so, he quarreled with it. When he tried raising money without Parliament, by borrowing from merchants, bankers and landowning gentry, Parliament decided to make Charles agree to certain "parliamentary rights". It hoped Charles could not raise enough money without its help. [4, p.89]

In 1628 the Parliament opposition uniting the bourgeoisie and the gentry scored a victory: the king was made to sign a document limiting his power, the so-called Petition of Right. It formulated their demands that no one should be arrested or kept in prison without being charged with a definite crime, that no one should be compelled to yield any property without common consent to confiscate it by an Act of Parliament. Charles had to sign the Petition as he needed money quite badly.

He never meant to be governed by the Petition, and when in 1629 the opposition-ruled Parliament voted the King Tunnage and Poundage, customary royal sources of revenue, for one year only instead of for life as was the custom, Charles dismissed the Parliament and did not summon it again during eleven years (1629-1640). He also arrested and imprisoned some of the leaders of the opposition. During the eleven years of Parliamentless rule Charles and his counsellors racked their brains trying to invent some sources of revenue. The wars were wound up but the everyday state expenses were to met, so Charles went all lengths, such as forcing the occupiers of lands that had anciently been royal forest, to pay for the revival of their claims to confirm the ownership ( many nobles were alienated from the crown that way for they hated to have to pay for what they had always thought was theirs ), baronetcies were sold, new monopolies were sold and new customs imposed; finally an old tax was revived, the so-called ship money, ostensibly meant for the benefit of the navy which really was badly in want of repairs, but treated as a regular and universal tax ( and the king evidently meant to treat it that way ) it would have made the king independent of Parliament. In 1636 some of the leaders of the opposition refused to pay the tax; the example was followed by wide masses of people, but the movement was suppressed, and the tax was levied repeatedly. [3, p. 100]

Charles surprised everyone by being able to rule successfully without Parliament. He got rid of much dishonesty that had begun in the Tudor period and continued during his father's reign. He was able to balance his budgets and make administration efficient. Charles saw no reason to explain his policy to anyone. By 1637 he was at the height of his power. His authority seemed to be more completely accepted than the authority of an English king had been for centuries. It also seemed that Parliament might never meet again. [4, p.89]

Both Charles and his father James I had to dissolve their Parliaments more than once mostly on the grounds of the Stuarts trying to consolidate their absolute power and built up a new state apparatus that was indispensable in new conditions, if the monarchy was to be a genuine despotism. Attempts to create a standing army and a state bureaucracy involved taxations, and the taxes had to be voted while the bourgeoisie were ready to fight for their purses fiercely. [3, p. 100]

3.3 The Bourgeois Revolution (1640-1653)

3.3.1 The Parliament Opposition against the King

In April 1640 Charles summoned Parliament only to find the opposition grown to frightening dimensions. He bore it for three weeks after which the Short Parliament was dissolved.

The revolutionary situation in the country was glaringly apparent. The wide masses of the people resented the persecution of the puritans ( their way to the stake where they were supposed to suffer disgrace was usually strewn with flowers and crowds cheered them as martyrs ). The ever increasing taxes fell heavily upon the people's shoulders; with them it was not a question of their property being attacked, it made all the difference, being a question of bread and butter. The king's most confidential counselor, Lord Strafford had started creating a hired army in Ireland. In 1639 and 1640 there were uprisings of artisans and workers in London.

The fact was, that production had been cut and mass unemployment was the result. Wages were low and the people sent petitions demanding that Parliament should be convened and measures taken to improve their living standards. Peasants movements were starting in the East of England. Scotland was far from peaceful. There seemed to be no help for it, so Charles had to stifle his misgivings and convene a Parliament that later came to be called "The Long Parliament" (November 1640-1653), since once met, it did not mean to allow any more dismissals but took up the cause of the bourgeois revolution in good earnest. Its first period, 1640-1642 led to the establishment of a constitutional monarchy (the "constitutional" period of the revolution). [3, p.101-102]

The election campaign, during the elections to the Long Parliament, was quite tense. The leaders of the puritan opposition were perhaps the first canvassers in English Parliament history: Pym, a popular London merchant leader, Hampden, the beginner of the anti-ship-money movement and other popular city figures traveled over the country propagandizing, organizing the big bourgeoisie securing majority in Parliament for the puritans. They were a convincing success, and Strafford and Laud, the unpopular advisers of the king, were arrested while other ministers emigrated. The rebellious commons could feel secure, for the Scottish Presbyterian army was still in Newcastle waiting for the money Charles was to pay, ready to come to the Commons' aid any moment; besides, the London masses were ready to do the same: there were demonstrations of masses of Londoners moving to Westminster encouraging the parliamentary party and overawing its enemies. It was this support that made Charles agree to Strafford's impeachment. The House of Commons insisted that the idea of high treason should be overhauled. Strafford was accused of high treason against the welfare of the state and the liberty of the subjects ( formerly when introduced by Henry VII it was the welfare and the liberty of the king that were meant). [7, p. 154]

The House of Lords though a much weaker influence now than the House of Commons was many times as wealthy and still more times as powerful, took a stand against finding the king's favourite servant guilty of treason, so the so-called Bill of Attainder was introduced, an instrument of sentencing the culprit guilty of state treason to death and high pressure was exercised to make the king sign Strafford's death sentence. He did it in 1641 and the puritans were victorious. Four years later the ex-archbishop Laud was executed as well. They proceeded to enact a series of laws making all sorts of extra-parliamentary taxation illegal, abolishing the Star Chamber, the Exchequer and some other state institutions of feudal absolutism. All the monopoly patents and privileges were cancelled.

The puritans' moral norms were made uppermost, the Presbyterian church was declared obligatory all over England. Theatres, dances, fancy fashions were prohibited by an Act of Parliament. When in May 1641 a Bill was passed fixing the Long Parliament as a state institution not to be dissolved in general, with the sittings sacred, not to be cancelled or postponed without the consent of the members' majority, the constitutional monarchy in England was officially established. [8, p.252]

There were moderate members too, and they gradually passed into the royalist camp. This gave Charles I a chance to start organizing his party for he knew he could rely on some part of the lords and even the commons.

Both the puritans and royalists were for suppressing the rebellion, but the control of the army was a two-edged weapon. According to the law of the land, the army was to be raised and commanded by the king in times of danger. The puritans knew the king, if given the control of the army would turn it against the disobedient commons. So the "Grand Remonstrance" was created containing 204 articles enumerating theking's atrocities, the abuse of power his counselors were guilty of, etc. The remonstrance demanded that all important government posts should be filled with men appointed by Parliament. The Militia Bill accompanying the remonstrance transferred the command of the army and navy to Parliament. It was passed by only eleven votes. Seeing that, and as a last expedient, Charles tried to arrest the five members of Parliament known to him as "ring-leaders", Pym, Hampdeon and three others. They were warned about the king's intended raid upon the Parliament sitting and took refuge in the city, the merchants' stronghold. When the king appeared bursting upon the sitting of the commons accompanied by a crowd of bravoes and royalist officers, a few hundreds of them ready for action, the speaker knelt to his majesty but refused to give any information as to the whereabouts of the five members. The Parliament besides had got ready for such a contingency and the London train bands (city militia force) were ready to tackle the business if the king's following were to propose a scramble.

So there was nothing for it but a somewhat awkward retreat, and a week later Charles left Whitehall, his residence, for the Northern counties where he started mustering an army.

The Parliament did the same; a sort of provisional government was created out of the two chambers and a Civil War loomed large on the horizon. So the second period of the bourgeois revolution (1642-1649) was a period of civil wars.

3.3.2 The Civil War (1642-1645)

The whole of England was divided into hostile camps. The distribution of forces was characteristic: the Royalists or "Cavaliers" as they were nicknamed for their aristocratic laxity and brilliance, fashionable bright clothes and long hair often elaborately curled, were popular in the industrially backward areas of the North, the West and South-West while the determined Puritans or "Roundheads" were ideological and economic masters of the industrial South, the industrial centres of the North and Midlands. This was the geographical distribution of the forces, the political distribution was in accordance: the new nobles, bourgeoisie, and the gentry supported by the yeomanry constituted the bulk of the Roundheads while the feudal aristocracy and the high Anglican clergy rallied round the king. The Parliament opposition had the support of the wide masses and the plebian layers of the towns.

Thus the Parliament army had great advantages: enjoying the support of the most wealthy regions of the country and the virtually unlimited financial backing of the wealthiest part of English society, the army did not have to rely upon marauding, the way the Cavaliers' army did. Since the Roundheads, well paid and therefore well disciplined, did not rob the peasants and the townsmen of the places where they were billeted they did not alienate the population the way the royalist army did (in fact, wealthy peasants got organized into what they called clubmen outfits to fight any body of soldiers indiscriminately defending their possessions from the marauding royalist soldiers ). Besides, the Parliament army enjoyed the support of the navy and the ports so that no help from outside could reach the Royalists while the Roundheads were well supplied. What's more, the whole of London was on the side of the Parliament army, and the city militia force called the train bands were already a well organized nucleus. The Parliament army in general suffered from the lack of experience while the king's warlike northerners and westerners, feudal nobles used to hunting and fighting which was only natural for the "drones", were ready for armed conflicts. So at first the Royalist forces were victorious and it is hard to say whether the Earl of Essex, commander-in-chief of the Parliament army, the timid presbyterian, was sad or glad when the king's army scored successes and took possessions of Oxford, York, Bristol. Historians mention ten battles fought by the two armies.

Not only the lack of experience was to blame for the puritan failure of the first years of the Civil War, but the presbyterians' desire of compromise with the king. It was the independents' influence that rallied the masses of yeomanry, petty bourgeoisie and the town poor. [3, pp.103-104]

The Parliament army was headed by Oliver Cromwell (1599-1658). He came of a gentry family, was brought up as a strict puritan, first elected to Parliament in 1628, then to the Long Parliament in 1640. As soon as military action began, he became well known as a talented military organizer; his first command was a detachment of militia troops, the yeomanry and artisans of the east counties. After the Parliament defeats he insisted on a reorganization of the army introducing cavalry, a decisive force in wars of that time and perfecting the cavalry tactics of the eleven regiments that he organized: the heavy horses, the best that money could buy, trained to perform all the evolutions of a flexible horse unit in a weighty charge. [11, p.86]

The horsemen were yeomen farmers and wealthy artisans; sometimes the officers were of the same classes. Cromwell was heard to say that he cared only for skill and devotion to the cause in his officers, not for titles and rank. Gradually the ten regiments of infantry were ideologically trained as determined fighters for the puritan cause so that Cromwell's New Model Army became a formidable force, a party in fact of the revolutionary lower middle class, the independents, while in the army of Essex the Presbyterians, the party of the upper middle class, were the leading influence.

Nominally the commander-in-chief of the New Model Army was Lord Fairfax with Cromwell as his deputy but Cromwell's growing influence with the army actually placed him in the position of highest command. The first Parliament success was the battle at Marston Moor (1644) when the king's army was defeated by Cromwell and his “Ironsides”. In June 1645 Cromwell's army defeated the Royalists at Naseby (Northamptonshire) and the king fled to Oxford, then to Scottish army at Newark. The Scots, however, were persuaded by the Parliament to accept the “costs” of 400,000 pounds sterling and on those terms they agreed to hand over the king who was heard to say “I've been sold and bought”. [3, p.105]

3.3.3 The Struggle within the Parliament Party

By this time the division of the Parliament into two parties, the Presbyterians and Independents, was evident. The Presbyterians were in fact the right wing of the puritans. The oligarchy structure of the Presbyterian church made it acceptable for the wealthier part of the puritans. Their demand of the strict unification of church ritual, of church centralization distinguished them from the democratic trends of Puritanism. During the bourgeois revolution they became in fact a political party expressing the interests of the London merchants and bankers, and also of a certain part of land-owning aristocracy. The Presbyterians were in favour of only limiting the king's power; the revolution was to end there and then, the new nobles and the upper layers of the big bourgeoisie were for a compromise with the king so that the revolution should not go further and deeper. [3, p. 105]

The Independents expressed the interests of the radical wing of the bourgeoisie and of the new commercially-minded nobility headed by Oliver Cromwell. As a religious trend they formed an opposition to Anglicanism. They were against any church that was sponsored by the state. As a political party the Independents made the radical wing in the Parliament camp and headed the movement against Stuart monarchy. All the enemies of the royalists rallied around the Independents. After the king was defeated in 1646 there came a division in the Independents' ranks. The bourgeois-aristocratic elements headed by Crowell considered the revolution finished. The democratic elements fought against Cromwell and his adherents; they created their own separate party of Levellers.

The Levellers were a radical petty bourgeois democratic group that sprang up in 1645-1646 with the deterioration in the living standard of the ordinary, mostly poor people when the wide masses expressed deep dissatisfaction with both the policy of the Presbyterians and the program of the power-crazy Independents.

The first Leveller groups sprang up in London and then in other cities and counties. By 1647 the Levellers became a wide self-sufficient nation-wide group while before that they were considered as just a left wing of the Independents. Their program was expressed in pamphlets and manifestoes (such as "The Case of the Army", 1647 or "An Agreement of the People", 1647) and it was a program of wide and radical political reforms. They were in favour of abolition of monarchy, of the House of Lords and aristocratic privileges: they were in favour of making England a republic with a one-chamber Parliament elected on the basis of universal suffrage. They also advocated a radical reform in the domain of law and justice, they were in favour of everyone's equality before the law. [5, p.152]

However, the Levellers were not consistent democrats. Their social-economic program was quite moderate. They wanted abolition of patents and monopolies, lightening the burden of taxes, a return to the pre-enclosure state of land owning, a transformation of copy-holding into free-holding. But all that did not mean any radical solution of the agrarian problem, that is liquidation of aristocratic landownership. This repulsed the wide masses.

The Levellers were headed by John Lilburn. They fought against the growing taxes and said that the revolution merely replaced the chains of monarchy by new chains while the living standard and the political position of the poor and middle classes remained unchanged. In 1649 Lilburn and other leaders of the Levellers were arrested. The army Levellers revolted (May-September 1649), the Independents pretended to concede and declared England a republic "without the king and the House of Lords". Meanwhile Cromwell suppressed the rebellion in the army and the democratic movement ended. [3, pp. 105-107]

3.3.4 The Civil War of 1648. The Establishment of the Republic

Oliver Cromwell was not going to stand any dangerous radicalism, and he suppressed the democratic movement so successfully that the bourgeoisie and gentry were delighted with a leader who could protect the country from the dangerous left groups. He showed his trustworthiness still further when he suppressed the national liberation movement in Ireland and Scotland as well.

The Royalists were quick to take advantage of the struggle between the Parliament parties. Supported by the Presbyterian desire of compromise, they rallied and began another civil war in 1648. They got part of the navy, headed by the Prince of Wales, to support them; the Scotch reactionaries were helpful; but by the end of 1648 the royalist armies were defeated by Cromwell's now formidable forces. The task of the moment was suppression of the Presbyterians and Cromwell displayed wonders of simple strategy, he directed troops to surround the House of Commons and stationed a staunch independent, one Colonel Pride at the door with a list of the Presbyterian members and all unreliable members in general. The procedure was called "Pride's Purge" and it left only a "Rump" of independents, some hundred people who dutifully voted thanks to Cromwell and formed a High Court of Justice to judge the king. The latter was later brought before this court, accused of acts of tyranny, of raising taxes without the consent of Parliament and of making war upon his subjects. The trial took seven days. The king Charles I was condemned to death and beheaded before a crowd of people on the 30^thJanuary of 1649. [11, p.275]

In February of the same year the House of Lords was abolished and England was proclaimed a Republic ruled by Parliament. The royal courts of Europe raised an outcry, English embassadors were banished from many courts or even killed. Royalist writers worked up compassion and sympathy for the king, but Milton wrote a brilliant Defence of the Regicides where he showed the Parliament's policy as an act of struggle against tyranny.

This was the highest point of the English bourgeois revolution. The country took the way of bourgeois development. But its limitations were evident: the aristocratic landownership was left intact, and no really genuinely democratic Republic was in fact created. [3, p. 108]

3.4 Republican Britain and Cromwell's Dictatorship (1649-1660)

In the 3^rd period (1649-1653) the independents' republic (the block of the bourgeoisie and gentry) triumphed over the feudal absolute monarchy, but at the same time it suppressed all movements aimed at a further deepening of the revolution. The Independents, who in fact represented landowners, did everything to preserve big landownership and they were ready to raise taxes though the position of the peasantry, petty bourgeoisie and the town poor was bad enough. The protective function of the independents' republic in their home policy was combined with expansionist colonial policy in foreign affairs. Cromwell's Irish expedition of 1649-1652 was in fact a massacre exterminating thousands of Irishmen. [7, p.88]

It was then that the new landed aristocracy was created to encourage counterrevolution in England. Millions of acres of confiscated Irish land were used to pay the debts to the city bankers and the wages to the army officers. The Irish revolt was easy for Cromwell to deal with since it was headed by the nobles and catholic clergy - so it could be fought against under the guise of fighting against the Pope and Catholicism. The soldiers of Cromwell's army were promised the Irish rebel's lands that would be confiscated after the suppression of the revolt. The promise was kept and the soldiers having no money to begin farming with, sold the lands to their commanders, officers and speculators whose only dream, now that they became big landowners, was to have nothing to do with the revolution but enjoy their property and see to its safety. They became the chief supporters of reaction.

Scotland also attempted to strike for independence and they made use of the name of Charles II whom they invited to lead them. They were defeated, however, and Scotland was made a part of England in 1651.

After all these victories the Commonwealth felt strong enough to secure the interests of the bourgeoisie whose chief rival in trade was Holland. So the Dutchmen were no longer allowed to use their fleet for trade with England and its colonies in America. The war with Holland lasted two years (1652-1654) but already in 1653 the profitable termination of the war was evident, and that added to Cromwell's laurels gained by suppression the democratic movements within the country and the national liberation movement in Ireland and Scotland. His authority in the army was immense. The masses of the people did not benefit by any of those enterprises, the levelers and other democratic groups were again activizing their movement. [6, pp.245-246]

The bourgeoisie was frightened by the growth of the people's activity and the Parliament was dissolved in 1653. England was to be ruled by a council of officers who established military dictatorship and Cromwell was declared its Protector. Actually it meant the abolition of the republic and the end of the bourgeois revolution in England. From 1653 Britain was governed by Oliver Cromwell alone.

Thus the 3^rd period of the revolution saw the victory of the bourgeoisie and gentry block over the system of feudal absolutism on the one hand and over the democratic forces on the other.

The Lord Protector (as Cromwell was now called) did much of what the king was guilty of: when the Parliament of 1654-1655 made a feeble attempt to question his system of dictatorship he dissolved it; he did the same with the Parliament of 1656-1658; when the workers and peasants attempted uprisings, he suppressed them. He differed from the king though, for he did everything in his power to secure the ultimate victory of the bourgeoisie and gentry.

The latter, however, were ungrateful: the bourgeoisie and the gentry wanted monarchy back. So the Parliament of 1656 offered him the crown. Thinking of what the army officers would say, Cromwell refused, for a military dictatorship like his could not disregard the army, and the army did not want monarchy.