Чарлз Макилвейн, Уоллес Нотстейн и Константин Кузнецов – три «возделывателя поля парламентской истории» в начале XX века (и несравнимое сравнимо)

Abstract

Статья посвящена трем знаковым ученым начала XX в., занимавшимся изучением английского парламента предреволюционной Англии. Первый – американский юрист Чарлз Макилвейн – создал теорию трансформации парламента из зависимого от короны суда в «суверенный законодательный орган королевства». Второй – Уоллес Нотстейн – заявил о том, что парламент должен стать самостоятельным объектом исторических исследований, призвал заняться архивными изысканиями и изданием парламентских источников. Третий – Константин Кузнецов – выпустил в России книгу о палате общин Тюдоров и Стюартов, в которой отчасти начал реализовывать сформулированную У. Нотстейном годом позже программу. На основе сравнительного анализа произведений трех исследователей показано, что книга К. А. Кузнецова была лучшей работой о парламентской истории в мире на начало XX в.

The article is devoted to three eminent scientists of the beginning of the 20th century, who studied the English parliament of pre-revolutionary England. The first is the American lawyer Charles McIlvaine, created the theory of the transformation of parliament from a court dependent on the crown to a “sovereign legislative body of the kingdom”. The second is Wallace Notestein that claimed the parliament should become an independent object of historical studies and called for archival research and the publication of parliamentary sources. The third is Konstantin A. Kuznetzov, published in Russia a book “The Tudor and Stuart English House of Commons”, where he partially began to implement the program formulated by W. Notstein a year later. Konstantin Kuznetsov comes to the conclusion that under the early Stuarts the House of Commons was more and more willing to get the commoners’ election out of control of the royal officers and the Lords of the Privy Council, and tried to make it more democratic. To that end, the House used its right to verify the election. The author examines various electoral cases and petitions on electoral grievances to demonstrate that the House of Commons interpreted the old rules and proceedings aiming to guarantee voters more independence. A special committee of the House of Commons often examined requests from towns to restore the right of sending their presenters, which the towns lost in the Middle Ages. The towns sought to broaden their representation. At the same time, the commoners remained adherents and supporters of the tradition. They had no intention to change the electoral system by a parliamentary statute. The House of Commons was trying to make elections freer by the interpretation of the rules established in ancient time. On the basis of a comparative analysis of the works of three researchers, the author shows K. A. Kuznetzov’s book was the best work on parliamentary history in the world at the beginning of the 20th century.