Trial and execution of Charles I

MarchDub

The trial of Charles I in 1649 has always interested me because of the convoluted way it came about and the entanglement of the Irish interests in it. Thought I might start a thread on it and try to find various sources and reactions in England and Ireland. I have some of the transcript myself but found some interesting sites on the web.

Charles was arrested by the Cromwellians and then taken from Windsor Castle to St James's Palace on 19th January 1649. The next day he was brought into Westminster Hall for his trial. At the end of the trial Charles I was found guilty of treason and executed on the 30th January 1649.

Charles repeatedly refused to legally recognise the court and therefore refused to plead:

Extract from a report of the trial of Charles I, January 1649
(Catalogue ref: SP 16/517)
Then the Clerk reads.
Clerk
Charles Stuart King of England, you are accused, on the behalf of the people of England, of divers high crimes and treasons, which charge hath been read unto you. The Court now requires you to give your final and positive answer by way of confession or denial of the charge.
King
Sir, I say again, that so I might give satisfaction to the people of England of the clearness of my proceedings, not by way of answer, not in this way but to satisfy them that I have done nothing against the trust that hath been committed to me, I will do it; but to acknowledge a new Court against their privileges to alter all the fundamental laws of the Kingdom in their behalf, Sir, you must excuse me.
Lord President Bradshaw
This is the third time that you have publicly disowned this Court and put an affront upon it. How far you have preserved the fundamental laws and the freedom of the subject your actions have spoken it, for truly, Sir, men's intentions are used to be shown by their actions; you have written your meaning in bloody characters throughout the whole kingdom. But, Sir, the Court understands your meaning. Clerk record the default, and gentlemen you that brought the prisoner, take him back again.
King
I have one word to you; if it were only my particular indeed I would not.
Lord President
Sir you have heard the pleasure of the Court, and you are, though you will not understand it, to find that you are before a court of justice.
King
Well, Sir, I find I am before a power and went away. These words he spake with a low voice as he was going away.

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/civilwar/popups/g5cs1s4_transcript.htm

Some accounts describe the shock of the populace at the killing of a king and bad crops were even blamed on the act.

Anything that adds to the story would be welcome - the 1640s were a time of great confusion IMO both in England and in Ireland but this makes them a fascinating period to explore.

Keep it friendly - and fact based please.

Manach

As last words go "I shall go from a corruptible to an incorruptible Crown, where no disturbance can be." - fairly memorable.

MarchDub

And a saint - canonised by the C of E.

Charles undoubtedly died because he would not abandon the Church, and this was formally recognised at the Restoration. On 25th January 1661 it was ordered that 30th January should be kept as a public fast, and a form of prayer was drawn up by Bishop Duppa. This contained a prayer that by 'a careful, studious imitation of this Thy blessed saint and martyr, and all other Thy saints and martyrs that have gone before us, we may be made worthy to receive benefit by their prayers, which they, in communion with the Church Catholic, offer up unto Thee for that part of it here militant.'

The form of prayer, after revision, was issued by the authority of both Convocations, annexed by the authority of the Crown to the Prayer Book, and sanctioned by Parliament in 12 Car. II. c. 14. Royal proclamation at the beginning of each reign ordered its use, but in 1859 it was withdrawn from the Prayer Book by Royal Warrant. In the Calendar 'King Charles, Martyr' was inserted on 30th January, and no action has ever been taken by Crown, Convocation, or Parliament to remove the words, though the printers have omitted them.


Charles was thus formally canonised by the Church of England. Sermons were preached annually in his memory, often reaching a high pitch of devout eulogy. Churches were dedicated to his memory (Arnold Forster, Studies in Church Dedications, ii. 346-8). Keble's (q.v.) poem in the Christian Year is well known, and in a sermon he declared that 'it is as natural that the Church of England should keep this day as it is that Christ's Universal Church should keep St. Stephen's martyrdom.' And Bishop Creighton (q.v.) in 1895 said that by his death Charles saved the Church of England for the future.

http://anglicanhistory.org/charles/ollard_crosse1912.html

MarchDub

Signed Death Warrant of Charles I

At the high Co[ur]t of Justice for the tryinge and iudginge of Charles Steuart Kinge of England January xxixth Anno D[omi]ni 1648.

Whereas Charles Steuart Kinge of England is and standeth convicted attaynted and condemned of High Treason and other high Crymes, And sentence uppon Saturday last ˆ was pronounced against him by this by this Co[ur]t to be putt to death by the severinge of his head from his body Of w[hi]ch sentence execucon yet remayneth to be done, These are therefore to will and require you to see the said sentence executed In the open Streete before Whitehall uppon the morrowe being the Thirtieth day of this instante moneth of January betweene the houres of Tenn in the morninge and Five in the afternooone of the same day wth full effect And for soe doing this shall be yor sufficient warrant And these are to require All Officers and Souldiers and other the good people of this Nation of England to be assistinge unto you in this service Given under o[ur] hands and Seales

To Colonell Francis Hacker, Colonell Huncks Har. Waller Hen. Smyth A. Garland Symon Mayne Tho. Wogan and Lieutenant Colonell Phayre and to every of them. John Blakiston Per. Pelham Edm. Ludlowe Tho. Horton John Venn M. Liversey J. Hutchinson Ri. Deane Henry Marten J. Jones Gregory Clement Jo. Bradshawe John Okey Willi. Goffe Robert Tichborne Vinct. Potter John Moore Jo. Downes Tho. Grey J. Da[n]vers Tho. Pride H. Edwardes Wm. Constable Gilbt. Millington Tho. Wayte O. Cromwell Jo. Bourchier Pe. Temple Daniel Blagrave Rich. Ingoldesby G. Fleetwood Tho. Scot Edw. Whalley H. Ireton T. Harrison Owen Rowe Willi. Cawley J. Alured Jo. Carew Tho. Mauleverer J. Hewson Willm. Purefoy Jo. Barkstead Robt. Lilburne Miles Corbet Ad. Scrope Isaa. Ewer Will. Say James Temple John Dixwell Anth. Stapley Valentine Wauton Greg. Norton Tho. Challoner

Words in italics have been written over erasures; letters in square brackets represent contractions or abbreviations in the original

Note that the year was held to start on 25th March, and that therefore 29th January was correctly dated as 1648, and not 1649, as it would be reckoned today.

[/QUOTE]

Death warrant of Charles I
The warrant for the execution of Charles I is perhaps the most dramatic of all the records relating to English political history. While some of Charles's predecessors had suffered early and bloody deaths, none had been subjected to formal legal proceedings in a High Court of Justice, established by legislation passed by a Parliament professing to be the supreme power in the land.

jonniebgood1

MarchDub wrote: »

The trial of Charles I in 1649 has always interested me because of the convoluted way it came about and the entanglement of the Irish interests in it. Thought I might start a thread on it and try to find various sources and reactions in England and Ireland. I have some of the transcript myself but found some interesting sites on the web.

Clerk
Charles Stuart King of England, you are accused, on the behalf of the people of England, of divers high crimes and treasons, which charge hath been read unto you. The Court now requires you to give your final and positive answer by way of confession or denial of the charge.
King
Sir, I say again, that so I might give satisfaction to the people of England of the clearness of my proceedings, not by way of answer, not in this way but to satisfy them that I have done nothing against the trust that hath been committed to me, I will do it; but to acknowledge a new Court against their privileges to alter all the fundamental laws of the Kingdom in their behalf, Sir, you must excuse me.

Was the trial popular, i.e. did people agree with questioning their monarch? In this era the monarch would have been untouchable and unquestionable- this trial broke that at the behest of the army and Cromwell.

The army under Cromwell seems to have very deliberately went about removing their opponents in the parliament. The memoir of Cromwell supporter Edmund Ludlow is quoted from the UK national archive as follows. This details how they would get parliament to support putting Charles on trial. This action would only be necessary if Charles still had the support of a majority in parliament in trying to find common ground.
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/civilwar/g5/cs1/s3/

Parliament had been trying to work out a treaty with Charles prior to this action by the army. The court that charged Charles as per OP was set up by the purged parliament and this is a reason why he refused to recognise it (the purge was December 1648 and the setting up of trial was January 1649).


EDIT> Source as per post -'Memoirs of Edmund Ludlow' can be viewed in full here http://archive.org/details/memoirsofedmundl03ludl

tac foley

IMO, he effectively signed his own death warrant in applying his signature to a request to the French king to provide invading troops in support of his efforts in the civil war.

I live in Cromwell's home town. BTW.

tac

pedroeibar1

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Was the trial popular, i.e. did people agree with questioning their monarch? In this era the monarch would have been untouchable and unquestionable- this trial broke that at the behest of the army and Cromwell.

The army under Cromwell seems to have very deliberately went about removing their opponents in the parliament. The memoir of Cromwell supporter Edmund Ludlow is quoted from the UK national archive as follows. This details how they would get parliament to support putting Charles on trial. This action would only be necessary if Charles still had the support of a majority in parliament in trying to find common ground.
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/civilwar/g5/cs1/s3/

Parliament had been trying to work out a treaty with Charles prior to this action by the army. The court that charged Charles as per OP was set up by the purged parliament and this is a reason why he refused to recognise it (the purge was December 1648 and the setting up of trial was January 1649).

I've always believed that there was a deeply rooted fear of Catholicism throughout the 1600's - all the tracts are virulently anti-Catholic That is further instanced by the Corporation Act and the Test Acts. Charles & family were not trusted. When back in 1622 he went to Spain (mission of Lord Digby) to woo the Infanta it caused a major hiatus. As in any civil war families were totally divided in the 1640s ; in mine, although Puritan in the early 1600's, the older sons were Royalist and supported the King with gifts of cash and loans. One had been a Puritan but became a friend of Laud at Oxford and as a result became a Royalist. As a result he had to flee in 1642 with a price on his head. Some of the younger sons later came to Ireland with Cromwell; cousins, Royalists, went to Jamaica. After the Restoration the survivor in Ireland remained here - probably had nothing to return to, and the Royalists did very well, obtained important sinecures, their confiscated lands were restored, etc.

Ludlow was a fascinating, scheming character; he was one of the several regicides who came to Ireland; Ireton died at Limerick. Curiously when Ireton's body was repatriated to England for burial the same ship also carried as prisoner Hugh Dubh O’Neill, who had defeated him & Cromwell at Clonmel and was captured by Ireton when Limerick fell. Ireton wanted him hanged, but Ludlow disagreed and the council of war supported him.
Later, Ludlow ‘obtained’ the Co. Dublin castle of Mount Town (today in Monkstown, next to the roundabout):
(Walter Cheevers) ... appears to have taken no part in the stirring events of the time, but, as a Roman Catholic, he was not long left undisturbed. The Castle was a tempting residence for one of the authorities of the Parliament, and commanding as it did the landing-place for the men-of-war which lay in the roads, now occupied by Kingstown Harbour, it was of importance that it should be in the hands of one trusted by the Government. Cheevers was, therefore, amongst the first who were ordered to transplant into Connaught, although, from the steps taken to give him a suitable dwelling and ample lands there, it is evident that the only cause of complaint against him was his religion, and in the depth of the winter of 1653, he received command to vacate his ancestral home, and with his wife, a daughter of Viscount Netterville, and his five children, the eldest being only seven years of age, to find a new one in the wilds of the West of Ireland.*

*A HISTORY OF THE COUNTY DUBLIN: FRANCIS ELRINGTON BALL ; DUBLIN:
Printed and Published by Alex. Thom & Co. (Limited\ Abbev St. 1902.

CDfm

What were Charles I & Oliver Cromwell's relative positions on Catholic's ?

In Ireland didn't Cromwell pick on the Royalists ?

MarchDub

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Was the trial popular, i.e. did people agree with questioning their monarch? In this era the monarch would have been untouchable and unquestionable- this trial broke that at the behest of the army and Cromwell.

It wasn't only that the monarch was unquestionable there was also a deeply held belief at that time - throughout Europe- that the monarch was God's anointed and as such to put him on trial for his life may have been going against the will of Providence. Maybe even sinful...

There is evidence of public support for Charles. In the March prior to his trial on the anniversary of his accession to the throne, there were loyal public demonstrations in London by tradesmen and shopkeepers. Visitors to London describe being obliged to drink to the King's health and welfare on that date.

The scene at the actual execution is described by witnesses as quiet - as if the crowd were in shock at the spectacle. When Charles' head was removed by the executioner an eyewitness said a great moan went up from the crowd 'as I never heard before and I desire I may never hear again'. This remark is quoted by Antonia Fraser in Cromwell The Lord Protector.

MarchDub

Another interesting fact about the trial - Charles's son, the Prince of Wales the future Charles II who was in exile by the time - tried to save his father's life by sending the Parliamentarians a blank pre-signed document telling them to fill in the terms of his father's release and he would honour them. Nothing came of this gesture.

MarchDub

CDfm wrote: »

What were Charles I & Oliver Cromwell's relative positions on Catholic's ?

Charles' wife, the French Princess Henrietta Maria, was Catholic and he was considered by the Puritans as being too popish in his views, as were many of the Anglicans.

CDfm wrote: »

In Ireland didn't Cromwell pick on the Royalists ?

Yes, the Royalists under James Butler, Earl of Ormand formed an army, The Irish Royalist Army, in support of Charles and then formed a federation with the Confederate Catholics of Ireland to support the monarch against Cromwell.

pedroeibar1

Interesting précis of the religious environment here
http://faculty.history.wisc.edu/sommerville/361/361-28.htm

CDfm

Were any of the regicides Irish ?

I am trying to get a feel for things here. How did Charles get on with his Irish subjects.

I know that the Butlers were good buddies with Charles II and that 1641was a fairly squirelly time i.e. Charles did not need an Irish problem on his plate then. What was his level of Irish support.

I have often felt that the events of 1641 & then Cromwell left a festering sore that eventually contributed to the 1798 Rebellion in Wexford where it was least expected to happen.

What about selling Irish as slaves in the Carribean. Did he do that for money ?

Manach

For the legality of the trial, the jury is still open on that.
From the book, The Trial: A History from Socrates to O. J. Simpson by Sadakat Kadri, the author AFAIR stated that the execution was unfair and basically a political murder orchestrated by the more extreme of the Roundheads.
On the other hand (though I've not read this one), another book "The Tyrannicide Brief by Geoffrey Robertson " suggests that on the whole this was a properly conducted exercise and a valuable step to democracy and judicial independence.

MarchDub

There were 59 Regicides who signed the death warrant and they eventually got their comeuppance once the monarchy was reinstated in 1660 at the Restoration:

In August 1660, following the Restoration of King Charles II, the Act of Indemnity and Oblivion was passed as a gesture of reconciliation to reunite the kingdom. A free pardon was granted to everyone who had supported the Commonwealth and Protectorate, but exceptions were made for those who had directly participated in the trial and execution of King Charles I in 1649. A special court was appointed in October 1660 and the Regicides that were in custody were brought to trial. Ten were condemned to death and publicly hanged, drawn and quartered at Charing Cross or Tyburn, London, in October 1660: Thomas Harrison, John Jones, Adrian Scrope, John Carew, Thomas Scot, and Gregory Clement, who had signed the King's death warrant; the preacher Hugh Peter; Francis Hacker and Daniel Axtell, who commanded the guards at the King's trial and execution; and John Cook, the lawyer who had directed the prosecution. A further nineteen were imprisoned for life.

By order of the Convention Parliament, all the Regicides who had died before the Restoration were posthumously attained for high treason and their property was confiscated. In January 1661, the corpses of Oliver Cromwell, Henry Ireton and John Bradshaw were exhumed and hanged in their shrouds at Tyburn before their skulls were impaled at Westminster Hall.

Twenty Regicides fled to Europe or to America. Sir George Downing (1623-84), English ambassador to the Netherlands, controversially arrested three of them: John Barkstead, John Okey and Miles Corbet, who were extradited to England and executed in April 1662. John Lisle was murdered by a royalist at Lausanne in Switzerland in 1664. The last survivor of the regicides was probably Edmund Ludlow, who died at Vevey, Switzerland, in 1692. The identity of the executioner who beheaded the King was never discovered.

This link gives the list of their names and you can click on each one to learn more about them.

http://www.british-civil-wars.co.uk/biog/regicides.htm

jonniebgood1

CDfm wrote: »

I am trying to get a feel for things here. How did Charles get on with his Irish subjects.
....

I have often felt that the events of 1641 & then Cromwell left a festering sore that eventually contributed to the 1798 Rebellion in Wexford where it was least expected to happen.

The Catholic confederation rulers of a large part of Ireland after 1641 were still loyal to Charles I. The second of their orders to establish the model of government they would rule by swore allegiance as such at the Kilkenny assembly, 1642.

2

Item, that all and every person and persons within this kingdom shall bear faith and true allegiance unto our sovereign lord King Charles . . . his heirs and lawful successors, and shall uphold and maintain his and their rights and lawful prerogatives, . . .

Source- The Kilkenny assembly, 1642. notation here: http://www.ucc.ie/celt/published/E640001-001.html

Fratton Fred

I know it is slightly ot, but I heard of an incident in the English civil war which typified the brutality that took place.

A number of royalists had been captured and were being held hostage in a walled town in (i think) east Anglia.

The royalists besieged the town and demanded the return of the hostages. The town refused to surrender and accepted that no quarter would be given.

The royalists duly destroyed the town killing everybody therein, including the twenty or so royalist prisoners.

I've only heard this as word of mouth and haven't actually seen this written down anywhere. Has this or a similar event cropped up in any of your research? It is something I'd be interested to know more about, if it did actually happen.

pedroeibar1

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The royalists duly destroyed the town killing everybody therein, including the twenty or so royalist prisoners.

I've only heard this as word of mouth and haven't actually seen this written down anywhere. Has this or a similar event cropped up in any of your research? It is something I'd be interested to know more about, if it did actually happen.

I’ve not encountered that story, but most of my reading has been centred on the Irish campaigns. There were atrocities in England, one I recall is the murder of 100 or so women by New Model soldiers after Naseby – the excuse was that ‘they were whores and Irishwomen of cruel countenance’. Generally terms were offered – surrender the town now to avoid bloodshed and you can live; ignore us and we will not offer quarter. (Decimate – killing one in ten soldiers after defeat comes from this practice.) The Articles of War were adopted by both sides, so that was a restraining influence; atrocities in England were more individual and sporadic. Ireland & Scotland did not have that luck.

In Bulstrode Whitelocke’s book 'Memorials of the English Affairs' there is a good example of Cromwellian tactics - Governor Colonel Hewson took Lawlinbridge (Leighlinbridge) and marched with a strong party to meet the Lord Lieutenant at Gouran (Gowran). The combined forces marched and entered the Town without opposition on March 19. The Castle would not yield and after “a strong dispute” upon one attempt to storm, the common soldiers (that they might have quarter for themselves) delivered up their officers, viz. Col, Hamson, Major Townly, two Capts. one quartermaster, one lieutenant and a priest.” The officers were shot and the priest hanged.

In ‘The Civil Wars’ (ed. Kenyon & Ohlmeyer) the chapter on civilians states that plunder was much more widespread in Ireland and Scotland than in England, and that the word, first used in 1632, came into common use in 1642 (page 295). Essex attacked his own soldiers with a sword when they pillaged defeated Royalists after Reading 1643. Charles held similar views and hanged several offenders on the spot at Lostwithiel. (page 112)

MarchDub

Cromwell described ‘Papists’ – and those with similar tendencies, like Anglicans - as his chief target and said so in his speeches frequently. Here is a part of his speech he gave at Whitehall to the Parliamentary General Council in March 1649 in response to being asked if he would go to Ireland with the Parliamentary army. He considered the Irish to be his worse enemies – and lumped the C of I Royalists in with the Catholic Irish in his attacks.

In the next place we are to consider Ireland. All the Papists and the King’s Party, I cannot say all the Papists but the greatest party of them, are in a very strong combination against you and they have made a union with those apostate forces that were under Inchiquin and the Confederate Catholics of Ireland and all that party are in a very strong combination against you...


And truly this is really believed if we do not endeavour to make good our interest there, and that timely, we shall not only have, as I said before, our interest rooted out there, but they will in a very short time be able to land forces in England, and to put us to trouble here. And I confess that I have had these thoughts with myself, that perhaps may be carnal and foolish. I had rather be over-run with a Cavalierish interest than a Scotch interest, I had rather be over-run with a Scotch interest than an Irish interest; and I think of all, this is the most dangerous, and if they shall be able to carry on this work they will make this the most miserable people on earth. For all the world knows their barbarism – and I speak not of any one religion, almost any of them but in a manner are as bad as Papists.

The sense of his Godly mission and Divine intervention in the Parliamentary cause against the King is also revealing –

And truly God would not rest there – for by the way, although it be fit for us to entitle our failings and miscarriages to ourselves, yet the gloriousness of our work may well be attributed to God himself, and may be called his strange work – you may remember well that at the change of the government there was not an end of our troubles, although that year were such things transacted as indeed make it to be the most memorable year, I mean 1648, that ever this nation saw. So many insurrections, invasions, secret designs, open and public attempts quashed in so short a time, and this by the very signal appearance of God himself, which I hope we will never forget.

I typed these out from the text of Cromwell's speeches.