13B

Stuart Britain and the Crisis of Monarchy, 1603-1702

________________________________________________________________

SECTION TWO Revolution, 1629-1649

Topic 13 The failure to secure a post-war settlement, 1648-49: divisions between the Army and Parliament and the Regicide

Key Question B: What were the grounds for the execution of the King?

The basis for the Regicide: Charles I’s trial

To solve the unprecedented dilemma of how to charge a monarch with treason, a parliamentary committee had created a temporary High Court to sit for a single month, with the sole purpose of putting the King on trial. Instead of a traditional judge and jury, carefully-vetted ‘commissioners’ were appointed to oversee the proceedings. To overcome the conundrum of the dubious legal basis of the charge itself, an ordinance was passed that widened the definition of ‘treason’ (of which it was technically impossible to find the King guilty) to be equated with ‘tyranny’, or in modern terms, committing crimes against humanity (of which the Rump were confident that the King was guilty). When the dozen or so remaining peers in the House of Lords tried to block the passage of this ordinance, MPs responded with the official proclamation that “the people under God are the origin of all just power, and the Commons of England in Parliament assembled, being chosen by and representing the people, have the supreme power in this nation”. In short, a constitutional revolution had taken place: the House of Commons had declared itself the sovereign body within the country, rejecting any need of support from either the House of Lords, or the King.

The trial of Charles I began in Westminster Hall on 20 January 1649. Despite all the painstaking preparations, there were immediate signs that Cromwell and his allies had misjudged the overall mood of the nation:

• less than half of the 135 pre-approved ‘commissioners’ showed up for duty (and the number dwindled further as the trial progressed);

• Fairfax, Commander-in-Chief of the Parliamentary forces that had defeated the Royalists in the First and Second Civil Wars, was one of the most notable absentees – when his name was read out at the beginning of the first session, his wife was said to have shouted down from the gallery, “He hath more wit than to be here”;

• the Chief Justice, Sir Robert Heath, refused to preside over the trial as Lord President, so instead the job went to an insignificant and hitherto unknown lawyer, John Bradshaw;

• for his own protection, Bradshaw was shadowed by bodyguards and wore body armour and a metal-plated hat throughout the proceedings;

• the trial was noted for the permanent presence of an armed guard to maintain order both inside and outside the courtroom.

The charges brought against the King were as follows:

1. He had attempted to rule according to his own wishes, and that by establishing Personal Rule, had deprived the people of their ancient right to have their grievances heard and addressed in Parliament.

2. Twice he had made war on Parliament (and, by implication, his own subjects), and he had attempted to use both Scottish Presbyterians and Irish Catholics to help him in this cause.

3. As a result of his accountability for having started the Civil Wars, he was therefore guilty of all the killing and destruction brought upon his people that had taken place throughout the Three Kingdoms.

Once the charge-sheet had been read out, and he had been asked to enter a plea, Charles revealed his master strategy. He stated: “First, I must know by what power I am called hither before I would give answer. By what lawful authority? Remember, I am your King, your lawful King, with a trust committed to me by God”. The commissioners had no answer. Rattled by the King’s response, they were forced to adjourn proceedings. Charles was led out of Westminster Hall triumphant, to cries of “God save the King!” For three consecutive days, the King sat before the court in this manner, refusing to respond to the charges, and deriding the legitimacy of the trial. The illegality of Pride’s Purge and the absence of the overriding authority of the House of Lords in English Common Law put him in a strong position. On the third day, he was told that his continued silence would be taken as a confession of guilt. This prompted him to explain his position further. He claimed: “If power without law make any laws, I do not know what subject in England can be sure of his life nor of anything that he calls his own. It is not my case alone, but the freedom and liberty of the people of England that I stand for”. He still did not enter a plea, however, and according to English Common Law, the trial could not proceed without one.

By portraying himself as the champion of the people’s liberties, Charles had cleverly turned the tables, framing Parliament as the tyrannical force in England. The commissioners needed a new tactic. On days four, five and six of the trial, 33 witness testimonies were heard in private, away from the King. Most of these witnesses were committed anti-Royalists. Evidence that was heard for the prosecution included:

• the claim that Charles had ordered the Royal Standard to be raised in Nottingham in August 1642, thus starting the English Civil War;

• that he had been complicit in the mistreatment of civilians by Royalist soldiers, and in cruel punishments afforded to Parliamentarian prisoners of war;

• a letter from the Isle of Wight suggesting Charles had asked his son in exile to raise another Royalist army, while he had been keeping up the pretence of negotiating The Treaty of Newport with Parliament.

Once this information had been compiled, the commissioners concluded that there was finally enough evidence to convict the King. Giving further substantiation to the idea that this was no more than an elaborate show-trial, no witnesses for the defence were heard, and the Rump even forbade Charles from making a speech before the final verdict and sentence were delivered.

Thus, on 27 January 1649, Lord President Bradshaw issued judgement on the reign of Charles I, citing the King’s breaking of his Coronation Oath as the ultimate justification for his guilt. He concluded with the words: “For all which Treasons and Crimes this Court doth adjudge, that the said Charles Stuart, as a Tyrant, Traitor, Murderer and a public enemy, shall be put to death, by the severing of his head from his body.”

Even once the verdict had been passed, persuading the commissioners to put their signature to the death warrant was not an easy task. Of the 68 to attend the trial, only 59 signed the document, and it has been alleged that this was only after Cromwell exerted considerable coercion upon them.

The Execution of Charles I

It is likely that Charles was shocked that the Rump intended to go through with the execution. When the reality dawned on him, he used his final days to do everything possible to influence the way in which history would view his death. Fully aware that these revolutionary events afforded him an opportunity to win back sympathy for himself and his family, he now set out to secure his legacy as a martyr. On the day of his execution, 30 January 1649, Charles famously dressed in two shirts so he would not shiver from the cold (and be perceived as being scared to die). After eating a simple breakfast and saying his prayers, he was allowed to say a tearful goodbye to the two of his children who had remained in London (Henry, Duke of Gloucester and Princess Elizabeth). He was then led from his cell and onto the scaffold erected outside Banqueting House at Whitehall, where he was permitted to deliver a final speech to his subjects.

His attending priest, William Juxon, the Bishop of London, would later report that the King’s address went as follows: “[I desire] the people’s liberty and freedom as much as anybody whomsoever. But I must tell you that their liberty and freedom consist of having a government; those laws by which their life and their goods may be their own. It is not for having a share in government. A subject and a sovereign are clean different things.” He then declared that he “would go from a corruptible to an incorruptible crown” and would be “the martyr of the people”. As he handed Juxon his sash and cloak, he uttered one final word: “Remember”.

At about 2:00 p.m., Charles was beheaded with one clean stroke. According to one eye-witness, a moan “as I never heard before and desire I may never hear again” rose from the assembled crowd, although some rushed forward to dip their handkerchiefs in the King's blood as a memento. Charles’s severed head was silently held up to the onlookers, and on the following day, was sewn back onto his body. He was then embalmed, placed in a lead coffin and buried in St George’s Chapel at Windsor Castle.

Although there may have been a millenarian element to their actions, the Army Grandees who drove the Regicide were probably only acting out of necessity. While they had become convinced that the King deserved to die because of his refusal to agree to any sort of post-war settlement and his duplicitous role in re-starting the Civil War (as a result of The Engagement with the Scots), the possibility of an agreement between Charles and the more conservative members of the Political Nation made the Regicide an imperative measure in order to safeguard the position of the Army and the Rump MPs who supported it.

After Charles’s execution, the next logical step was to abolish the institution of monarchy entirely and the House of Lords. This was formally undertaken in March 1649, but only after considerable debate. The delay and uncertainty suggest how far from being revolutionary the Rump actually was. Although they had overseen the beheading of a reigning monarch, this had not been designed to bring about lasting constitutional change. First and foremost, it was simply a short-term remedy for the insoluble problem of what to do with a defeated King who would not accept his defeat.

There was little republican spirit in England. The events of December 1648 to March 1649 were too radical for most of the Political Nation, who now perceived the new republican regime in the most unfavourable terms. Although Charles had largely failed as a monarch, his removal did little to solve any of the underlying problems of the state in terms of finance, religion and the relationships between the various elements of the Political Nation. Indeed, the nature of the King’s trial and its outcome would ensure that the long-term prospects of England succeeding without a monarch were poor.