The study of the 28-year period of English history-from the restoration of the "legitimate" Stuart monarchy in 1660 to the "glorious revolution" of 1688-1689-is of undoubted scientific and theoretical interest. The study of various problems of restoration makes it possible, on the one hand, to trace the irreversible influence that the bourgeois revolution of the mid-seventeenth century had on the socio-economic and political development of England, and, on the other, to find out the reasons for the "glorious revolution" that resulted in the establishment of the form of constitutional monarchy for which parliament fought for half a century.
English bourgeois historiography has long had two tendencies on restoration issues: conservative - Tory and liberal-Whig. Representatives of the former include those historians who, as a rule, underestimated the role and significance of the bourgeois revolution, portrayed the restoration as a return to the former, "legitimate" order, praised Charles II Stuart and claimed that there was supposedly "harmony", "peace" and "harmony"between him and Parliament. Social and class conflicts in English society at that time were either reduced to religious differences, or simply ignored .1 Representatives of the other tendency also ignored the class nature of the socio-political struggle during the restoration period, but (in any case, the largest of them2) paid more attention to the events of the revolution of the mid - 17th century, tried to think critically about what happened during the restoration, praising the "glorious revolution" in every possible way, although in general they also adhered to the the thesis of the "continuity" of the political development of England, the continuity of its laws and customs.
In recent years, English historians have focused on issues closely related to the legacy of the bourgeois revolution of the mid-seventeenth century, such as the restoration of the monarchy, the constitutional structure of England after 1660, the legislative activity of the government in the first years of the reign of Charles II, the political struggle between Tories and Whigs, and finally the "glorious revolution". This review attempts to identify new aspects in the concepts of English historians dealing with this period.
A distinctive feature of modern bourgeois works is the appeal of their authors to the study of the period preceding the restoration - the events of the revolution. Here we are faced with various assessments of it. For example, P. Morrahman.-
1 Cm. Hume D. The History of England From the Invasion of Julius Ceasar to Revolution in 1688. Vol. 8. Lnd. 1786; Clark G. The Later Stuarts. 1660 - 1714. Oxford. 1955; Ashley M. England in the 17-th Century. Harmondsworth. 1968; ejusd. Charles II, the Man and the Statesman. N. Y. 1971; Nenner H. By Colour of Law. Legal Culture and Constitutional Politics in England. 1660 - 1689. Chicago - Lnd. 1977.
2 См.: Macaulay. T. B. The History of England from the Accession of James the Second. Vol. 5, 6. Leipzig, 1861; Trevelyan G. M. England under the Stuarts. Lnd. 1937; ejusd. The English Revolution 1688 - 1689. Lnd. 1939; Ogg D. England in the Reign of Charles II. Vol. 1 - 2. Oxford. 1955 - 1956.
page 158
It focuses on its impact on the subsequent development of the country. In his book 3, he confines himself to the first six years of Charles II Stuart's reign. Such artificial dismemberment of the restoration period is not accidental. In this way, the author clearly seeks to avoid an objective analysis of the long-term consequences of the bourgeois revolution, which he calls an "experiment"for a reason. This historian claims that "republican rule" plunged the country into a "state of chaos and anarchy" 4 and thus, in his opinion, accelerated the progress of England towards the restoration of the monarchy. Morrach views all the events of the revolution from a conservative perspective. Although he admits that " the civil wars and their consequences have had a significant impact on the country as a whole," 5 he sees the specific impact of the revolution only in the Puritan restrictions on religion and morals. The author puts all the blame for the "riots" during the revolution on the" dictator "O. Cromwell, who used force to put pressure on members of the Long Parliament, because he "would never have voluntarily advocated the destruction of the monarchy" 6 .
The underestimation of the impact of the revolution on the socio-economic development of England can also be traced in the work of Professor of the University of East Anglia, J. R. R. Tolkien. Jones 7 . Noting the socio-economic changes in the structure of English society in the second half of the 17th century, this historian writes that they were in no way dependent on the revolution and were "short-term and limited" in their results. 8 He considers it " erroneous "to say that the revolutionary events had a" decisive impact on the whole of subsequent English history. " 9 In general, Jones believes that it is wrong to connect with the" political revolution "of the XVII century. socio-economic" changes in society that took place over the course of a century.
B. Coward, a history lecturer at the University of London, gives a different assessment of the events .10 Unlike most of his colleagues who study the history of England before or after 1660, Coward considers it necessary to overcome the "artificially created" time "barrier" by historians in order to consider the history of the country "more fully" 11 . However, such attempts to make changes in the periodization of the history of England in the 17th century seem untenable. 1660 - the watershed of two periods (revolution and restoration). To ignore or confuse them is to distort the essence of the events of that time. Although Coward pays lip service to the "Whig" historians, in fact he is clearly following their tradition when he speaks of the "continuity" of England's historical development.
Coward's assessment of the results of the revolution is extremely contradictory. He recognizes the uniqueness of " the revolutionary character of the destruction of the episcopate, the monarchy, the House of Lords, and the involvement of the masses of people in politics... He believes that Whig historians were mistaken when they considered the causes of the revolution mainly in the "intellectual sphere" and the constitutional development of the country, while the origins of the revolution should be sought in the "social and economic changes of the previous century" 12 . Coward recognizes the achievements of the Government of the republic, which has coped with the tasks of "regulating the domestic economy and foreign trade", ensuring order and law in the country, protecting England from external attacks, and maintaining its international prestige .13 And yet Coward
3 Morrah P. Restoration England. Lnd. 1979.
4 Ibid., p. 4.
5 Ibid., p. 30.
6 Ibid., p. 7.
7 Jones J. R. Country and Court. England 1658 - 1714. Cambridge. 1978.
8 Ibid., p. 71.
9 Ibid., p. 80.
10 Coward B. The Stuart Age. A History of England. 1603 - 1714. Lnd. N.Y. 1980.
11 Ibid., p. XI.
12 Ibid., pp. 201, 160 - 161.
13 Ibid., p. 227.
page 159
I am convinced that "the revolution failed" because, as he claims, the structure of society has remained "unchanged" 14 .
Coward's thesis that the revolution was carried out only by a small group of conspirators against the wishes of the "majority of the country's population", which later served as one of the reasons for the defeat of the republic , 15 was by no means new to bourgeois historiography, and was criticized by Marxist historians, who proved that the broadest strata of the population took part in the revolution .16 In Coward's concept, what is particularly striking is, on the one hand, his desire to contrast himself with "Whig" historians, and, on the other, his acceptance of certain Marxist assessments of the revolution. For example, he admits that the revolution of the 1740s was "incomplete." However, if for Marxists this "incompleteness" of the bourgeois revolution is primarily connected with the preservation of the remnants of the feudal system (large-scale land ownership by landlords, feudal duties of peasants, feudal institutions: the monarchy, the house of lords), national oppression, inequality of women, persecution of nonconformists, etc. 17 Coward puts into this concept only the unresolved problem of sovereignty Questioner : whether it should have belonged to the legislative or executive branch. While claiming that the events that resulted in economic reforms, political democracy, and religious toleration can be considered a revolution, Coward is at the same time moving away from class assessments of the events of the mid-seventeenth century and thus fully in solidarity with historians of the liberal-Whig trend of bourgeois historiography.
The problems of the bourgeois revolution and restoration are also analyzed in detail in the works of Professor of the Open University, member of the British Academy and the Royal Historical Society K. Hill18 . In his new book 19, he writes about how the" extraordinary events " of the revolution (this "fantastic explosion of radical ideas and actions") affected the whole life of England, explains why the ruling classes were forced to accept the results of the revolution, and finally tries to understand how revolutionary ideas arose and where they came from."many of which had no precedent in English history." Hill is convinced that these issues are also related to the legacy of the revolution, the fate of "radical revolutionary ideas" and "radical revolutionary thinkers." 20
Hill criticizes the still prevailing view in English bourgeois historiography of the revolution as a short-term "rule of a small radical minority." He rightly recalls that, for example, "the ideas of the Levellers reflected and were closely linked to the interests of the majority of the population" and that Republicans continued to pose "a potential danger to the ruling classes" even after the restoration of the monarchy. It is important that Hill seeks to determine whether the restoration of the monarchy meant a return to the economic, social, intellectual and moral values that existed before the revolution, or whether the changes that occurred as a result of it were irreversible. He concludes that the restoration, while " ending the English Revolution," simultaneously "confirmed many of its achievements." The Navigation Act of 1651 and Cromwell's expansionist foreign policy were further developed in the policies of the restoration government .21
Hill's research on nntellectu is of serious interest-
14 Ibid., p. 240.
15 Ibid., pp. 200 - 201, 240.
16 Cm. Barg M. A. Folk bottoms in the English bourgeois revolution of the XVII V. M. 1967.
17 See The English Bourgeois Revolution of the 17th century, vol. I, Moscow, 1954, p. 13.
18 Hill С. The Century of Revolution. Edinburgh. 1962; ejusd. Intellectual Origins of the English Revolution. Oxford. 1965; ejusd. The World Turned Upside Down. N. Y. 1972; ejusd. Change and Continuity in 17-th Century England. Cambridge. 1975.
19 Hill C. Some Intellectual Consequences of the English Revolution. The University of Wisconsin Press. 1980.
20 Ibid., p. 7.
21 Ibid., pp. 3, 9, 15 - 16.
page 160
the real consequences of the revolution, the refraction of its ideas in various fields of science, philosophy, everyday consciousness , etc.22, i.e., what has hitherto remained unexplored in English historiography. Summing up the" complex " legacy of the revolution, Hill points out that the sovereignty of Parliament, the creation of the British Empire, and the Industrial Revolution - all events that liberal Whig historians associate with the restoration and the "glorious Revolution"-are in fact consequences of the seventeenth-century bourgeois revolution. Hill's views on the problems of revolution are largely similar to Marxist ones, especially in such matters as the impact of the revolution on the country's economic development. Unlike most bourgeois historians, Hill admits that it was the seventeenth-century revolution that "cleared the way for the capitalist development of England's industry and agriculture," 23 emphasizing that the economic changes it brought about were extremely important for the country .24
Among the problems that have come to the attention of modern English historians, a special place is occupied by the question of the restoration of the Stuart monarchy and the political system of England after 1660. And here there are deep discrepancies in estimates. In Morrach's depiction, the return of the king to the country was accompanied by "enthusiasm of the subjects"," joyful crowds "who met the monarch, a manifestation of" universal joy "over the restoration of the"old regime". This, he said, fundamentally distinguished the transition to restoration from the transition to the republic, which was accompanied by a "sea of blood", the struggle of the British against each other, and the "tragic execution" of the king. Morrach explains this by saying that none of the monarchs (except Queen Elizabeth) was as "popular with their subjects as Charles II." 25
This view of the "popularity" of the king and the "admiration" of the people for the restoration of the monarchy is not shared by liberals. Coward notes that the early years of the restoration were marked by "political instability and increasing conflict between the king and Parliament" and that nothing Charles II did could ensure him a "harmonious relationship" with the House of Commons. Covard is also critical of the king's personality. He points out that Charles II's" debauched lifestyle " and financial extravagance greatly complicated his relations with ministers, who found it increasingly difficult to get Parliament to receive the necessary funds for the king. Coward is sure that "seriously evaluate Charles II as a great king" is generally impossible .26 Jones also stresses that " the restoration, initially greeted with enthusiasm, did not bring the desired legal order and political stability." "The disillusionment of the nation was inevitable", "a country that had experienced a series of crises", by 1688 was "on the threshold of a new civil war" 27 . Although liberal historians are highly skeptical of the restoration and the identity of King Charles II, they also avoid class assessments of the essence of the restoration.
Hill, on the other hand, emphasizes that the monarchy was restored "not by the favor of the people", but by the ruling classes. Revealing the class character of the restoration, he draws attention to the fact that the House of Lords, bishops, and the monarchy itself were restored primarily in the interests of "ensuring the property of the propertied classes" and "social stability" .28
The state system of England after the restoration also received different assessments in English historiography. For example, Morrach believes that in 1660 the "old regime" was restored and Parliament, as before, was addressed only "in case of financial necessity." While acknowledging that "the balance between the two Houses has gradually shifted in favour of the House of Commons", he nevertheless believes that only the House of Lords has had a real impact on the King's policies .29 In day-
22 Ibid., pp. 28, 65.
23 Ibid., p. 34.
24 Hill S. Bourgeois Revolution? - Three British Revolutions: 1641, 1688, 1776. Princeton. 1980, pp. 131 - 132.
25 Morrah P. Op. cit., pp. 8, 194.
26 "Coward B. Op. cit., pp. 242, 247.
27 Jones J. R. Op. cit., p. 109.
28 Hill C. Some Intellectual Consequences., p. 26.
29 Morrah P. Op. cit., p. 48.
page 161
But Parliament, strengthened by the bourgeois revolution, played an important role in the government of the state during the restoration period, and its lower house was particularly influential, since no monetary subsidy could be presented to the King and no bill became law without the consent of the House of Commons. Morrach is also wrong that the House of Commons was an "aristocratic institution" in the reign of Charles II, because along with the land lords, merchants, gentry, and financiers sat in it, expressing the interests of the bourgeoisie and the new nobility, classes that had grown stronger as a result of the revolution .30
Coward and Jones hold a different view from Morrach, who believe that the political structure of England underwent changes during the restoration period. Although legislative power still belonged to Parliament and executive power to the king, Coward points out that "the relationship between the king and Parliament itself changed: the king more often "sought the advice of Parliament", which increasingly tried to "curb the prerogatives of the Stuarts" 31 . However, while acknowledging the changes that have taken place, Coward does not connect them with the results of the bourgeois revolution. Jones is also in a similar position. Thus, he considers it "impossible" for the restoration "to restore everything to its former state": "hopes for the restoration of the former order after 1660 were not fulfilled." At the same time, he states that the events of the 40s of the XVII century. "we have not changed the original distribution of power between the monarchy and both houses of Parliament."
Like most liberal historians, Jones attributes the strengthening of Parliament to the events of the" glorious revolution", which allegedly created" profound changes in the constitutional and political relationship between the crown, ministers, parliament and the law "and ended the" constant threat " of parliament's subordination to the king .32 Indeed, as a result of the events of 1688-1689, a constitutional monarchy was established in England, but the bourgeoisie and the bourgeois nobility were able to achieve this only in the course of a sharp political struggle that they waged for almost half a century, both in parliament and outside it. The "glorious Revolution" only completed the struggle of these classes for power, which began in the 1940s of the seventeenth century .33
Unlike liberal historians, Hill directly links the constitutional changes that took place in England with the influence of the revolution. Although the restoration revived the institutions that existed before the revolution, the nature and content of their activities changed fundamentally. The House of Commons becomes the most important house in Parliament, and eventually even begins to " prevail over both the crown and the church." The crown became "manageable". One of the important political consequences of the revolution, according to Hill, was the change in the representative character of the House of Commons. The" intrusion of the masses, even the poor, "into politics in the mid-seventeenth century caused fear among the ruling classes, which remained even after the restoration, fearing the" radical changes " that might follow as a result of the expansion of voting rights. That is why the burgess elections were placed under strict control by the propertied classes. Hill emphasizes the class-based limitations of the representative institution, noting that it was virtually impossible for low-income individuals to enter, while "anyone rich could buy a seat in Parliament." 34
An important place in modern English historiography is given to the problem of legislative activity of Parliament in the first years of restoration. Historians are interested in the extent to which the king's promises were implemented (amnesty for participants in the civil war, preservation of confiscated lands for the last vla-
30 On the class composition of the parliaments of Charles II, see: Labutina T. L. Political struggle in England during the restoration of the Stuarts (1660-1681). Moscow, 1982.
31 Coward V. Op. cit., p. 441.
32 Jones J. R. Op. cit., pp. 115, l, 8.
33 See: Fadeeva I. V. On the concept of the Revolution of 1688 in the works of K. Marx and F. Kropotkin. Engels. In: Problems of British History, Moscow, 1980.
34 Hill С. Some Intellectual Consequences., p. 20.
page 162
the guarantees of religious toleration and the convocation of a free parliament), given to them in the Breda Declaration on the eve of their return to England, and were a kind of conditions on which the allied classes restored the monarchy.
Turning to the issue of amnesty, Morrakh justifies the "compromise solution" adopted by the parliament, which is aimed, in fact, at cracking down on the Republican opposition. The fact that 30 people were sent to the scaffold in accordance with the amnesty law is considered by Morrach to be a necessary measure, since "republican and rebellious ideas were still alive in the country and the danger of a "new revolution" remained .35 In Morrach's opinion, the issue of land ownership was also closely linked to the issue of amnesty. The King, by approving the amnesty laws and returning the royalists to their lands confiscated during the revolution, hoped, according to this author, to "compensate his loyal subjects" who suffered during the republic. But the fact is that these laws demonstrated the reactionary nature of the restoration regime, which, having dealt with the Republicans and repealed their laws, sought to put an end to the consequences of the revolution. The restoration government failed, however, to resolve the problem of land ownership - not all confiscated land was returned to the royalists, and only a few of the "new owners" received compensation for this. While Morrach admits that this policy of Charles II caused "discontent" among former supporters of the Stuarts, 36 he does not mention that it led to the creation of a government opposition in the country.
Coward also points out the moderation and "compromise" nature of the solution to the problem of land ownership in the laws adopted by Parliament, but he does not reveal the reasons for such a policy of the government of Charles P. The Land Ownership Act of 1660 is called an "unsuccessful compromise", since it "inflamed rather than healed old wounds" 37 . The royalists ' hopes of receiving a reward from the King were in vain. Coward, like Morrach, does not explain why the king failed to fulfill his promise in the Breda Declaration. Meanwhile, the law passed by Parliament took into account, first of all, the interests of the new landowners, who were strengthened as a result of the revolution, i.e., the bourgeoisie and the bourgeois nobility, and to a much lesser extent - the interests of the old landowners, the king's support - the feudal nobility. The king, who wanted to satisfy the royalists ' expectations, did not dare to go against the will of the parliament, which spoke on behalf of the "new owners". Hence the "compromise" solution to the problem of land ownership, which English historians write about without explaining the essence of the matter.
Also in the interests of the bourgeoisie and the new nobility, in December 1660, the Parliament passed a law on the liquidation of the Guardianship and Alienation Chamber. P. Roibeck 38 devoted his article to this issue. He pointed out the revolutionary origin of this law and recalled that after the restoration, it, along with others adopted during the republic, was declared invalid, but was soon re-confirmed by the Parliament. This law exempted landowners from the feudal court and gave them full control over the property of the "guardians". During the restoration period, child mortality was relatively high, and therefore landowners, taking advantage of the adopted law, were able, at the expense of the property of "guardians", not only to "overcome their own financial difficulties", but also to "concentrate in their hands" large land holdings. Roibeck concludes that the adopted law was intended to "benefit the largest landowners". Although the author draws attention to the fact that this law "excluded any changes in relation to the copyhold" and correctly points out that "copyholders continued to remain in the same dependence on their land lords", he still does not draw the conclusion that follows from these facts about the class orientation of the economic policy of the restoration government 39 . Meanwhile, by adopting this law, the Government
35 Morrah P. Op. cit., pp. 191 - 192.
36 Ibid., p. 246
37 Coward V. Op. cit., p. 246.
38 Roebuck P. Post-Restoration Landownership: the Impact of the Abolition of Wardship. -The Journal of British Studies, 1978, Vol. XVIII, N 1.
39 Ibid., pp. 85, 87, 68.
page 163
the restoration actually had to recognize the main achievement of the revolution - the abolition of feudal relations. At the same time, the preservation of the copyhold and the serfdom of the copyholder clearly showed that the English bourgeois Revolution did not complete the work it had begun.
An important place in the works of modern English historians is occupied by the problem of religious organization during the restoration period. Morrach points out that after the restoration of the monarchy, the Anglican Church once again became dominant, and members of numerous Protestant sects who refused to recognize it became dissenters (nonconformists), "deprived of rights, privileges and state support." Interesting is the idea expressed by this historian that the series of punitive laws passed by Parliament against dissenters (the" Clarendon Code") had not only " religious, but also political content." Thus, the Corporations Act of 1661 allowed the propertied classes to control local parliamentary elections, disenfranchising opponents of the dominant church. The "Act against Secret Prayer Meetings" (1664), which allowed suppressing by force not only religious, but also any anti-government protests, also had a political connotation. For nonconformists, the repressive legislation turned out to be a real tragedy, many of them were plunged into poverty, condemned to numerous hardships, and were imprisoned.
Although Morrach seems to denounce the government's repressive religious policies, he nevertheless blames Parliament entirely for their implementation. The king in the image of Morrach appears as a fighter for religious tolerance. The author, however, does not mention that the royal measures were mainly aimed at alleviating the situation of Catholics, to whom Charles II was very sympathetic. The king's actions met with strong resistance in Parliament, which showed anti-Catholic sentiments, the nature of which the author himself finds it difficult to determine 40 . Meanwhile, Karl Marx and Fr. Engels pointed out that the new landowners created by the Reformation were afraid "of the restoration of Catholicism, in which, of course, they would have to return all the former church lands they had plundered." 41 It was the fear of losing their possessions that prompted the ruling classes to actively oppose the religious policy of the king.
According to Coward, the restoration government assumed that the Anglican Church promoted royalist sentiments, "the theory of the divine hereditary right of kings, and condemned any opposition to the existing order as a sin." 42 Therefore, it supported the Church of England and dealt harshly, even to the point of using military force, with its religious opponents - dissenters. Although Coward mentions that the concepts of "dissenters" and "Republicans" were often identified in the 1960s, he does not draw a conclusion about the class orientation of the religious policy of the government, which, while suppressing nonconformist sects, sought first of all to put an end to its political opponents-Republicans. Coward does not explain the reasons why, at the end of the seventeenth century, the government abandoned its policy of repressive treatment of dissenters. He ignores their class heterogeneity (among the dissenters, along with the poor, artisans, urban people and peasants, there were many merchants, industrialists, financiers). Representatives of the propertied classes often managed to avoid harassment and punishment, because, as Morrach also admits, in the seventeenth century "there was practically one law for the rich and another for the poor." 43
Religious persecution has had a severe impact on industry and trade, as members of Parliament have often claimed. Only mercantile interests forced the ruling classes to move away from the repressive religious policy, but none of the bourgeois historians who deal with the problem of ecclesiastical unity can say this.
40 Morrah P. Op. cit., pp. 170, 175 etc.
41 K. Marx and F. Engels Soch. Vol. 7, p. 221.
42 Coward V. Op. cit., p. 251.
43 Morrah P. Op. cit., p. 146.
page 164
He does not mention the state of England between the two revolutions. Among contemporary English authors, only Hill connects the changing role of the church in the life of English society with the influence of the bourgeois revolution. He stresses that despite the restoration of the Anglican Church, it has not been possible to regain its former power in politics and ideology. Bishops no longer held important government positions and were not "leaders of public opinion." Hill points out the main differences between the religious policies of the republic and the restoration government, which were that under Cromwell the church aimed to " unite radical Protestants and exclude the right, while the state Church of England after the restoration united the right and excluded radicals." Puritanism, as the author notes, after the restoration degenerates into nonconformist sects that gradually move away from politics .44
The problem of the political struggle in parliament during the restoration period still attracts considerable attention of English historians. Bourgeois historians either, like representatives of the conservative trend, underestimate the significance of the struggle of parties in the inter-revolutionary period, or exaggerate their role, which is typical for representatives of the liberal trend. Morrakh carefully examines numerous and sometimes minor episodes, leaving out of sight the political struggle in parliament and the formation of the parliamentary opposition. Following the Tory authors, he tries to convince the reader that the early years of the restoration in England were a period of "peace, sound politics, prosperity and general prosperity." However, here he admits that at that time there were also "unrest and government difficulties" (in his words, "minor"), and among " former loyal supporters of the monarchy, there were signs of discontent." Morrach also points out that from 1662 Parliament began to struggle with Charles II over royal prerogatives. 45 The facts presented by the author, which indicate the emergence of opposition and political struggle in Parliament, clearly contradict his statements about the alleged "peace and harmony" that came to England after the revolution.
On the contrary, Coward admits that dissatisfaction with the king's policies, his tendency to Catholicism and excessive extravagance, as well as administrative abuses and government corruption, gradually created opposition in Parliament. Considering the concepts of historians of the XIX - XX centuries" outdated". about the fact that there were "organized political parties" in the reign of Charles II, Coward writes that there were" well-organized "political groups only in 1679-1681, and in general in the XVII century. there was no systematic organization of political groups and most parliamentarians considered themselves "independent". This denies any influence of parties on the course of parliamentary debates 46 . In fact, the formation of parties began from the first days of the restoration and was completed by 1678-1679. The influence of the party struggle on the legislative activity of the Parliament can be traced throughout the reign of Charles II. Moreover, it was the bills discussed in the restoration Parliament that became the subject of a fierce struggle between political parties.
Jones examines the problem of political parties in detail, describing Whigs as moderate opponents of absolutism and Catholicism, who advocated the preservation of ancient constitutional freedoms and laws, in defense of the Protestant religion and religious tolerance. The Tories called the Whigs "the direct descendants of the Civil War rebels" and blamed them for the riots. Jones shows that only the" unimpressive radical wing "of the Whigs pushed for reform and" political innovation. " 47 Jones's attempts to prove that parties and their leaders expressed the interests of the broad masses are completely untenable .48
44 Hill С. Some Intellectual Consequences., p. 73 ets.
45 Morrah P. Op. cit., pp. 200, 193.
46 Соward B. Op. cit., p. 269.
47 Jones J. P. Op. cit., p. 42.
48 Ibid., pp. 40 - 41.
page 165
The Whigs, he said, could claim the support of broad sections of English society. But similar claims to declare themselves a "national" party were made by the Tories. Of course, during the election campaign, in the struggle for parliamentary seats, both of them often turned to the masses for support, but this did not change the character of the parties: both Tories and Whigs expressed the interests of the ruling classes - the bourgeoisie and the new nobility.
Jones offers interesting insights into the activities of parties in Parliament and beyond during election campaigns. He emphasizes that only the wealthiest Englishmen could fight for the right to be elected to the House of Commons, and describes the English Parliament of the XVII century as "far from a democratic institution". In his opinion, the corruption that flourished in Parliament allowed many " political adventurers and nouveau riches to enter the House of Commons." To mobilize public opinion, parties prepared petitions to Parliament, "most of which were the work of paid lobbyists or specially organized groups to exert pressure on public opinion." 49 The facts presented by the author show that both Tories and Whigs pursued narrow class goals and in no way expressed the interests of the broad masses (Jones himself, of course, does not come to this conclusion). Both liberal historians and representatives of the conservative trend do not reveal the main and fundamental - the class content of the inter-party struggle, the reflection of the conflict of class interests in it.
This aspect is not reflected in the work of Hill, who, however, mentions the use of the masses by parties for political struggle. As a result of the bourgeois revolution, he notes, not only the monarchy became "managed", but also the lower classes of the people, whose political activity increased immeasurably. The ruling classes sought to use the masses of the people as a means of pressure in the political struggle. During an "exceptional crisis" in the 1980s, the Whig leader, the Earl of Shaftesbury, directed the anger of the mob against his Tory political opponents. The ruling classes, while excluding the masses from the "limits of the constitution" and denying them the right to vote, nevertheless tried to use the people for their own purposes as a blind tool in the political struggle.
The restoration period ended with the "glorious Revolution", which is usually highly appreciated by representatives of the liberal - Whig movement. Of course, bourgeois historians, while praising it, are silent about the fact that in fact the profiteers "from landowners and capitalists" came to power in England at that time.50 A new aspect in the interpretation of these events by liberal historians is the recognition of the fact that even after the "glorious revolution" the constitutional struggle continued. Coward, for example, emphasizes that the "glorious revolution" not only "did not eliminate the old problems, but also created new ground for further political struggle" (p. 306). The achievements of the "glorious revolution "were not" decisive "or"final." The Stuarts failed to achieve political stability and a "harmonious relationship" between the King and Parliament .51
Thus, conservative historians, continuing the "Tory" traditions, underestimate the influence of the English bourgeois Revolution on the subsequent development of the country, exaggerate the importance of restoring the "legitimate" monarchy, praise the personality and role of the king, and distort the political struggle in England in the second half of the XVII century. The liberal trend in British bourgeois historiography, although it considers the restoration in connection with revolutionary events, does not go beyond objectivism. Recently, liberal historians have criticized not only the policies of the Stuarts, but also the "shortcomings of the revolutionary system" of 1689, which their Whig historians had clearly admired. Attention is also drawn to the attempts of some representatives of this direction to address some of the problems of socio-economic development in England, the second largest country in the world.-
49 Ibid., pp. 4, 36, 15.
50 K. Marx and F. Engels Soch. Vol. 23, p. 735.
51 Coward V. Op. cit., pp. 306, 459; see also Jones J. P. Op. cit., p. 459.
page 166
loviny of the XVII century. However, the bourgeois-objectivist position, refusal to analyze the alignment of class forces, underestimation of the role and place of the revolution in the economic and political development of the country lead them to a distorted view of the real goals, participants and nature of the political struggle of the restoration period, its class essence, as well as the role of the masses in the political life of the country. A special place in modern English historiography is occupied by Hill's works, whose concept of the nature, driving forces and significance of the bourgeois revolution for the subsequent development of the country is largely similar to the views of Soviet historians on these problems.
page 167
New publications: |
Popular with readers: |
News from other countries: |
![]() |
Editorial Contacts |
About · News · For Advertisers |
![]() 2023-2025, ELIBRARY.ORG.UK is a part of Libmonster, international library network (open map) Keeping the heritage of the Great Britain |