Charles I was the first English monarch to be put on trial for treason and it led to his execution. This event is one of the most controversial in English history. No law could be found in all England’s history that dealt with the trial of a monarch so the order setting up the court that was to try Charles was written by a Dutch lawyer called Issac Dorislaus and he based his work on an ancient Roman law which stated that a military body (in this case the government) could legally overthrow a tyrant. The execution of Charles, lead to an eleven year gap in the rule of the Stuarts (1649 to 1660) and it witnessed the rise to supreme power of Oliver Cromwell, whose signature can be clearly seen on the death warrant of Charles.
Charles I. BBC Production
In its final form, the charge against King Charles I was of no overwhelming length. I t would have taken less than ten minutes to read, and it went direct to the heart of the matter. Essentially, a fabricated charge of high treason and high misdemeanors in which he had willfully conspired to overthrow the rights and liberties of the people, engaged in war against Parliament . He was thus responsible for ” all the treasons, murders, rapines, burnings, spoils, desolations, damage and mischief to this nation, acted or committed in the said wars, or occasioned thereby”. For these reasons, prosecutor John Cook concluded on behalf of the people of England, he impeached ”the said Charles Stuart, as a Tyrant, Traitor, Murderer, and a public and implacable Enemy to the Commonwealth of England”. In other words, fashionable language to mask a coup d’etat.
''and Public Enemy to the good people of this Nation, shall be put to death, by the severing his head from his body'. Bradshaw refused to allow the King to speak in Court after sentence (as a prisoner condemned was already dead in law), and the King was led away still protesting. “I am not suffered to speak; expect what justice other people will have.”
During the reading the King had looked up at the galleries, scanned the faces of the Commissioners, and turned about to take stock of the crowd behind him in he Hall. His countenance betrayed no emotion at all until Cook pronounced the words ”tyrant, traitor, and murderer” whereupon ”he laughed as he sat, in the face of the Court.” The King had never, in the whole course of his life, been a good speaker. He had a reasonably quick wit, but it was notorious that he had a speech impediment. However, the intensity of the moment worked on the King with the incalculable power of the shock, and he was, for the first and last time in his life, fluent, strong and clear:
Execution of Charles I
”I would know by what power I am called hither,” he began, with cold amazement, ”I would know by what authority, I mean lawful.” He emphasized the word and threw in scornfully, ”There are many unlawful authorities in the world; thieves and robbers by the highways…I have a trust committed to me by God,by old and lawful descent; I will not betray it, to answer a new unlawful authority; therefore resolve me that, and you shall hear more of me.”
Bradshaw, thwarted by the quick and pregnant replies, decided that the best approach would be to admonish the King. But nothing would stop the King. He went serenely on: ” I do not come here as submitting to the Court… Let me see a legal authority warranted by the word of God, the Scriptures, or warranted by the constitutions of the Kingdom, and I will answer”. To stop this continued and all too eloquent defiance, Bradshaw decided to cut short the proceedings and ordered the King to be removed.
Charles I
Charles went back to his room at Cotton House, and the rest of the evening he spent thinking over the events of the afternoon and writing out with a fine mixture of clarity and passion his reasons for refusing to submit to the authority of the Court. Somewhat to the embarrassment of his captors, he refused to take off his clothes or go to bed that night because of the soldiers in the room. The next day, being Sunday, was wholly given over to prayer and meditation with Juxon, his chaplain.
Charles I Execution
On Monday, sixty-two commissioners met in private session in the painted chamber to consider what should be done now that they understood the King’s intention of refusing to acknowledge the Court. For this was the insoluble problem which they had set themselves; to reconcile their wholly unprecedented action with the English Common Law, a law rooted in the practice and precedents of centuries. They might have done better to asser, even to boast of, the novelty of the procedure, elucidated by judge Bradshaw in stirring language instead of trying to proceed in vain according to Common Law, which was obviously not applicable. However, they were determined to act as though there was nothing irregular in their conduct.
Trial of Charles I. Palace of Westminster. 1725. Claude Dubosc
Therefore, the silence of the King destroyed a principal purpose of the trial. Certainly, if the prisoner would not plead, in a case of treason, he could be treated as though he had pleaded guilty. He could be taken as guilty and sentenced to death, but he could not be proved guilty for all the world to see. The idea was that if Charles continued to refuse to plead, he would be treated as guilty and receive sentence. It was now Monday. Execution would follow on Friday or Saturday, and the whole painful and dangerous business would be over before the end of the week.
On Monday, the King was even more cool and fluent as on the first day, but even more deadly, for he knew more exactly the weaknesses of his opponents and he had cleared his mind by writing out his ideas on paper. However, he did not speak from notes. Bradshaw interrupted him, but the King was not to be bullied. he knew not only his inalienable rights as a king but also his rights as an Englishman:
”Sir by your favor,” he said with ironical courtesy, ” I know as much law as any gentleman in England; and therefore 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.” Bradshaw lost his head and his temper and after absorbing a few more palpable hits regarding the absence of authority to try him, he brought the session to a close by ordering the guards to remove the King.
Many people, including a majority of the soldiers, hated the King. Hated him for making war on his people, for trying to bring in foreign troops, or even the wild Irish; hated him for abandoning the Protestant cause in Europe, for persecuting godly ministers in England, for favoring Papists and encouraging the friends of his popish wife. More crudely, many of them hated him simply for being a king with soft white hands, fine linen, and a velvet cloak who had ordered his poor subjects to be shot and cut down in battle, who had prisoners beaten and starved, and that condemned honest John Lilburne to be whipped at the cart’s tail.
COMMENTS