However, the Crown's unscrupulous forced closure of Parliament is a rather foolish solution. To be honest, this move not only failed to resolve the opposition in Parliament, but on the contrary, pushed both the Prince and the Neutral members of Parliament against him.

Originally, it was just a conflict between some MPs and the Crown, but the Crown's move to close Parliament escalated into a fight between Parliament and the King. In this way, both the noble members of the House of Lords and the squire members of the House of Commons had to unite in order to protect British political traditions.

Of course, for the weakened royal power, the local squires represented by these councillors would have already made Charles I anxious if they took a non-cooperative attitude. Not to mention, this Charles I had not yet settled the affairs of England, but he was in conflict with his Scottish subjects over religious matters.

It has already been said that in peacetime in Britain, apart from the militia, there are not many armed men gathered around the British king. In the event of a rebellion, he had to rely on the nobility and local militias to quell the rebellion. Because of his dissolution of Parliament, the gentry of England took the attitude of standing idly by and watching the war between the king and the Scots.

A riot caused by a religious ritual soon turned into a rebellion that swept across the kingdom of Scotland, and the English king lost face in this rebellion because of the constraints of the English nobility and gentry.

Faced with the increasingly courageous Scottish rebels, in April 1640 Charles I had to bow to the English nobility and gentry and reconvene Parliament. Charles I hoped to enlist the help of these noble squires to suppress the rebellion in Scotland and thus achieve peace in the country.

But the members of parliament apparently did not think so, and they felt that they should take this opportunity to take the helm of the fierce horse of Charles I, and demanded that in the future the king should not issue orders to the local government without the consent of the parliament. So Charles I again expelled the parliamentarians from the meeting and dissolved Parliament again, which was only a month before it was in session.

This capricious and overly impulsive character of Charles I finally angered the members of the House of Commons, in John. Under Pym's leadership, the members of the House of Commons did not disband and return to their hometowns, but gathered in the city of London. Humiliated by the king, almost all the remaining parliamentarians passed a bill to abolish with effect the powers, privileges, and tribunals of the government that had sustained the absence of parliament.

The members of Parliament, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, similarly dissolved the government ruled by Charles I. That is, from this moment on, England fell into anarchy, and the Scottish rebels still occupied the border cities of England at the moment, waiting for the parliament to allocate funds for them to pay compensation.

As a result, the war between the king and the Scots was less important, but the more important thing was that the parliament went to war against the king. Charles I would either bend his knees to Parliament and beg for mercy, or he would have to teach the MPs a lesson with a whip to know who was calling the shots on the ship of England.

After a year of confrontation between the two sides, the radical wing of the gentry began to gain popular support in the face of England, which was beginning to lose social order. In the autumn of 1641, they made a new view, that since the king would not submit to Parliament, the Assembly representing the people had the power to transfer to Parliament the powers that had been exercised by the King.

In October 1641, Catholics from northern Ireland joined the rebellion, and nearly 3,000 Protestants were killed. The rebellious Catholics forged a document claiming to have obtained instructions from the king. Immediately afterwards, five members of parliament who had declared this statement in parliament were arrested by the king's guards, and John was arrested. Pym again criticized the king in Parliament, saying that Charles I was a mad king and no longer fit to hold power. The civil war between the king and the parliament was already on the verge of breaking out.

Emotionally, Cour was inclined to Charles I, and perhaps his majesty had some flaws in his character, but he was much stronger in personal integrity than most of the members of Parliament.

After three years in the UK, Kurtan is no longer blind to the UK, and he doesn't know anything about it. Although the British are rude, barbaric, and do not pay attention to public health, this country is not fundamentally different from the Ming Dynasty in the past.

The Ming Dynasty talks about the father and son of the monarch and the minister, and the British talk about the patriarchal family, and the fathers in both families almost all have the supreme position, and the wives and children cannot resist the decision of the head of the family.

Although the Ming Dynasty was a centralized dynasty, local affairs were about the autonomy of the gentry, and the imperial power was not lower than that of the county. The British also talk about local self-government, and the gentry are the main managers of local affairs, and the whole country is in the hands of about 15,000 squires, who own more than 40% of the country's land...

Like this similarity between the two countries, Kurtan could go on and on for a whole day. Even, even the corruption of the gentry and gentry in the two countries is similar. The nobles asked the king for tax exemption or monopoly rights to import and export goods, while the gentry tried to evade taxes.

For example, the £61 tax that MPs were supposed to pay to Parliament was reduced to £14 in the time of Charles I. And Charles I himself, since his accession to the throne, has been filling the vast deficit left by his father.

In order to consolidate his power, James I, who came to rule England, gave his ministers gifts worth £68,000 and an annuity of £30,000 in the first three years of his reign. In 1610, he rewarded his royal servants with tips and annuities of £80,000, £50,000 more than the annual expenses of the Elizabethan court.

So when Charles I ascended the throne, he inherited a huge amount of palace debts of more than 900,000 pounds. Although Charles I's annual income after 1630 reached nearly £1,000,000, he had to pay £600,000 a year to high-ranking officials and privileged, of which the officials' income amounted to £340,000 to £360,000, and the rest of the money was not enough for him to maintain the daily expenses of the court and the expansion of the naval fleet. Not to mention, the British were still supporting the war of the Protestant Union.

Compared with the hypocritical parliamentarians who only care about their personal and family interests, but talk about the people, Kurtan naturally respects Charles I, who has some flaws in character, but always puts the interests of the country first.

However, out of reason and the interests of the Ming Dynasty, Kurtang knew that he could not get too close to Charles I. Because the British king lacked the political means and the ability to manipulate intrigues, every arrow fired at his enemies would always be pierced into his allies. After seeing the political abilities of Huang Taiji and Chongzhen, Kurthorn felt that Charles I was a child who had not grown up, and he did not know how to attack his enemies or how to protect himself and his allies.

Just as the emperor had warned him when he summoned him for the last time, as long as there were enough interests, the Ming could be on anyone's side, but never on the side of the loser. It's a pity that Charles I was such a loser. For he never knew what kind of life his subjects were living, nor who his enemies and friends were.

Even a foreigner like Kurt, who had gathered information through the mission, dared to say that he knew far more about British society than Charles I.

What kind of Britain is Britain today? It is a peaceful country that has not burned inland for nearly 100 years of war, which is in stark contrast to the European continent, which has been fighting on the other side of the strait for more than 20 years.

As a result, the population of the British Isles has exceeded 7 million, an increase of nearly 1.4 million since the beginning of the century, of which England alone has nearly 5 million people. Therefore, the real political subject of Britain lies in England, and whoever controls the politics of England also controls England.

But with population growth and price revolutions caused by silver imports from the Americas, food prices in Britain have increased eightfold over the past 140 years, while labour wages have only tripled. Rising food prices made it profitable to manage the land, and landowners in the counties of the plains of England, suitable for farming, began to carve out former forest and marshy areas into fertile land.

At the same time, however, the rise of the wool textile industry allowed more land to be enclosed and sheep raised. So the nobles and landlords began to turn their attention to the communal lands in the countryside, and they expelled the peasants from the communal land, and then turned the communal land into their own pastures.

The landless peasants either went to work for the factory owners in the mines and cities, were arrested by the local militia for vagrancy and sent to hard labor, or exiled to the colonies. Towns or mining towns with manufacturing were erected all over England, and as there were fewer wastelands on English soil, more and more people lived in the cities.

The development of English towns in turn shattered the self-sufficient manor economy of England, and rural landowners near the cities no longer produced for their own needs, but began to produce for the needs of the cities. They had to provide wool to the factories in the city, and they also had to grow food to feed the workers in the city.

In order to reduce costs and increase output as much as possible, they began to use local land and climate characteristics for planting, and then exchanged surplus products between regions, and they also improved the roads between villages and cities to reduce transportation costs. As a result, the regional economy centered on the city began to gradually emerge, and the countryside began to gradually become a vassal of the city.

As road conditions improved, people became accustomed to going to larger regional centres for the exchange of goods, rather than to towns that were close to each other and had fewer goods. As a result, cities that were originally close to the sea or navigable rivers became more and more prosperous.

Of course, compared with the huge London, the second and third largest towns in England are much inferior, these so-called large towns, the population is almost one-twentieth of London, in the eyes of Londoners is just a larger country.

In Kuer's eyes, everything that is happening in Britain is actually similar to the changes that are taking place in the Ming Dynasty, except that the Ming Dynasty is a top-down, goal-oriented, and court-led active development. The British, on the other hand, developed spontaneously and passively bit by bit.

These two modes of social and economic development do not mean who is better, but who can persist more. Of course, now both sides have their own troubles, and the economic development model of the Ming Dynasty is being opposed by the majority of the gentry. And in England, the king is a problem.

( = )