A. Van Dyck. Portrait of Charles I of England. Louvre. Paris.

Charles I (1600-1649) - English king since 1625, from the Stuart dynasty. He was recognized as the main culprit of the Civil War. On January 30, 1649, in the presence of a large crowd, the monarch was beheaded, and in England a republic was established.

Charles I (19.XI.1600 - 30.I.1649) - king (1625-1649) from the Stuart dynasty. Son James I. He pursued a reactionary feudal-absolutist policy that contradicted the interests of the bourgeoisie and the “new nobility.” Dissolved opposition parliaments (in 1625, 1626, 1629). He surrounded himself with reactionary advisers (Archbishop W. Laud, Lord Strafford, etc.). The policy of feudal reaction especially intensified during the period of the unparliamentary reign of Charles I (1629-1640). High taxes, arbitrary exactions (“ship tax”, 1635), arrests of opposition leaders of parliament, persons who refused to pay taxes, and bloody repressions against the Puritans aroused enormous discontent in the country. This was also facilitated by the personal qualities of Charles I - frivolous, self-confident and narrow-minded. The lack of sufficient financial resources (in particular, to wage war in Scotland, where an anti-English uprising began in 1637) forced Charles I to convene in April 1640 parliament, which he dissolved on May 5, 1640 (the so-called Short Parliament). The convening in November 1640, in conditions of a revolutionary situation in the country, of a new parliament (referred to as the Long) was the beginning of the English bourgeois revolution. In the civil wars of 1642-1646 and 1648, Charles I was defeated. On January 26, 1649, by the Supreme Judicial Tribunal, created by Parliament specifically to try the king, under pressure from the popular masses, Charles I, “as a tyrant, traitor, murderer and enemy of the state,” was sentenced to death and beheaded on January 30.

Soviet historical encyclopedia. In 16 volumes. - M.: Soviet Encyclopedia. 1973-1982. Volume 7. KARAKEEV - KOSHAKER. 1965.

Charles I - King of England and Scotland from the Stuart dynasty, who ruled in 1625- 1648 gg. Son of James I and Anne of Denmark.

Wife: from June 12, 1625 Henrietta Maria, daughter of King Henry IV of France (b. 1609 + 1669).

Charles was the third son of King James I and became heir only in 1616, after the death of his two older brothers. As a child, he was a meek and submissive child, and in his youth he was distinguished by his diligence and penchant for theological debates. But then the prince became close friends with his father's favorite Duke of Buckingham, who had a very bad influence on him. IN last years During his reign, King James I hatched plans for an alliance with Spain and wanted to marry his son to a Spanish princess. The Duke of Buckingham convinced Charles to follow his bride to Madrid as a wandering lover. This romantic adventure captivated Karl so much that even his father’s insistent arguments did not force him to abandon this idea. Karl and Buckingham arrived in Madrid in disguise, but here their appearance aroused more surprise than joy. Long negotiations led nowhere, and Charles returned to England a convinced enemy of Spain. Soon Jacob died, and Charles ascended to the English throne. The new king lacked neither courage nor military skill. With the virtues of the father of the family, he combined some of the virtues of the head of state. However, his rude and arrogant manner cooled affection and repelled devotion. Most of all, Karl was let down by his inability to choose the right tone: he showed weakness in those cases when it was necessary to resist, and stubbornness when it was necessary to yield. He could never understand either the character of the people with whom he had to fight, or the main aspirations of the people he had to govern.

At his first parliament in 1625, Charles demanded subsidies for the war with Spain in terse terms and in an imperative tone. Deputies agreed to allocate 140 thousand pounds sterling for military needs and approved a “barrel tax” for this purpose, but only for one year. The angry king dissolved the chambers. The Parliament of 1626 began its sessions with an attempt to install the royal favorite, the Duke of Buckingham, in court. Charles went to the House of Lords and announced that he accepted responsibility for all the orders of his minister. He again dissolved parliament, and in order to get money, he had to resort to a forced loan, which caused general indignation. With great difficulty and violation of laws, only insignificant funds were obtained, which were then spent without any benefit on the war with France. In 1628 Charles convened his third parliament. Its members were elected in a moment of general irritation and indignation. Skirmishes between the deputies and the king began again. The Magna Carta, which was not remembered during the entire reign of the Tudors, was brought out of oblivion. On the basis of it, the House of Commons drew up the “Petition of Rights,” which was, in essence, a statement of the English Constitution. After much hesitation, Karl approved it. From that time on, the “petition” became the basic English law, and was constantly appealed to in clashes with the king. Charles, who agreed to such an important concession, did not gain anything in return, since Parliament did not agree to approve the subsidies and again demanded that Buckingham be brought to court. Fortunately for the king, the hated duke was killed in 1629 by the fanatic Felton. Charles dissolved parliament and ruled without it for the next eleven years.

Charles owed such a long period of absolute rule to the fact that he had a skillful treasurer in the person of Weston, an energetic assistant in religious affairs in the person of Archbishop Laud, and, especially, such a talented statesman as Lord Strafford. The latter, ruling Northern England and Ireland, was able, thanks to various abuses, to annually collect significant subsidies from the population, sufficient to maintain an army of five thousand. Archbishop Laud, meanwhile, began severe persecution of the Puritans and forced many of them to emigrate to America. Seeking cash, the king introduced new taxes with his authority. Thus, in 1634, a “ship duty” was introduced. But collecting these taxes became more and more difficult every year. The government had to initiate legal proceedings against malicious tax evaders, which caused loud murmurs of public indignation. IN large quantities Pamphlets began to appear directed against the king. The police searched for their authors and punished them. This in turn gave rise to new indignation. In Scotland, where the Puritan position was much stronger than in England, the king's policies led to a powerful uprising in 1638. Leslie's army of twenty thousand invaded England from Scotland. Charles did not have the strength to fight her, and in 1640 he had to convene the fourth parliament.

The king hoped that, under the influence of patriotism, the deputies would allow him to raise the funds necessary to wage the war. But he was wrong once again. At the very first meeting of the House of Commons, the deputies announced their intention to review everything that had been done without their participation over these eleven years. The king declared parliament dissolved, but he was in a very difficult position: his army consisted of all sorts of rabble and was constantly defeated in the war. In November 1640, he unwillingly convened a new parliament, which went down in history under the name of the Long. On November 2, deputies demanded a trial of Strafford. On the same day he was arrested and, together with Laud, imprisoned. Everyone who took any part in collecting the “ship duty” was persecuted. Without any military force in its hands and relying only on the London crowd, Parliament actually seized government control into its own hands. Karl made one concession after another. In the end, he sacrificed his minister, and in May 1641, the hated Strafford was beheaded. Soon parliament abolished all tribunals that did not obey the general rules, including the Star Chamber. Laws were passed stating that the interval between the dissolution of the previous parliament and the convening of a new one could not exceed three years and that the king could not dissolve parliament against his will.

Karl defended himself as best he could. In January 1642, he accused five members of the House of Commons of secret relations with the Scots and demanded their arrest. He himself went to Westminster, accompanied by nobles and bodyguards, to capture the suspects, but they managed to flee to the City. Karl, annoyed, hurried after them, but was never able to take the troublemakers into custody. The sheriffs refused to carry out his order, and a violent crowd, running from all sides, met the king loud screams: “Privilege! Privilege!" Karl saw his powerlessness and left London that same day. Five members of the House of Commons solemnly returned to Westminster under the protection of the city police.

The king settled in York and began to prepare for a campaign against the capital. All attempts to peacefully resolve the conflict ended in failure, as both sides showed intransigence. Parliament demanded for itself the right to appoint and dismiss ministers and sought to subordinate all branches of government to its control. Charles replied: “If I agree to such conditions, I will become only a ghostly king.” Both sides were gathering troops. Parliament introduced taxes and formed an army of 20 thousand. At the same time, the king's supporters flocked to the northern counties. The first battle, which took place in October at Edgegill, did not have a decisive outcome. But soon uprisings began in the western counties in favor of the king. The city of Bristol surrendered to the Royalists. Having firmly established himself in Oxford, Charles began to threaten London, but resistance to him grew with each passing month. Since all the bishops sided with the king, parliament in 1643 announced the abolition of bishoprics and the introduction of Presbyterianism. Since then, nothing has prevented a close rapprochement with the rebel Scots. In 1644, the king had to simultaneously fight a war with the army of Parliament and the army of Leslie. On July 3 the royalists were defeated at Merston Moor. The squad played a decisive role in this victory Oliver Cromwell composed of fanatical Puritans. The northern counties recognized the authority of Parliament. For some time, Charles continued to win victories in the south. Throughout this war, he showed, along with his usual fearlessness, composure, energy and outstanding military talents. The Parliamentary army under Essex was surrounded and capitulated in Cornwall on 1 September. This defeat led to the fact that the Independents (extreme Puritans) led by Cromwell took over in the House of Commons. The people in the capital were overwhelmed with religious enthusiasm. The Independents banned all entertainment; time was divided between prayer and military exercises. In a short time, Cromwell formed a new army, distinguished by extremely high fighting spirit. On June 14, 1645, she met the royalists at Naseby and inflicted a decisive defeat on them. The king retreated, leaving five thousand dead and one hundred banners on the battlefield. In the following months, parliament extended its influence throughout the country.

Accompanied by only two people, Charles fled to Scotland, wanting to get support from his fellow countrymen. But he miscalculated. The Scots captured the king and handed him over to parliament for 800 thousand pounds sterling. Karl found himself a prisoner in Golmeby. True, even now his situation was far from hopeless. The House of Commons offered him peace on the condition that he agree to the destruction of the episcopal structure of the church and submit the army to the subordination of parliament for twenty years. Soon a third force intervened in these negotiations. During the war years, the army turned into an independent and powerful organization with its own interests and was not always ready to carry out the instructions of parliament. In June 1647, several squadrons captured the king in Golmsby and took him under escort to their camp. Here negotiations began between the king and the commanders of the army. The conditions proposed by these latter were less restrictive than parliamentary ones. Thus, the period for which the king had to give up command of the army was reduced to ten years. Karl hesitated to make a final decision - he hoped that he could still be the winner; on November 11, he fled from Hampton Court to the Isle of Wight. Here, however, he was immediately captured by Colonel Grommond and imprisoned in Kerisbroke Castle. However, the king's flight served as a signal for a second civil war. Violent royalist revolts broke out in the southeast and west of the country. The Scots, to whom Charles had promised to preserve their Presbyterian Church, agreed to support him. But even after this, the king had no hope of victory. Cromwell defeated the Scots and, pursuing them, entered Edinburgh. The rebellious Colchester capitulated to Fairfax's army.

In July 1648, new negotiations began. Charles accepted all the demands of the victors, except for the abolition of episcopacy. Parliament was ready to make peace on these terms, but the army, imbued with the Puritan spirit, fiercely opposed this concession. On December 6, a detachment of soldiers under the command of Colonel Pride expelled 40 deputies from the House of Commons who were inclined to compromise with the king. The next day, the same number were expelled. Thus, independents, acting in concert with the army, received a majority in parliament. In reality, this coup marked the beginning of Cromwell's sole rule. He entered the capital as a triumphant man and took up residence in the royal rooms of Guategall Palace as sovereign of the state. Now, on his initiative, parliament decided to put the king on trial as a rebel who had started a war with his own people. Charles was taken under guard to Windsor and then to St. James's Palace. At the beginning of 1649, a tribunal of fifty people was formed. On January 20, it began its meetings at the Palace of Westminster. Karl was brought to court three times to testify. From the very beginning he declared that he did not recognize the right of the House of Commons to put him on trial, nor the right of the tribunal to condemn him. He considered the power appropriated by parliament to be usurpation. When they told him that he received power from the people and used it to harm the people, Charles replied that he received power from God and used it to fight the rebels. And when he was accused of unleashing civil war and bloodshed, he replied that he took up arms to preserve the rule of law. It is obvious that each side was right in its own way, and if the case had been considered legally, the resolution of all legal difficulties would have taken more than one month. But Cromwell did not consider it possible to delay the process for so long. On January 27, the tribunal announced that “Charles Stuart,” as a tyrant, rebel, murderer and enemy of the English state, was sentenced to beheading. The king was given three days to prepare for death. He used them in prayers with Bishop Joxon. All these days, right up to the very last minute, he maintained exceptional courage. On January 30, Charles was beheaded on a scaffold placed near the Guategoll Palace, and a few days later parliament declared the monarchy abolished and proclaimed a republic.

All the monarchs of the world. Western Europe. Konstantin Ryzhov. Moscow, 1999.

Read further:

Literature:

Higham F. M., Charles I., L., 1932;

Wedgwood C. V., The Great Rebellion: v. 1-The King's peace. 1637-1641, L., 1955; v. 2 - The King's war. 1641-1647, L., 1958.

On a cold January morning in 1649, it was not an ordinary criminal who climbed onto the scaffold in the center of London, but a king who had ruled his people for twenty-four years. On this day, the country completed the next stage of its history, and the finale was the execution of Charles 1. In England, the date of this event is not marked in the calendar, but it forever entered its history.

Scion of the noble Stuart family

The Stuarts are a dynasty descended from an ancient Scottish house. Its representatives, having more than once occupied the English and Scottish thrones, left a mark on the history of the state like no one else. Their rise dates back to the early 14th century, when Earl Walter Stewart married the daughter of King Robert I the Bruce. It is unlikely that this marriage was preceded by a romantic story; most likely, the English monarch considered it beneficial to strengthen his connection with the Scottish aristocracy with this union.

Charles the First, oh tragic fate who will be discussed in this article, was one of the descendants of the Honorable Count Walter, and like him, belonged to the Stuart dynasty. With his birth, he “made happy” his future subjects on November 19, being born in the ancient residence of the Scottish monarchs - Denfermline Palace.

For his subsequent accession to the throne, little Charles had an impeccable origin - his father was King James VI of Scotland, and his mother was Queen Anne of Denmark of England. However, the matter was spoiled by Henry's elder brother, the Prince of Wales, who was born six years earlier and therefore had a priority right to the crown.

In general, fate was not particularly generous to Charles, of course, if this can be said about a youth from the royal family. As a child, he was a sickly child, somewhat delayed in development, and therefore later than his peers began to walk and talk. Even when his father inherited the English throne in 1603 and moved to London, Charles could not follow him, as the court physicians feared that he would not survive the journey.

It should be noted that physical weakness and thinness accompanied him all his life. Even in ceremonial portraits, artists were unable to give this monarch any kind of majestic appearance. And Charles 1 Stuart was only 162 cm tall.

The path to the royal throne

An event occurred that determined the whole future fate Carla. That year, a terrible typhus epidemic broke out in London, from which it was impossible to hide even within the walls of the royal castle. Fortunately, he himself was not injured, since he was in Scotland at that time, but the victim of the disease was his older brother Henry, who was prepared from birth to rule the country, and on whom all high society had high hopes.

This death opened the way for Charles to power, and as soon as the funeral ceremonies were completed in Westminster Abbey, where Henry’s ashes rested, he was elevated to the rank of Prince of Wales - heir to the throne, and over the next years his life was filled with all sorts of preparations for the fulfillment of such a high mission.

When Karl turned twenty, his father became concerned about the arrangement of his future family life, since the marriage of the heir to the throne is a purely political matter, and Hymen is not allowed to shoot at him. James VI chose the Spanish Infanta Anna. This decision caused indignation among members of parliament who did not want a dynastic rapprochement with the Catholic state. Looking ahead, it should be noted that the future execution of Charles 1 will have a largely religious background, and such a rash choice of a bride was the first step towards it.

However, at that moment there were no signs of trouble, and Karl went to Madrid with the desire to personally intervene in the marriage negotiations, and at the same time to look at the bride. On the trip, the groom was accompanied by his favorite, or rather, his father’s lover, George Villiers. According to historians, VI had a large and loving heart, which accommodated not only the ladies of the court, but also their honorable husbands.

To the disappointment of the English court, negotiations in Madrid reached a dead end, since the Spanish side demanded that the prince accept Catholicism, and this was completely unacceptable. Karl and him new friend George was so wounded by the obstinacy of the Spaniards that upon returning home they demanded that parliament break relations with their royal court, and even disembark an expeditionary force to conduct military operations. It is not known how it would have ended, but, fortunately, at that moment a more accommodating bride turned up - the daughter of Henry IV, Henrietta Maria, who became his wife, and the rejected groom calmed down.

At the pinnacle of power

Charles 1 Stuart ascended the throne after the death of his father in 1625, and from the very first days began to conflict with Parliament, demanding subsidies from it for all sorts of military adventures. Not getting what he wanted (the economy was bursting at the seams), he dissolved it twice, but each time was forced to reconvene it. As a result, the king obtained the necessary funds by imposing illegal and very burdensome taxes on the population of the country. History knows many similar examples when short-sighted monarchs plugged budget holes by tightening taxes.

Subsequent years also brought no improvement. His friend and favorite George Villiers, who after the death of James VI finally moved to Charles’s chambers, was soon killed. This scoundrel turned out to be dishonest, and he paid for it while collecting taxes. Having not the slightest idea of ​​economics, the king always considered new and new levies, fines, the introduction of various monopolies and similar measures to be the only way to replenish the treasury. The execution of Charles 1, which followed in the twenty-fourth year of his reign, was a worthy finale to such a policy.

Soon after the murder of Villiers, a certain Thomas Wentworth stood out noticeably from the circle of courtiers, who managed to make a brilliant career during the reign of Charles the First. He came up with the idea of ​​establishing absolute royal power in the state, based on a regular army. Having subsequently become viceroy in Ireland, he successfully implemented this plan, suppressing dissent with fire and sword.

Reforms that caused social tension in Scotland

Charles the First did not show foresight in the religious conflicts that tore the country apart. The fact is that the majority consisted of followers of the Presbyterian and Puritan churches, belonging to two of the many directions of Protestantism.

This often served as a reason for conflicts with representatives of the Anglican Church, which dominated England and was supported by the government. Not wanting to seek a compromise, the king tried to establish her dominance everywhere by violent measures, which caused extreme indignation among the Scots, and ultimately led to bloodshed.

However main mistake, the consequence of which was the civil war in England, the execution of Charles 1 and the subsequent political crisis, one should consider his extremely ill-conceived and ineptly pursued policy towards Scotland. Most researchers of such a sadly ended reign unanimously agree on this.

The main direction of his activity was the strengthening of unlimited royal and church power. This policy was fraught with extremely negative consequences. In Scotland, for a long time, traditions have developed that consolidated the rights of estates and elevated the inviolability of private property into law, and it was these that the monarch encroached on in the first place.

The short-sightedness of royal policy

In addition, it should be noted that the biography of Charles 1 was tragic not so much because of the goals he pursued, but because of the ways of their implementation. His actions, usually overly straightforward and poorly thought out, invariably caused popular indignation and contributed to strengthening the opposition.

In 1625, the king alienated the vast majority of the Scottish nobility by issuing a decree that went down in history as the “Act of Revocation.” According to this document, all decrees of the English kings, starting in 1540, on the transfer of land plots to the nobility were annulled. To preserve them, the owners were required to contribute to the treasury an amount equal to the value of the land.

In addition, the same decree ordered the return to the Anglican Church of its lands located in Scotland and confiscated from it during the Reformation, which established Protestantism in the country, which fundamentally affected the religious interests of the population. It is not surprising that after the publication of such a provocative document, many protest petitions were submitted to the king from representatives of various sectors of society. However, he not only pointedly refused to consider them, but also aggravated the situation by introducing new taxes.

Nomination of the episcopate and abolition of the Scottish Parliament

From the first days of his reign, Charles I began to nominate Anglican bishops to the highest government posts. They were also given the majority of seats in the royal council, which significantly reduced the representation of the Scottish nobility in it and gave a new reason for discontent. As a result, the Scottish aristocracy found itself removed from power and deprived of access to the king.

Fearing the strengthening of the opposition, the king practically suspended the activities of the Scottish Parliament from 1626, and by all means prevented the convening of the General Assembly of the Scottish Church, into whose worship, by his order, a number of Anglican canons alien to them were introduced. This was a fatal mistake, and the execution of Charles 1, which became the sad end of his reign, was the inevitable consequence of such miscalculations.

Beginning of the first civil war

When there was talk of infringement of the political rights of the nobility, such actions caused protest only in their narrow class circle, but in the case of violation of religious norms, the king set the whole people against himself. This again caused a stream of outrage and protest petitions. As before, the king refused to consider them, and added fuel to the fire by executing one of the most active petitioners, charging him with the usual charge of treason in such cases.

The spark that exploded Scotland's powder magazine was the attempt to hold a service based on the Anglican liturgy in Edinburgh on July 23, 1637. This caused not only the indignation of citizens, but also an open riot that engulfed most country, and went down in history as the First Civil War. The situation was heating up every day. The leaders of the noble opposition drew up and sent to the king a protest against the alien to the people church reform, and the widespread rise of the Anglican episcopate.

The king's attempt to defuse the situation by forcibly removing the most active oppositionists from Edinburgh only worsened general discontent. As a result, under pressure from his opponents, Charles I was forced to make concessions, removing bishops hated by the people from the royal council.

The result of general unrest was the convening of the National Convention of Scotland, consisting of delegates from all social strata of society, and headed by representatives of the highest aristocracy. Its participants drew up and signed a manifesto on joint actions of the entire Scottish nation against attempts to make any changes to their religious foundations. A copy of the document was handed to the king, and he was forced to reconcile. However, this was only a temporary lull, and the lesson taught to the monarch by his subjects was of no use. Therefore, the execution of Charles 1st Stuart was the logical conclusion of the chain of his mistakes.

New civil war

This arrogant, but very unlucky ruler also disgraced himself in another part of the kingdom subordinate to him - Ireland. There, for a certain and very substantial bribe, he promised patronage to local Catholics, however, having received money from them, he immediately forgot about everything. Offended by this attitude towards themselves, the Irish took up arms in order to use it to refresh the memory of the king. Despite the fact that by this time Charles I had completely lost the support of his own parliament, and with it the bulk of the population, he tried, with a small number of regiments loyal to him, to change the current situation by force. So, on August 23, 1642, the Second Civil War began in England.

It should be noted that Charles I was as incompetent as a commander as he was as a ruler. If at the beginning of hostilities he managed to win several fairly easy victories, then on July 14, 1645, his army was completely defeated in the Battle of Nesby. Not only was the king captured by his own subjects, but also an archive containing a lot of incriminating evidence was captured in his camp. As a result, many of his political and financial machinations, as well as requests for military assistance from foreign countries, became public.

Crowned Prisoner

Until 1647, Charles I was kept in Scotland as a prisoner. However, even in this unenviable role, he continued to make attempts to come to an agreement with representatives of various political groups and religious movements, generously handing out promises left and right that no one believed. In the end, the jailers extracted the only possible benefit from him by transferring (selling) him to the English Parliament for four hundred thousand pounds sterling. The Stuarts are a dynasty that has seen a lot in its lifetime, but it has never experienced such shame.

Once in London, the deposed king was placed in Golmby Castle, and then transferred to Hampton Court Palace, under house arrest. There, Charles had a real opportunity to return to power, having accepted the offer that was approached by a prominent politician of that era for whom the execution of Charles 1, which had become quite real by that time, was unprofitable.

The conditions offered to the king did not contain any serious restrictions on the royal powers, but even here he missed his chance. Wanting even greater concessions, and having started secret negotiations with various political groups in the country, Charles avoided a direct answer to Cromwell, as a result of which he lost patience and abandoned his plan. Thus, the execution of Charles 1 Stuart was only a matter of time.

The tragic outcome was accelerated by his escape to the Isle of Wight, located in the English Channel, not far from the British coast. However, this adventure also ended in failure, as a result of which house arrest in the palace was replaced by imprisonment in a prison cell. From there, Baron Arthur Capel, whom Charles had once made a peer and elevated to the very top of the court hierarchy, tried to rescue his former monarch. But, not having sufficient strength, he soon found himself behind bars.

Trial and execution of the deposed king

There is no doubt that the most characteristic feature of this scion of the Stuart family was the tendency to intrigue, which as a result destroyed him. For example, while making vague promises to Cromwell, he simultaneously conducted behind-the-scenes negotiations with his opponents from parliament, and receiving money from Catholics, he also supported Anglican bishops with it. And the execution of King Charles 1 itself was largely accelerated due to the fact that, even while under arrest, he did not stop sending out calls for rebellion everywhere, which in his position was complete madness.

As a result, the majority of the regiments submitted a petition to Parliament demanding a trial. former king. The year was 1649, and the hopes with which British society had greeted his accession to the throne were long gone. Instead of a wise and far-sighted politician, it received a proud and limited adventurer.

To conduct the trial of Charles I, Parliament appointed one hundred and thirty-five commissioners, headed by the prominent lawyer of the time, John Bradshaw. The execution of King Charles 1 was predetermined in advance, and therefore the whole procedure did not take much time. The former monarch, a man who only yesterday commanded a mighty power, was unanimously recognized as a tyrant, a traitor and an enemy of the fatherland. It is clear that the only possible sentence for such serious crimes could be death.

The execution of the English king Charles 1 took place in the early morning of January 30, 1649 in London. We must give him his due - even after ascending the scaffold, he retained his presence of mind and addressed the assembled crowd with his dying speech. In it, the convict stated that civil liberties and freedoms are ensured solely by the presence of a government and laws that guarantee citizens life and the inviolability of property. But at the same time, this in no way gives the people the right to claim control of the country. The monarch and the crowd, according to him, are completely different concepts.

Thus, even on the verge of death, Charles defended the principles of absolutism, of which all the Stuarts were adherents. England still had a long way to go before the constitutional monarchy was fully established, and the people, contrary to their opinion, had the opportunity to participate in government. However, the foundation for this had already been laid.

According to the memoirs of contemporaries, the execution of the English king Charles 1 gathered a huge crowd of people who were in a state close to shock throughout this bloody performance. The climax came when the executioner lifted the severed head of their former sovereign by the hair. However, the traditional words in such cases that it belongs to a state criminal and traitor were not heard.

So, 1649 put a bloody end to the reign of this king. However, another eleven years will pass, and a period will begin in the history of England called the Stuart Restoration, when representatives of this ancient family will once again ascend the throne. The Second Civil War and the execution of Charles 1 were its threshold.

Execution of King Charles I of England

From 1640 King Charles I of England is in conflict with the British Parliament. The reason for the conflict, on the one hand, lies in the king’s violation of the right of parliament to set taxes. On the other hand - in the religious claims of the king. He wishes to assert his authority over the church with the help of the Anglican bishops, while a growing number of English people join the harsh Protestantism that rejects episcopacy.

In 1642 the conflict escalates into civil war. Parliament creates its own army - mainly from extreme Protestants, "Puritans", led by Cromwell. While the moderate parliament could have been content with a compromise with the king, Cromwell and the army decide to get rid of him. Defeated and then captured, Charles I tries to negotiate with parliament. But Cromwell, at the head of the army, marches on London, expels his opponents from parliament (only the “rump” will remain from parliament, they will call it that) and brings the king to justice. The king is sentenced to death as "a tyrant, a traitor, a murderer and an enemy of the country." On January 30, 1649 he was beheaded on a scaffold erected in front of the royal palace.

The execution of the king caused great confusion - for the public opinion of that time, the king, whatever he may be, is sacred. With Charles I, the era of absolute monarchy became a thing of the past.

From the book Queen Margot by Dumas Alexander

Chapter 4 THE GRATITUDE OF KING CHARLES IX Morvel spent part of the day in the King's Armory, but when Catherine saw that the time for returning from the hunt was approaching, she ordered him and his assistants to be taken to her chapel. As soon as Charles IX returned, the nurse told him,

From the book The Newest Book of Facts. Volume 3 [Physics, chemistry and technology. History and archaeology. Miscellaneous] author Kondrashov Anatoly Pavlovich

From the book Myths and Realities Battle of Poltava author

Chapter 12. Winter Campaign of King Charles Now “orange” historians are trying to drum into the poorly educated sections of the population the myth that Hetman Mazepa raised an “anti-colonial uprising” against Tsar Peter. However, all surviving documents show us something completely different.5

From book Everyday life nobility of Pushkin's time. Signs and superstitions. author Lavrentieva Elena Vladimirovna

From the book World History Uncensored. In cynical facts and titillating myths author Maria Baganova

The consequences of Marat's murder are increased terror. Execution of the Queen. Execution of Madame DuBarry. Execution of Madame Roland. Execution of Olympia de Gouges This murder and the trial of Charlotte Corday gave Robespierre grounds to further intensify repression and destroy all his political competitors.

From the book Great Historical Sensations author Korovina Elena Anatolyevna

The incredible accession of King Charles XIV Johan of Sweden This is the most sensational story of accession to the throne. Not a single royal family can boast of anything like this - only the Swedish! And it all began in the turbulent times of the French bourgeois revolution. Exactly then

From the book The Crown and the Scaffold by Zweig Stefan

Iv. Sakharov Execution of Charles I, King of England Historian Guizot writes: “The revolution in England was a success, and it was a success twice. Its instigators founded a constitutional monarchy in England; her descendants founded the Republic of the United States in America. In these great events there is no longer

From the book Northern Wars of Russia author Shirokorad Alexander Borisovich

Chapter 14. Odyssey of King Charles In the camp near Bendery the king Charles XII he soon recovered from his wound and began his usual activities - riding, hunting, maneuvers, tiring three horses and all his subordinates every day. The only rest he sometimes allowed himself was

From the book The Split of the Empire: from Ivan the Terrible-Nero to Mikhail Romanov-Domitian. [The famous “ancient” works of Suetonius, Tacitus and Flavius, it turns out, describe Great author

6.5. The execution of Mary Stuart and the execution of Messalina are the execution of Helen Voloshanka, that is, Esther Messalina was executed by a Roman tribune in the Gardens of Lucullus. The executioner stabbed her with a sword. Mary Stuart's head was cut off. “The execution took place on February 8, 1587 at Fotheringhay Castle. According to descriptions

From the book 500 famous historical events author Karnatsevich Vladislav Leonidovich

THE SECOND CIVIL WAR IN ENGLAND AND THE EXECUTION OF CHARLES I. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE PROTECTORATE Many of those who led the English Revolution at its inception could consider their job done by the end of the first civil war. In February 1646 the knightly kingdom was destroyed

From the book Chronology of Russian history. Russia and the world author Anisimov Evgeniy Viktorovich

1789–1792 Beginning of the revolution in France. Execution of King Louis XVI By the end of the 1780s. The once richest French treasury was empty, the budget deficit was huge, and although the court lived with the same extravagance, a national catastrophe was looming. And then it was decided to install

From the book Book 2. Conquest of America by Russia-Horde [Biblical Rus'. The Beginning of American Civilizations. Biblical Noah and medieval Columbus. Revolt of the Reformation. Dilapidated author Nosovsky Gleb Vladimirovich

3. The strange story of the discovery of the remains of Charlemagne = King “Mongol” This story is mysterious. This is something historians themselves note. Immediately after his death, the King of "Mongol" was allegedly buried in the Khan's House, c. 30. However, “very early the original place of the tomb WAS FORGOTTEN... After

From the book The Frankish Empire of Charlemagne ["European Union" of the Middle Ages] author Levandovsky Anatoly Petrovich

Wars of King Charles 772 begins the era of great wars. From this moment on, we will find in the chronicle of the reign of King Charles no more than two or three “peaceful” years. The rest of the time will be filled with campaigns, invasions, sieges... Every spring (usually May) - a military gathering nearby

From the book History of Little Russia - 4 author Markevich Nikolai Andreevich

LV. Manifesto issued in Little Russia from the Swedish King Charles XII We are Korolus, by the grace of God, the Swedish, Gothic, Vendenian King, Grand Duke of Finland, Artsakh of the lands of Skana, Estlyansk, Liflyansk, Karelian, Bremen, Ferden, Stetin, Pomeranian, Kazuba and

From the book From the Varangians to Nobel [Swedes on the banks of the Neva] author Youngfeldt Bengt

King Carl Johan's School The activities of the church school, established in 1824 under Tavasta, gained greater scope thanks to Erström, who, as the parish pastor, was also the director of the school. In 1827 it was divided into two sections - for girls and for

From the book The Tudors author Vronsky Pavel

Church of the King of England Soon after Martin Luther spoke in 1517, the ideas of the Reformation reached England, arousing particular interest in university circles, where the fate of the Church had long been discussed, including under the influence of Erasmus of Rotterdam. It's finally here

Revolution in England. Trial and execution of Charles I

While the trial was being prepared day and night in Whitehall, it was decided to transfer Charles I closer to London. Windsor Castle was chosen as the new place of detention. The mission of transferring the king from Hurstcastle to Windsor, fraught with many complications, was entrusted to Colonel Harrison, one of Cromwell's closest associates. The king's supporters were preparing his escape.

One of his options was an attack by Charles I’s nephew, Prince Rupert, on Hurstcastle, but he was too late: the king was no longer there. A second attempt to capture him was made during a stop at Bagshot, on the estate of Lord Newburgh. Under the pretext of the need to change the horse on which the king sat on the journey, it was planned to give him a trotter from the famous stable of the hospitable host. On it he would be out of reach in case of a chase. Harrison accepted the trotter with gratitude, but ordered the king to give the horse to one of the convoy soldiers. Not far from Windsor, an interesting conversation took place between Charles and Harrison. “I heard,” said Karl, “that you are participating in a conspiracy to kill me.” Harrison replied: “For my part, I despise such low and hidden enterprises.” The king can be calm about this. What happens to him “will happen before the eyes of the whole world.”

At Windsor, the guard of the prisoner was entrusted to Colonel Tomlinson. He received instructions to transfer the king to more strict regime: reduce the number of his servants, constantly guard the door behind which Charles was, one officer must be with the king day and night. Walking was allowed only on the castle terrace. Dating was prohibited. The king's servants swore an oath to immediately report everything they learned about the impending escape.

From now on, preparations for the trial were accelerated. Members of the Military Council switched to barracks regime. During the day, many of them sat as members of parliament in the House of Commons, and at night in the Army Council. There was general excitement and tension here. We slept fitfully. And political passions around the impending trial only flared up. Meanwhile, parliament as a mechanism of power was essentially paralyzed. Meetings of the House of Commons often did not assemble the quorum required to vote on the issues under consideration - 40 members.

When, on December 23, the House decided to create a committee to consider the question of how the king could be brought to justice, a general flight from London began of members of parliament - the most experienced lawyers and clerks, i.e., precisely those on whom the development of the legal formula of the court depended . Selden, Whitelock, Waldrington left London. Chief Justices Henry Roll, Oliver St. Johns, and John Wylde refused to participate in the trial. All of them were appointed to these positions by Parliament, were in its service as convinced opponents of the royal prerogative, and yet they all did not want to become participants in the court. Where was the line for them between the right to fight against the king and the right to judge him, between self-interest and principles, what were these principles in reality? All these questions are difficult to answer.

On January 1, 1649, Henry Martin submitted to the House of Commons, on behalf of the “preparatory committee,” a draft ordinance that read:

“For it is known that Charles Stuart, the present King of England, not being content with the many infringements upon the rights and liberties of the people committed by his predecessors, set out to completely destroy the ancient and fundamental laws and rights of this nation, and to introduce in their place an arbitrary and tyrannical government, for the sake of which he waged a terrible war against Parliament and the people, which laid waste the country, exhausted the treasury, suspended useful pursuits and commerce, and cost the lives of many thousands of people... treacherously and maliciously sought to enslave the English nation... To the fear of all future rulers who might try anything like this, the king must be brought to account before a special court of justice, consisting of 150 members appointed by this parliament, presided over by two chief judges."

This is in highest degree an important and very interesting historical document. First of all, it clearly and unequivocally condemned absolutism as a political (state) system, but at the same time it did not condemn royal power as such. England continued to be thought of as a monarchy. Charles I was brought to trial for abuse of royal power, but in the dock he remained the king, moreover, it was as a king who had abused the power that he had to stand trial.

But events clearly outpaced plans: they led even the most cowardly independents of the army and parliament forward.

The fact is that the resolution of the House of Commons that we cited could acquire the force of law only if it was approved by the House of Lords. This chamber, since 1642 (i.e., the first civil war between the king and parliament), existed more formally than in fact. The absolute majority of peers, finding themselves, as one would expect, on the side of the king, left Westminster - 80 out of 100 members of the House of Lords. By the end of 1648, the House of Lords usually consisted of six lords, presided over by the Earl of Manchester. In mid-December, the Lords interrupted their session due to the Christmas holidays. On January 2, 1649, 12 lords appeared in the chamber due to the exceptional importance of the issue. The most interesting thing is how they behaved in such a sensitive matter. The Earl of Manchester, who commanded the parliamentary units of the so-called Eastern Association in the war against the king, now declared: “The king alone has the right to summon or dissolve parliament, and it is therefore absurd to accuse him of treason against parliament, over which he towered as the highest juridical authority in the land.” The Earl of Northemberland, who supported Parliament throughout the Civil War, expressed his opinion as follows: “It is unlikely that even one person in 20 will agree with the statement that the king, and not Parliament, started the war. Without preliminary clarification of this circumstance, it is impossible to accuse the king of high treason.” Other peers behaved in approximately the same way.

As a result, the House of Lords unanimously rejected the ordinance proposed by the House of Commons to bring Charles I to trial. Following this, the lords announced a week-long break in meetings and hastily left the capital. However, the House of Commons, “purified by Pride,” was ready for such a course of events. On January 4, it declared that as the only chamber elected by the people, and the people are the source of all just power, it is the highest authority in the country and its decisions do not need to be confirmed by any other chamber. From the list of members of the special court, the few names of peers that appeared there were deleted. This was truly a historic step.

The official proclamation of the principle “the people are the source of all power under God” was not only a forced constitutional act in order to eliminate from the future government structure House of Lords, at the same time, it most clearly testified to where the source of the political courage and determination of the organizers of the court should be sought. An unprecedented step in politics was possible only as an expression of the will of the people of England who took up arms.

This constitutional act accomplished something unexpected for its authors and inspirers: the old, monarchical constitution of England, according to which parliament legislates in two chambers headed by the king, was crossed out. From now on, the parliament actually declared itself unicameral. Consequently, the formal republican system was actually introduced much earlier than the official declaration of England as a republic and the House of Lords as non-existent. On January 6, the House of Commons passed an act establishing a special supreme court to try the king, consisting of 135 members appointed by Parliament.

This finally stopped all attempts to influence parliament and the army in order to prevent the trial. And there were many similar attempts. Queen Henrietta Maria, the wife of Charles I, who was in Paris, addressed parliament and Fairfax with personal messages. The French Resident in London made a formal representation to Parliament on behalf of his Government on the same occasion. The Scottish Commissioners in London asked the House of Commons to prevent the trial. Street sermons from the enemies of the army - the Presbyterians, a vast stream of leaflets, Presbyterian and royalist, exhorted, threatened, intimidated with the mortal sin of "shedding innocent blood", "Egyptian executions of inevitable retribution." England, and especially the capital, was filled with alarming and contradictory rumors. The streets and squares resembled anthills. Everyone was eagerly catching the news, cries of heralds were heard somewhere, landfills and street fights arose. But several regiments stationed in the city quickly restored order.

It is characteristic that in these critical days, none other than John Lilburne, the famous Leveler, champion of the “natural rights” of the poor people of England, “washed his hands of” - went to the north “on personal matters”. What drove him? After all, he was a convinced enemy of the monarchy and the tyranny of the House of Lords; he demanded the establishment of a republic with a unicameral parliament in the days when Cromwell and Ayrton were still outspoken monarchists and supporters of a traditional constitution. Most likely, Lilburne has finally and irrevocably lost faith in the democracy of “his recent allies - the officer elite.” He feared that the execution of the king would lead to the establishment in the country of an open, unrestricted dictatorship of grand officers, and did not want to forge “new chains of England” with his own hands. When his fears came true, Lilburne publicly recognized the execution of the king as an illegal act and preferred the traditional monarchy to the arbitrariness of the officer council.

Finally, among the king's judges there was not another outstanding figure of the Independent party - Member of Parliament Sir Henry Van. And this is astonishing, since not long before he had used all his influence and eloquence to get Parliament to repeal the agreement of the Presbyterians with the king. However, after the “Pride Purge” of the chamber, he stopped attending its meetings. He was against the trial of the king not on political principles, but because he considered the forcible “cleansing of the chamber” by Pride to be an illegal act. The open violation of parliamentary privilege by the army foreshadowed the nature of the government that was to be established in the country in the near future. Yi Wen did not want to participate in the establishment of a military dictatorship, passing the death sentence on Charles I.

Let us now turn to those who did not leave; for political or personal reasons, they could not leave the organization of the court. Not all supporters of parliament could bear this burden, for it is one thing to speak out, even with a sword in hand, against the arbitrary rule of the king, and a completely different thing to swing this sword at the head of the crown bearer.

Meanwhile, the list of 135 members of the special trial chamber was published. It opened with the noble name of Thomas Fairfax, although his baronial title was of Scottish rather than English origin. Next came Lord Musoi, whose title was Irish descent, and two eldest sons of English peers: Lord Gray and Lord Leslie. Finally, the list of "noble judges" included 11 baronets, whose titles were, in most cases, purchased with money in the recent past.

Further, we find among the judges representatives of the gentry of many counties and decent mayors and aldermen of the most important cities (York, Newcastle, Hull, Liverpool, Cambridge, Dorchester, etc.). In short, the compilers of the list were clearly concerned to present the court as a national matter, a matter of the entire English people. The chief justice of Cheshire, John Bradshaw, was appointed chairman, since the chief justices of England, as we have seen, decisively refused this mission.

The first meeting of the High Chamber of Justice (as the tribunal was called) took place on January 8 at the Palace of Westminster. Judges were appointed to draw up a formula for accusing the king - they turned out to be John Cook, Anthony Steele, John Ele and a scientist, an immigrant from Holland, Isaac Dorislau.

On January 19th it was time to transport the prisoner from Windsor to the place of trial. A carriage with six horses was brought to the castle; Lines of musketeers stood on both sides of the road to the outer gate of the castle, and as soon as the carriage left the castle, it was surrounded by a detachment of cavalry under the command of Harrison. When the king was brought to the Thames, he was transferred to a barge waiting near the shore, which was escorted along the river by boats with soldiers on board. At the pier of Sir Robert Cotton, the king was disembarked and, between two closed ranks of infantry, was taken to the house chosen as Charles's seat during the trial. The house was guarded around the clock by 200 infantrymen and a detachment of cavalry. On January 20, at about two o'clock in the afternoon, the members of the court, preceded by 20 guards armed with halberds and clerks carrying a sword and scepter - signs of supreme authority, entered the hall and took their places. Their benches were covered with red cloth. The chairman's chair was on a raised platform. On both sides of it were the chairs of his two assistants - William Seay and John Leslie. All three were wearing black judge's robes. In front of them was the secretary's desk and, somewhat further away, a red upholstered chair for the defendant. First, an act of parliament was read out, according to which the court received its powers. Bradshaw then ordered the accused to be brought in. While waiting, his secretary began to roll call the members of the court. When Fairfax's name was called, a masked woman in one of the nearby galleries shouted something. It was Lady Fairfax who uttered the now famous line: “He’s too smart to be here.” But then the king appeared in a black dress, surrounded by 12 soldiers. As a sign of non-recognition of the authority of the court, he deliberately did not remove his hat. Without looking around, Karl quickly walked over and sat down in the chair reserved for him with his back to the audience. The guards took their places at the barrier.

Bradshaw spoke: “Charles Stuart, King of England, the Commons of England, assembled in Parliament... in accordance with their duty to God, to the nation, and to themselves, in accordance with the power and trust vested in them by the people, have established this supreme house of justice , before which you appeared. Listen to the charge brought against you." Prosecutor John Cook rose from his seat and said: “My Lords, in the name of the communities of England and the entire people of the country, I accuse Charles Stuart, who is present here, of high treason. In the name of the commons of England I wish that the charge be read."

During the reading, the king tried several times to interrupt the reader, but to no avail.

The main points of the indictment read: “As King of England, Charles was vested with limited power to govern the country in accordance with the laws, and no otherwise. However, he had the insidious goal of establishing and usurping unlimited and tyrannical power in order to rule arbitrarily, destroying the rights and privileges of the people; In pursuit of this goal, he treacherously and maliciously declared war on parliament and the people represented in it.” Then Charles was accused of preparing a “foreign invasion” of England, and the criminality of the second civil war he unleashed was pointed out. “And all this was adopted for the sole purpose of asserting personal interest, arbitrariness and the claim of prerogatives for themselves and the royal family to the detriment of the public interest, the common law, the liberty, justice and peace of the people of this country.” So, “Charles is responsible for all treason, murder, violence, fires, robberies, losses... caused to the nation in the said wars.” In the name of the people of England, “the said Charles is called to account as a tyrant, a traitor, a public and merciless enemy of the English state.”

The execution took place on January 30, 1649. The day turned out to be surprisingly frosty. The Thames was covered with ice. In the square, fenced on three sides by the buildings of the royal palace of Whitehall, the sound of axes could be heard as the final preparations for the public execution were underway. A platform was built here on which Charles was to die. At two o'clock in the afternoon the king, dressed in black, accompanied by a reinforced military escort, appeared on the square. The platform was surrounded by several ranks of cavalry, separating the place of execution from the spectators. The entire square was filled with people, many climbed onto street lamps, balconies and roofs of surrounding houses. The executioner and his assistant stood ready on the platform. The latter’s duty was to raise the severed head high, shouting: “Here is the head of a traitor!” They were wearing half masks and, moreover, made up (they had mustaches and beards glued on), in sailor clothes. The platform was draped in black. The king ascended the scaffold, accompanied by the bishop he had chosen as his confessor. Looking around, he took a folded sheet out of his pocket and addressed the guards, because others could not hear him, with a “farewell word.” Then, kneeling down, he put his head on the block and after a few moments extended his arms forward - this was a sign to the executioner, and he cut off his head with one swing of the ax.

The job was done. The cavalry quickly dispersed the crowd, and the square was empty. With this act, the first social revolution of modern times most visibly revealed a number of connections from which it is more than unacceptable to be distracted when analyzing the history of it and others like it: firstly, a revolution, if it is truly popular, cannot fail to reflect the level of civilization of its leaders; secondly, for centuries the lower classes went through the school of cruelty shown to them by the powers that be; could they forget these lessons at the moment when they prevailed over those who taught them in this ethics for so long; finally, thirdly, truly great revolutions, opening new world-historical eras, breaking open the citadel of the old order, face fierce resistance from its rulers and guardians; Those who dare to rebel are plunged into a bloody civil massacre. This is the course of history: pioneer nations pay at a high price for the progress of all mankind.

Legal and illegal printed leaflets quickly spread the news of what had happened throughout the country. The impression from this event was enormous. It was difficult for a resident of counties remote from London to believe in its reality. “A neighbor, meeting a neighbor on the street, has difficulty speaking to him, and this is not so much from horror at what has happened, but from surprise that such an unheard-of thing has happened after all” - this is how a resident of Yorkshire describes the reaction to the execution of the king.

Charles was executed as a king, but even after his execution England still remained a monarchy. The Republic was not proclaimed. Thus, there was a legal opportunity for the king's supporters to immediately proclaim as king the heir to the crown, the Prince of Wales, who was in exile, the future Charles II. Parliament, literally on the day of the execution, came to its senses and hastily voted a bill prohibiting this kind of act under pain of severe punishment. The Lord Mayor of the capital, known for his royalist sympathies, refused to proclaim it.

Many days passed until the “regicides” led by Cromwell were convinced that they would have to become nominal republicans, willy-nilly.

The main goals of Charles I's policies were to strengthen the power of the king and, perhaps more importantly for him, the church. For this, the king was ready to sacrifice the traditional rights of the estates and the principle of the inviolability of the private property of his subjects. The tragedy of the reign of Charles I, however, was largely explained not so much by the king’s goals as by the methods of their implementation: almost always poorly thought out, too straightforward and with a clearly expressed connotation of privateness, which entailed an increase in discontent among broad sections of the population and increased opposition to the king. In addition, unlike his father, Charles I was not closely familiar with the situation in Scotland, and there were practically no Scots among his advisers. As a result, the only way to communicate with the Scottish opposition was through force, arrests and manipulation of royal prerogatives.

In 1625 Charles I issued " Act of Revocation", according to which all land grants by the kings of Scotland since 1540 were canceled. This primarily concerned former ecclesiastical lands secularized during the Reformation. The nobles could retain these lands in their ownership, but on condition monetary compensation, which went to support the church. This decree affected most of the Scottish nobility and caused widespread discontent. However, the king refused to consider the Scots' petition against revocation. In the same year, the Scottish Parliament, under pressure from the king, authorized the taxation for four years in advance. This soon led to permanent taxation of land and income in the country, a practice that did not correspond to traditional Scottish ideas about the sources of the king's finances.

Almost from the very beginning of his reign, Charles I began to actively attract bishops to the highest government positions. The first person in the royal administration of Scotland was John Spottiswoode, Archbishop of St Andrews, Lord Chancellor from 1635. The majority in the royal council passed to the bishops to the detriment of the Scottish aristocrats, the bishops also actually began to determine the composition of the Committee of Articles and candidates for the posts of justices of the peace. A significant part of the representatives of the Scottish episcopate of that time did not enjoy authority among their flock and had no connections with the nobility. The aristocracy, pushed out of control, did not have access to the king, whose court was almost constantly located in London.

Opposition, primarily noble, to the reign of Charles I arose almost immediately after his accession to the throne. Trying to prevent its strengthening, after 1626 the king refused to convene the Scottish Parliament and the General Assembly of the Scottish Church. Only in 1633, during the king's first visit to Scotland, was a parliament convened, which, under pressure from Charles I, approved an act of supremacy of the king in matters of religion. At the same time, Charles I introduced a number of Anglican canons into Scottish worship and formed a new bishopric - Edinburgh, headed by William Forbes, an ardent supporter of Anglican reforms. This caused an explosion of indignation in Scotland, but Charles I again refused to consider the petition of the Scottish nobles against church innovations and the king's manipulation of parliamentary elections. One of the authors of the petition, Lord Balmerino, was arrested and sentenced to death in 1634 on charges of treason.

Despite the growing opposition to royal reforms in the field of worship, Charles I continued the policy of rapprochement between Scottish Presbyterianism and Anglicanism. In 1636, reformed documents were issued signed by the king. canons Scottish Church, in which there was no mention of presbyteries and parish assemblies, and in 1637 a new one was introduced liturgy, providing for a number of Anglican elements, the cult of saints, and rich church decoration. These reforms were perceived in Scottish society as an attempt to restore Catholic rites and caused the consolidation of all classes in opposition to Catholicism, episcopacy and the authoritarianism of the king.