Data Bases • Custom Term Papers • Free Term Papers • Free Research Papers • Free Essays • Free Book Reports • Plagiarism? Links • Top 100 Term Paper Sites • Top 25 Essay Sites • Top 50 Essay Sites • Search 97,000 Papers @ DirectEssays.com • Search 101,000 Papers @ ExampleEssays.com • Search 90,000 Papers @ MegaEssays.com Free Essays • Term Paper Sites • Chuck III's Free Essays • Free College Essays • TermPaperSites.com • My Term Papers • Get Free Essays • Essay World • Planet Papers	Search Lots of Essays Back to Subjects - History Other King Henry King Henry The first problem was to get judges, or at least a sufficient number of judges, to preside over this irregular court. The initial drafts of the Bill had named the two Chief Justices (of the King's Bench and of Common Pleas), Henry Rolle and Oliver St John as well as Lord Chief Baron Wilde of the Exchequer Court to preside at the King's trial. All had refused to serve. Their names were therefore omitted. Although all of the named judges had lately been appointed by Parliament and were strong opponents of the King, each had long experience in the courts. Clearly each regarded the new "High Court of Justice" as outside the law because of the axiom of English law, universally accepted at that time, that all justice proceeded from the sovereign. In the absence of Lord Chief Justice St John the Commissioners chose for the office of President one John Bradshaw. He had been a judge of the Sheriff's Court in London. He had recently been appointed the Presiding Judge in Chester and a Judge in Wales. Bradshaw protested the insufficiency of his experience for so great a task. But he was eventually persuaded to take the chair. He accepted the title of "Lord President" 13 . Four lawyers were chosen to prosecute the King. The most vigorous of these was the Solicitor-General John Cook, a barrister of Gray's Inn and a man of considerable education. He combined fervent religious faith with convinced republicanism and a considerable interest in moral and social reform. He was assisted by a distinguished scholar from the Netherlands, Dr Isaac Dorislaus, who had once been Professor of Ancient History at Cambridge University where he had expressed views subversive of monarchy. Cook and Dorislaus took great pains, and much time, in drafting the charge. It was decided that the King should be tried at the South End of Westminster Hall. To permit this to be done space was cleared by removing the partitions between the Court of King's Bench and the Court of Chancery which had for a long time been sitting there. The rest of the hall was cleared to accommodate the public. The King, who had spent his time at Windsor in meditation and prayer, was brought in a closed coach to the Palace of St James where he arrived on 19 January 1849. The High Court of Justice to try the King assembled on Saturday 20 January 1849. A roll call was conducted. The Commissioners were a motley crew of the Commons - a kind of jury but a specially selected one 14 . Many absentees were noted at the first roll call. Mr Justice Bradshaw's chair was somewhat raised in the middle of the front row. Cook and his colleagues appeared attired in their black barristers' gowns. On the order of Bradshaw, the King was brought into the Hall. Until this moment he did not know who constituted the Court and what were the charges. Cook rose to read the accusation to the King. It charged him with "high treason and high misdemeanours ... in the name of the commons of England" 15 . The King tried to interrupt. Bradshaw directed that the charge be read. The full instrument contended that the King had been "trusted with a limited power to govern by and according to the laws of the land and not otherwise". Instead, he had "traitorously and maliciously levied war against the present Parliament and the people therein represented". The charge concluded that he was "A Tyrant, traitor and murderer and a public and implacable Enemy to the Commonwealth of England" 16 . King Charles I, like the present Queen's father King George VI, had a speech impediment. He was not a good public speaker. However, the records of the trial (which are virtually verbatim ) and the accounts of many of the observers suggest that he spoke fluently, clearly and with strength. It is said that he was secretly instructed by Sir Mathew Hale, later to be Chief Justice after the Restoration 17 . When called up to answer to the Court he said 18 : "I would know by what power I am called hither. I would know by what authority, I mean lawful. There are many unlawful authorities in the world, thieves and robbers by the highway .... 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, ... I have a trust committed to me by God, by old and lawful descent; and I will not betray it to answer to a new unlawful authority; therefore resolve me that and you shall hear more of me". Cook exhorted the King to answer "in the name of the people, of which you are elected King". Charles immediately responded 19 : "England was never an elected Kingdom, but a hereditary Kingdom, for near these thousand years. ... I do stand more for the liberty of my people, than any here that come to be my pretended judges ... I do not come here as submitting to the Court: I will stand as much for the privilege of the House of Commons, rightly understood, as any man here whatsoever I see no House of Lords here that may constitute a parliament. Let me see a legal warrant authorised ... by the constitution of the Kingdom and I will answer." The King's insistence on authority, legitimacy and what we would now describe as the rule of law, obviously unsettled the "court" and the spectators. As if on cue, the soldiers around the hall began to shout "Justice! Justice!". The court adjourned for the day. On the following morning sixty-two Commissioners met in the Painted Chamber of the Old Palace of Westminster near to Westminster Hall. They agreed that the King should not be permitted to challenge the authority of the Court. If he would not plead to the charge of treason he would be treated as though he had pleaded guilty 20 . On the reassembly of the Court, it declared, through Bradshaw, that its members were "fully satisfied with their own authority". But the King then appealed not to his rights as monarch but to his entitlements as an Englishman 21 : "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 liberty to the people of England more than you do: and therefore if I should impose a belief upon any man, without reasons for it, it were unreasonable." Bradshaw thereupon threatened the King that he would be in contempt of court: a somewhat ineffectual protest given that Charles was on trial for his life for treason and for murder. The King asked for "one precedent" to justify his predicament. He knew enough of the methodology of the common law to require this. He declared that the Commons of England had never been a court of judicature and asked "how that came to be so" 22 . He required reasons and in answer to the reproof of Bradshaw that it was not for prisoners to "require", he answered: "I am not an ordinary prisoner" 23 . The Court withdrew once again, the soldiers shouting "Justice!". On the third day the King was again required to plead. He protested at the interruptions he had suffered when he desired "to speak for the liberties of the people of England" 24 . Bradshaw told him to "make the best defence you can". The King declared that he could not answer unless he was satisfied that the fundamental law of the kingdom warranted the lawfulness of the trial, for he was sworn "to the maintenance of the liberties of my people" 25 . On Bradshaw's instructions, the Clerk of the Court demanded that the King give answer "by way of confession or denial of the charge". The King's only response was again to deny the legality of the Court in the interests of the privileges of the people of England. Bradshaw responded that the King had written his meaning as to those privileges "in bloody characters throughout the whole kingdom". After this, the King was prevented from saying more. "I see I am before a power", said the King and rose to go. For the third time Bradshaw ordered the removal of the prisoner. Clearly, the King had addressed with considerable effectiveness the weakness of the proceedings: their dependence on the army which surrounded the hall and their departure from established courts and laws. What followed took place in the King's absence. Thirty-three witnesses were heard by an appointed committee comprising some only of the "judges" who assembled for that purpose on 24 and 25 January 1849. Their depositions were then read out at a public session of the entire court sitting in the Painted Chamber. On 26 January 1849, sixty-two of the Commissioners re-assembled and the draft sentence was produced, condemning the King as "tyrant traitor, murderer and a public enemy to be put to death by the severing of his head from his body" 26 . On the following day sixty-eight of the Commissioners re-assembled, the sentence being produced. They agreed that, if the King were to make a last-minute submission to the jurisdiction of the Court, they would adjourn to consider what should be done. Meanwhile an element of urgency had entered into the proceedings. Diplomatic representations were hurriedly being made from Europe for the life of the King. The King's friends were seeking to persuade the Lord General, Thomas Fairfax, head of the army, to find a compromise. This was a most uncongenial prospect for the committed republicans. The London crowds were becoming restive at the reports of the King's plucky defence and his appeal to upholding their basic liberties. Rumours of armed incursions from Europe were spreading throughout London. On Saturday 27 January 1649, to signify the solemnity of the occasion on which the punishment of death would be pronounced, Bradshaw for the first time was dressed in scarlet robes. As the King was brought in the soldiers shouted once again for justice and some for execution. There was uproar in the Hall at the appearance of the monarch. Whilst again protesting his claim to defend the liberties of his subjects, the King 27 requested that he be granted a hearing "before any sentence be passed". He asked that he be heard before the Lords and Commons in the Painted Chamber. Bradshaw stated that the King had delayed justice for many days by refusing to plead. But at that moment there was an outcry from amongst the Commissioners. An adjournment was called. In the private meeting that followed one of the Commissioners, John Downes, urged that the King's offer should be accepted. Led by Cromwell, most of the Commissioners refused. They returned to the Hall, leaving Downes outside. Later, at the trial of the regicides after the Restoration, other participants asserted that they had stood up for the King. But clearly very few did so. The belated attempt at compromise failed. Charles was brought back into the Hall 28 . He was told that his request for a meeting with the Lords and Commons had been rejected. Bradshaw proceeded to pronounce sentence. He declared that a King was "but an officer in trust, established by history and the coronation oath for the protection of the people". He made some rather ill-considered comparisons between King Charles and Caligula 29 . He returned, at the end, to the assertion that monarchy, as in England understood, was a contract and a bargain between the King and his people was reciprocal. "If this bond be once broken, farewell sovereignty!" 30 . The speech by Bradshaw, which lasted forty minutes, concluded with the finding of the Court that the King was guilty. The Clerk was directed to read the sentence of death. When he had concluded, all of the Commissioners rose to their feet to signify their concurrence in the act 31 . The King who was then, in the theory of the law, already dead for legal purposes, demanded a last word. Bradshaw declined to allow it. The guards began to take the prisoner away. The King sought to speak. He was refused the chance. On leaving he was recorded as saying 32 : "I am not suffered for to speak: expect what justice other people will have". As he was taken out the cries of "Execution!" and "Justice!" filled Westminster Hall. At the Palace of St James, King Charles was permitted to see the two children who had remained in England 33 . He warned them repeatedly not on any account to agree to attempts to put them on the throne as puppet monarchs but to show allegiance to their lawful King, the Prince of Wales, who was in the Netherlands. He was then brought back to Whitehall where he was housed until his execution. The scaffold for the King's execution was ready by 30 January 1849 in the afternoon. Until that day, no one in the House of Commons had seriously considered the legal steps that would be necessary to constitute England a republic. The execution had to be delayed a matter of hours so that actions could be taken before the King's head was severed. An "Act" was passed by the Commons to make it an offence to proclaim a new King 34 and to declare the representatives of the people, the Commons, as the source of all just power. The brief emergency Bill for this purpose was hurriedly passed by the Commons by midday. The King had been kept waiting until nearly two o'clock for his last engagement 35 . He was then taken through the Banqueting Hall with its ceiling painted by Reubens to a scaffold. His last words were to deny the justice of the sentence upon him and to forgive "even those in particular that have been the chief causes of my death". He gave instruction to his enemies that they should learn to know their duty to God, the King - "that is my successors" and the people. His final words were directed to the law 36 : "Truly I desire [the people's] liberty and freedom as much as anybody whomsoever; but I must tell you their liberty and freedom consists of having of government, those laws by which their life and their goods may be most their own. It is not for having a sharing government ... a subject and a sovereign are clear different things ... If I would have given way to an arbitrary way, for to have all laws changed according to the power of the sword, I need not to have come here; and therefore I tell you ... that I am the Martyr of the people". The King asked the executioner to wait for a sign. The last words he heard were the executioner's assurance "I will, an' it please Your Majesty". With one blow his head was severed from his body and a groan was heard in the small crowd that witnessed the execution. A week after the King's death, the House of Commons passed an additional Act abolishing the monarchy. Royalists refused to accept it, some on the basis that there could never be a vacancy of the Crown; others on the more legalistic footing that the Act was that of the Commons alone and did not have the participation of the other elements of Parliament: the House of Lords and the King. King Charles I's prediction that others would suffer as he had from arbitrary and lawless power was, at least partly, born out. The High Court of Justice in 1649 sentenced several royalist peers to death. Many enemies to the Commonwealth were subjected to this extra-judicial tribunal in 1650 37 . Prominent adherents to the monarchy were placed under martial law 38 . A new treason law was passed by the Commons exacting an oath of obedience to the Commonwealth. The army leaders, who were the real power in the new polity, adopted the conception of rule by an aristocracy of the "godly" 39 . An Instrument of Government was drafted by army officers in December 1653. It was a practical document binding Oliver Cromwell (by then designated the Lord Protector) to act only through the Council of State chosen largely by the army. Parliament was to meet at least triennially for five months. Its approval was required for nominations to the highest administrative and judicial posts. It had sole control of extra-ordinary supply and over its enactments so far as not inconsistent with the Instrument of Government. The object of the Instrument, which is undoubtedly the inspiration for the Constitution of the United States of America, was to afford a written fundamental law in the place of the conventions by which Monarchy operated. No solution was offered for the resolution of disputed interpretations of the text. Parliament was to be unicameral 40 . When Oliver Cromwell died in 1658, his son Richard, in the way of monarchy, succeeded as Lord Protector on his late father's nomination. However, he soon alienated the army and was ousted from office in 1659. By early 1660 it appeared to the army that they could neither govern with Parliament nor without it. A Convention Parliament was therefore summed as the body to bring the republic to a close. King Charles II, by a wise Royal Declaration of Breda, promised pardon to offenders, safeguards for property, satisfaction of arrears of remuneration to the army, and liberty of conscience 41 . The age of written constitutions was temporarily brought to a close. Yet in its place the monarchy which was restored was clearly established as one obliged to operate with an elected Parliament. That Parliament would henceforth be much more than an advisory body. It was an essential prerequisite to the making of the laws of the kingdom. The restoration of the monarchy in 1660 was "essentially a return to government by law" 42 . It was for this that the King's head had been severed. There would be no going back. The people and those who claimed to represent them, had demonstrated to all future monarchies and leaders their ultimate power. The remains of the regicides Cromwell, Bradshaw and Ireton, all of whom had been interred in Westminster Abbey were removed from their graves. Their corpses were displayed at the gallows of Tyburn. Later their heads were exposed at the top of Westminster Hall where they had led the trial of the King. Thirty-one of the fifty-nine Commissioners who had signed the death warrant were living at the Restoration. Pardons were offered to those who came over to the monarchy. Those who did not were tried but in the regular courts and by procedures more orthodox than those in which they had participated. In the end, nine of the regicides suffered the punishment then provided by English law for traitors: hanging, drawing and quartering. Cook, the leading prosecutor, was executed. His enthusiastic adviser, Dr Dorislaus, had been murdered in the Hague in 1649 by English royalist soldiers. With the restoration of the monarchy, few in England would associate themselves with the republican cause. Cook, however, died convinced that he had acted justly. Before his death he wrote to his wife: "We are not traitors, nor murderers, nor fanatics, but true Christians and good commonwealth men, fixed and constant to the principles ... which the parliament and army declared and engaged for; and to that noble principle of preferring the universality, before a particularity, that we sought the public good and would have enfranchised the people, and secured the welfare of the whole groaning creation, if the nation had not more delighted in servitude than in freedom" 43 . Bibliography: asdf Word Count: 3342
Copyright © 2005 College Term Papers, INC All Rights Reserved.