«Ода «Вольность» английских юристов и парламентариев, или К вопросу о том, как принималась «Петиция о праве»

Abstract

В статье С. Кондратьева «Ода «Вольность» английских юристов и парламентариев, или К вопросу о том, как принималась «Петиция о свободе» представлен анализ истории петиции о праве 1628 года. Петиция и парламентские дебаты 1628 года стали реакцией на политику короля в области сбора налогов. В 1626 году Карл I ввел принудительные займы, взимаемые с частных лиц с помощью грамот, скрепленных личной печатью. Этот налог, по мнению большинства, был незаконным, поскольку противоречил принципу, согласно которому налогообложение требует согласия парламента. Люди, которые отказывались выплачивать ссуду, были заключены в тюрьму по королевскому приказу, но не по обвинению. Пятеро из них пошли дальше, подав иски в порядке хабеас корпус. Но судьи не встали на защиту свобод и не поддержали королевское решение.

The article of S. Kondratiev «Poem «Freedom» of the England lawyers and parliamentarians, or to the question how the Petition of Liberty had been carried» presents an analysis of the history of the Petition of Right, 1628. The Petition and parliamentary debates of 1628 had become the reaction on the levy politic of the King. In 1626 Charles I established the forced loans, levied from individual by privy seal letters. The levy, as it was thought by the majority, was illegal because it flouted the principle that taxation required the consent of Parliament. People who refused to pay the Loan were imprisoned on royal orders but not charges. Five of them carried their challenge further by suing out writs of habeas corpus. But the judges had not taken stand on the defence of liberties and supported the royal judgment. In 1626-1627 two ministers Sibthorp and Maynwaring preached in favour of the Forced Loan and than their sermons were published with the official approved. The Parliament of 1628 attacked the Loan and commoners condemned it and they also condemned the imprisonment of those who had refused to pay the Loan, and they investigated the sermons of Sibthorp and Maynwaring, and the latter was impeached. The substance of the Petition stated that on the contrary to the laws of the realm, men had been required under duress to grant loans and pay other charges to the crown which had not been voted by parliament. They had been imprisoned without cause shown, tried by martial law in time of peace, and forced to accept soldiers for staying in their homes and mariners billeted upon them. The Petition asked that these practices, which contravened the rights and liberties of the kingdom, should be ceased. The article concludes that the lawyers and parliamentarians of the early Stuart England had the clear meanings on the volume of the subjects’ liberties and rights. In the Five Knight’ case and the followed discussion in the Parliament of 1628 they in the various ways accused the crown in illegal increase of its prerogative.