2. Regime Change

2.
Regime Change

The Trial of Charles I (January 1649)

The seventeenth century was particularly turbulent in England, where Protestants, Catholics, royalists and parliamentary supporters vied for power. The English king Charles I (r. 1625–1649) had long chaffed under Parliament’s demands for participation in government. Adamant in his belief in his divine right to rule, Charles worked to strengthen his grip over Parliament, setting the stage for war. As the conflict spilled over onto the battlefield in 1642, each side accused the other of undermining the ancient legal rights of the people and the legal balance between the king and the two houses of Parliament enshrined in the English constitution. Parliamentary forces ultimately defeated the king’s army and Charles surrendered in 1646. Three years later he was brought before a parliamentary high court for trial on the charge of treason. Lasting a week, the proceedings culminated in Charles’s condemnation and a death sentence. He was beheaded on January 30, 1649, as a huge crowed looked on. When set against the backdrop of the civil war, the trial raised a host of enduring questions regarding the nature of political authority. Below are extracts from the first three days of the proceedings when the king and his opponents each laid the foundations of their case.

From State Trials: Political and Social, vol. I, ed. H. L. Stephen (London: Duckworth and Co., 1899), 78–87, 89, 91–94.

Having again placed himself in his Chair, with his face towards the Court, silence being again ordered, the Lord President stood up, and said,

LORD PRESIDENT: Charles Stuart, king of England, the Commons of England assembled in Parliament being deeply sensible of the calamities that have been brought upon this nation, which is fixed upon you as the principal author of it, have resolved to make inquisition for blood; and according to that debt and duty they owe to justice, to God, the kingdom, and themselves, and according to the fundamental power that rests in themselves, they have resolved to bring you to Trial and Judgment; and for that purpose have constituted this High Court of Justice, before which they are brought.

This said, Mr. Cook, Solicitor for the Commonwealth standing within a bar on the right hand of the Prisoner, offered to speak; but the king having a staff in his hand, held it up, and laid it on the said Mr. Cook’s shoulder two or three times, bidding him hold. Nevertheless, the Lord President ordering him to go on, he said,

MR. COOK: My lord, I am commanded to charge Charles Stuart King of England, in the name of the Commons of England, with Treason and High Misdemeanors; I desire the said Charge may be read.

The said Charge being delivered to the Clerk of the Court, the Lord President ordered it should be read; but the king bid him hold. Nevertheless, being commanded by the Lord President to read it, the Clerk begun, and the Prisoner sat down again in his chair, looking sometimes on the High Court, sometimes up to the Galleries; and having risen again, and turned about to behold the guards and spectators, sat down, looking very sternly, and with a countenance not at all moved, till these words, viz.:—“Charles Stuart to be a Tyrant and Traitor,” etc. were read; at which he laughed, as he sat, in the face of the Court.

The Charge being read, the Lord President replied;

LORD PRESIDENT: Sir, You have now heard your Charge, containing such matter as appears in it; you find, that in the close of it, it is prayed to the Court, in the behalf of the commons of England, that you answer to your Charge. The Court expects your Answer.

KING: . . . Remember I am your king, your lawful king, and what sins you bring upon your heads, and the judgment of God upon this land; think well upon it, I say, think well upon it, before you go further from one sin to a greater; therefore let me know by what lawful authority I am seated here, and I shall not be unwilling to answer. In the mean time, I shall not betray my trust; I have a trust committed to me by God, by old and lawful descent; I will not betray it, to answer to a new unlawful authority; therefore resolve me that and you shall hear more of me.

LORD PRESIDENT: If you had been pleased to have observed what was hinted to you by the Court, at your first coming hither, you would have known by what authority; which authority requires you, in the name of the people of England, of which you are elected king, to answer them.

KING: No. Sir, I deny that.

LORD PRESIDENT: If you acknowledge not the authority of the Court, they must proceed.

KING: I do tell them so; England was never an elective kingdom, but an hereditary kingdom, for near these thousand years; therefore let me know by what authority I am called hither. I do stand more for the Liberty of my people, than any here that come to be my pretended Judges; and therefore let me know by what lawful authority I am seated here, and I will answer it; otherwise I will not answer it. . . .

LORD PRESIDENT: The Court expects you should give them a final Answer; their purpose is to adjourn to Monday next; if you do not satisfy yourself, though we do tell you our authority, we are satisfied with our authority, and it is upon God’s authority and the kingdom’s; and that peace you speak of will be kept in the doing of justice, and that is our present work. . . .

At the High Court of Justice sitting in Westminster Hall, Monday, January 22, 1649. . . .

LORD PRESIDENT: Sir, You may remember at the last Court you were told the occasion of your being brought hither, and you heard a Charge read against you, containing a Charge of High Treason and other high crimes against this realm of England: you heard likewise, that it was prayed in the behalf of the People, that you should give an Answer to that Charge, that thereupon such proceedings might be had, as should be agreeable to justice. You were then pleased to make some scruples concerning the authority of this Court, and knew not by what authority you were brought hither; you did divers times propound your questions, and were as often answered. That it was by authority of the Commons of England assembled in parliament, that did think fit to call you to account for those high and capital Misdemeanours wherewith you were then charged. Since that the Court hath taken into consideration what you then said; they are fully satisfied with their own authority, and they hold it fit you should stand satisfied with it too; and they do require it, that you do give a positive and particular Answer to this Charge that is exhibited against you; they do expect you should either confess or deny it; if you deny, it is offered in the behalf of the kingdom to be made good against you; their authority they do avow to the whole world, that the whole kingdom are to rest satisfied in, and you are to rest satisfied with it. And therefore you are to lose no more time, but to give a positive Answer thereunto.

KING: When I was here last, it is very true, I made that question; truly if it were only my own particular case, I would have satisfied myself with the protestation I made the last time I was here against the Legality of this Court, and that a king cannot be tried by any superior jurisdiction on earth; but it is not my case alone, it is the Freedom and the Liberty of the people of England; and do you pretend what you will, I stand more for their Liberties. For if power without law may make laws, may alter the fundamental laws of the kingdom, I do not know what subject he is in England, that can be sure of his life, or any thing that he calls his own: therefore when that I came here, I did expect particular reasons to know by what law, what authority you did proceed against me here. And therefore I am a little to seek what to say to you in this particular, because the affirmative is to be proved, the negative often is very hard to do: but since I cannot persuade you to do it, I shall tell you my reasons as short as I can—My Reasons why in conscience and the duty I owe to God first, and my people next, for the preservation of their lives, liberties, and estates I conceive I cannot answer this, till I be satisfied of the legality of it. All proceedings against any man whatsoever——

LORD PRESIDENT: Sir, I must interrupt you, which I would not do, but that what you do is not agreeable to the proceedings of any court of justice: You are about to enter into argument, and dispute concerning the Authority of this Court, before whom you appear as a Prisoner, and are charged as an high Delinquent: if you take upon you to dispute the Authority of the Court, we may not do it, nor will any court give way unto it: you are to submit unto it, you are to give a punctual and direct Answer, whether you will answer your charge or no, and what your Answer is.

KING: Sir, By your favour, I do not know the forms of law: I do know law and reason, though I am no lawyer professed; but I know as much law as any gentleman in England; and therefore (under favour) I do plead for the Liberties of the People of England more than you do: and therefore if I should impose a belief upon any man, without reasons given for it, it were unreasonable: but I must tell you, that that reason that I have, as thus informed, I cannot yield unto it.

LORD PRESIDENT: Sir, I must interrupt you, you may not be permitted; you speak of law and reason; it is fit there should be law and reason, and there is both against you. Sir, the Vote of the Commons of England assembled in parliament, it is the reason of the kingdom, and they are these that have given to that law, according to which you should have ruled and reigned. Sir, you are not to dispute our Authority, you are told it again by the Court. Sir, it will be taken notice of, that you stand in contempt of the Court, and your contempt will be recorded accordingly. . . .

At the High Court of Justice sitting in Westminster Hall, Tuesday, January 23, 1649. . . .

LORD PRESIDENT: Sir, you have heard what is moved by the Counsel on the behalf of the kingdom against you. . . . You were told, over and over again, That the Court did affirm their own jurisdiction; that it was not for you, nor any other man, to dispute the jurisdiction of the supreme and highest Authority of England, from which there is no appeal, and touching which there must be no dispute; yet you did persist in such carriage, as you gave no manner of obedience, nor did you acknowledge any authority in them, nor the High Court that constituted this Court of Justice. Sir, I must let you know from the Court, that they are very sensible of these delays of yours, and that they ought not, being thus authorised by the supreme Court of England, to be thus trifled withal; and that they might in justice, if they pleased, and according to the rules of justice, take advantage of these delays and proceed to pronounce judgment against you; yet nevertheless they are pleased to give direction, and on their behalfs I do require you, that you make a positive Answer unto this Charge that is against you, Sir, in plain terms, for Justice knows no respect of persons; you are to give your positive and final Answer in plain English, whether you be Guilty or Not Guilty of these Treasons laid to your charge.

The King, after a little pause, said,

KING: When I was here yesterday, I did desire to speak for the Liberties of the people of England; I was interrupted; I desire to know yet whether I may speak freely or not.

LORD PRESIDENT: Sir, you have had the Resolution of the Court upon the like question the last day, and you were told that having such a Charge of so high a nature against you, and your work was, that you ought to acknowledge the jurisdiction of the Court, and to answer to your Charge. Sir, if you answer to your Charge, which the Court gives you leave now to do, though they might have taken the advantage of your contempt; yet if you be able to answer to your Charge, when you have once answered, you shall be heard at large, make the best defence you can. . . .

KING: For the Charge, I value it not a rush; it is the Liberty of the People of England that I stand for. For me to acknowledge a new Court that I never heard of before, I that am your King, that should be an example to all the people of England for to uphold justice, to maintain the old laws: indeed I do not know how to do it. You spoke very well the first day that I came here (on Saturday) of the obligations that I had laid upon me by God, to the maintenance of the Liberties of my people; the same obligation you spake of, I do acknowledge to God that I owe to him, and to my people, to defend as much as in me lies the ancient laws of the kingdom: therefore, until that I may know that this is not against the fundamental Laws of the kingdom, by your favour I can put in no particular Charge. If you will give me time, I will shew you my Reasons why I cannot do it, and this——

Here, being interrupted, he said,

By your favor, you ought not to interrupt me: How I came here, I know not; there’s no law for it to make your king your prisoner. . . .

Here the Lord President said, Sir, you must know the pleasure of the Court.

KING: By your favour, sir.

LORD PRESIDENT: Nay, sir, by your favour, you may not be permitted to fall into those discourses; you appear as a Delinquent, you have not acknowledged the authority of the Court, the Court craves it not of you; but once more they command you to give your positive Answer.—Clerk, do your duty.

KING: Duty, Sir!

The Clerk reads.

“Charles Stuart, king of England, you are accused in behalf of the commons of England of divers Crimes and Treasons, which Charge hath been read unto you: the Court now requires you to give your positive and final Answer, by way of confession or denial of the Charge.”

KING: Sir, I say again to you, so that I might give satisfaction to the people of England of the clearness of my proceeding, not by way of Answer, not in this way, but to satisfy them that I have done nothing against that trust that has been committed to me, I would do it; but to acknowledge a new Court, against their Privileges, to alter the fundamental laws of the kingdom—sir, you must excuse me.

LORD PRESIDENT: Sir, this is the third time that you have publicly disowned this Court, and put an affront upon it. How far you have preserved the privileges of the people, your actions have spoke it; but truly, Sir, men’s intentions ought to be known by their actions; you have written your meaning in bloody characters throughout the whole kingdom. But, Sir, you understand the pleasure of the Court.—Clerk, Record the Default.—And, Gentlemen, you that took charge of the Prisoner, take him back again.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

  1. According to the prosecution, why did Parliament have both a duty and a right to bring charges against the king?

    Question

    oiS4mh6YsoUBIkfEySoeigxVBTZOoJ4wkc5YqYX3LS2fBZZ6bTExqlRygO9WM8KAlX3yr5L2NYR9r4jLKVw4Iskvli/WHn4/4h/3Lf7AaU/ISPOd16idFByEzmrhKMc2Y16KaEF6RXA9nXXJg7PYlHCPcqauiF3hQ3nHDSQZdqJpPBEcynNakHuKLGK5XvlDxl0GBtY91DZrKehG
    According to the prosecution, why did Parliament have both a duty and a right to bring charges against the king?
  2. What does the high court’s argument suggest about its understanding of the role of Parliament in governance and its relationship to the monarchy?

    Question

    SYTJWIaMOfieahtgciBh36HU9fVDS2KoU8ODsX3shl9BHR7FebE2DxiJxpH50xh88C5F1wbPWO5uU+nKRlsWcYYP+pCItBZ/USurGtBurdy0QD+dzGgAn3cwRE1Hfdx7KhPtIG9YoABLi8nwhwIUtMpM8bprLfRYB6qvkGbyskm5iZwI99b8+cXkTiJVyATluypjDYSWu2Mk4Repv4gZteL7EC9aTxmERJ1T3jeAPznh7oDvuiohRXfQUDuExzR1
    What does the high court’s argument suggest about its understanding of the role of Parliament in governance and its relationship to the monarchy?
  3. In his defense, why does the king refuse to acknowledge the court’s authority to bring charges against him? In doing so, what did he reveal about his understanding of the basis of royal authority?

    Question

    9jdYa5kkqt2ax54RRtz3KkWNtgs/o2RiirEOFznp0SnGtGvTEJGInvhyjLV57gI+r4NP0MwzoCi1Law2YO6Qw5iKK04Fh2gxsNxbR0LWZy04ZAtEPjFF2xsJrc+Ryy49rH5Wm+MDujB5Yb9qbvTezk1ig6FGCb+dCJuFGC1wge8i5CAkYFNhguxkdDFRZGvvdolOT3BRMnQMEZf9z0aCF/iO8kjvE4GBwgjv+YcA0qGxSOhmzfsupoZnV6JjpKs3gfawhHxsp1KyGaw0wgjKA918kG3qDIDY0c1hd2GX/Gd/V+450Aapdl8DxoBiLrnh
    In his defense, why does the king refuse to acknowledge the court’s authority to bring charges against him? In doing so, what did he reveal about his understanding of the basis of royal authority?