For the first time in the history of a nation, the trial of the crown
The trial, as a result of which the King of England Charles 1 Stuart was sentenced to death, was the first court in history that upheld the right of subjects not only to obey the royal favor, but also to demand that the king protect their own interests.
At the beginning of the 17th century, England, before all the European powers, reached the forefront of the development of new industrial relations. For the first time in history, the nascent English bourgeoisie was able to feel its importance, and therefore its right to demand from the king the protection of its own interests. The expression of these interests was the parliament, formed in England back in the 13th century as a body of representation for all estates, including the English bourgeoisie.
But the Stuart dynasty that ruled at that time did not recognize the limitations of absolute monarchical power. The struggle between the crown and parliament intensified already under its first representative, the son of Mary Stuart, James I. His heir, Charles I, who ascended the throne in 1625, was brought up in the same spirit.
1628 - the young king, who was in great need of funds to maintain his usual way of life, was forced to convene parliament. At its very first meeting, the parliamentarians submitted to the king a "Petition of Right", according to which any taxes and taxes could be collected only with the consent of parliament. The rest of the offerings to the king were declared illegal. But Karl 1 constantly violated the adopted law, and soon completely dissolved the parliament.
For the next 11 years, the king ruled alone. However, in 1637 a war broke out between England and Scotland, and Charles 1 needed considerable funds. 1640, April - the king was forced to convene parliament again to approve additional taxes. But parliament, defending the interests of the bourgeoisie, did not support the new bill. In addition, parliamentarians began to demand the abolition of the extraordinary royal courts, which the king had introduced during his sole reign, and also punish the most hated officials. In response to this, on May 5, the king also dissolved this parliament, which in history received the name of the Short.
In this situation, Karl clearly overestimated his strength. By the fall, it became clear that royal power in England was in a critical state - the people did not obey the king. Therefore, in November 1640, Stewart convened a new parliament, called Dolgiy (because it existed until 1653). Charles 1 was forced to approve a law according to which the parliament could be dissolved only in accordance with the decision of the parliament itself. All the institutions of royal power, namely the Star Chamber and the High Commission, which were called upon to administer court in the state, were dissolved. Thus, the absolute power of the king was limited and the monarchy became constitutional.
The king could not accept this. He issued a declaration on the protection of the crown from parliament and on the formation of the royal army. After an unsuccessful attempt on January 4, 1642, to arrest 5 of the most influential parliamentarians on charges of high treason, the king was forced to leave the capital, counting on the support of the provinces.
Promotional video:
In England, a dual power was established. 1642, July - the House of Commons decides to create its own army, and Charles 1 declared war on parliament in August the same year. This was the beginning of the civil war in 1642-1646. On the side of the monarch were the economically backward northern and western counties, as well as the Anglican Church. The economically developed southwestern, as well as individual industrial and commercial areas of the center and north of the state stood up for parliament.
In the beginning, the well-trained royal army had the advantage. But in 1645, the opposition created a standing army with a unified command and harsh discipline. Oliver Cromwell, a talented politician and commander, became the head of the army of parliament. He was able to create military formations that earned the fame of the best in Europe.
1645, June 14 - At the Battle of Nesby, the new army of parliament was able to defeat the royal troops. Charles 1 managed to escape to Scotland, but the enemy captured not only artillery, ammunition and royal banners, but also the secret correspondence of the royal cabinet, which played an important role in the trial that followed soon.
The Scots proved to be unreliable allies. For £ 400,000, they gave Charles to Parliament. After which the monarch became a prisoner. At first, Herstcastle was chosen as his place of residence. Charles's supporters were preparing an escape. His nephew, Prince Rupert, had to free his uncle from the castle. But by that time, the king was transferred and imprisoned closer to London (in Windsor Castle). On the way to Windsor, while stopping at Bagshot, Lord Newburgh's estate, the hospitable host wanted to provide Karl with one of the finest horses for which his stables were famous.
Then no pursuit could catch up with the king if he could decide to escape. But the chief of the guard, Garrison, prudently ordered that the trotter be given to one of the soldiers of the convoy. And in Windsor, the prisoner was transferred to a more strict regime of detention: the number of his servants was reduced; those who remained were obliged to inform about everything that could contribute to the escape. The door to the room where the king was staying was guarded all the time. All visits were forbidden, and walks were limited to the castle terrace.
By that time, the decision on the trial of the monarch had already been made. The political situation in England developed in this way. A radical political group called the Independents came to power, led by Oliver Cromwell. This political party expressed the interests of the radical wing of the bourgeoisie and the new nobility (gentry). She was forcibly able to achieve a majority in the House of Commons.
On December 23, this chamber adopted a resolution - it called Charles 1 the main culprit of all the misfortunes in the power, which in fact experienced enormous difficulties associated with the civil war and its consequences. A special committee was appointed to develop a procedure for the trial of the king.
Not only in the practice of English legal proceedings of those times, but in general European, there were no such precedents. Therefore, the committee established a special judicial board, and the House of Commons on December 28, 1648 issued a resolution on the trial of the sovereign.
This decision was not easy for the parliament. Many of its members fled from the capital, including those on whom the development of the legal foundations of the future process depended. Even as convinced opponents of the king, not all parliamentarians were able to oppose the legitimate monarch.
1649, January 1 - The House of Commons considered and adopted the draft ordinance, which was presented by the preparatory committee.
It read: “Since it is known that Charles 1 Stuart, the current English king, not content with the many encroachments on the rights and freedoms of the people committed by his predecessors, set out to completely destroy the ancient and fundamental laws and rights of this nation and introduce instead arbitrary and tyrannical rule, for which they unleashed a terrible war against parliament and the people, which devastated the country, drained the treasury, suspended useful activities and trade and cost the lives of many thousands of people … treacherously and maliciously sought to enslave the English nation.
To the fear of all future rulers who might try to do something like this, the king should be held accountable before a special court of justice, consisting of 150 members, appointed by the present parliament, chaired by two supreme justices."
They decided to create a special Supreme Court of Justice for the trial of the king.
The very next day, the House of Lords, which then consisted of only 16 people, received this decree and unanimously rejected it. Aristocratic parliamentarians believed that the king had more rights than parliament, and had the right to dissolve it. And the Earl of Northumberland, a staunch supporter of parliament, said: “It is unlikely that even one person in twenty would agree with the statement that the king, and not parliament, started the war. Without preliminary clarification of this circumstance, the king cannot be accused of high treason."
Thus, the bill presented by the House of Commons did not receive legal force. Then on January 4, 1649, the House of Commons declared itself the bearer of the supreme power in the country. The rights of the king and the houses of lords were limited. The people were declared the source of any legal power, and their chosen ones, represented by the members of the House of Commons, were declared the supreme power.
Despite considerable dissatisfaction with royal politics among the majority of the population, it was not an easy matter to assemble a Supreme Court of Justice. Some judges appointed by the House of Commons refused to take part in the trial. And one of them, Sydney, bluntly told the chairman of the court, J. Bradshaw, that "no court at all has the right to judge the king, and such as this court cannot judge anyone." He actually recognized the Supreme Court of Justice as an illegitimate body.
In response, the House of Commons passed a resolution that gave the right to pass a verdict even if the decision was taken even by 20 of its members (the final number of judges was supposed to be 135). At the same time, contrary to the existing system of legal proceedings in England, the judges of the Supreme Court of Justice were also jurors. (This nullified the very principle of the jury.)
1649, January 19 - The king is transported from Windsor to London. And the next day, the trial began, which sat for only five days. First, a parliamentary act was read, which confirmed the powers of the court. Then the accused was brought in. The king entered and, without taking off his hat, went to the chair intended for him, thus emphasizing that he did not recognize the competence of the court.
The indictment was read to the monarch. Charles 1 was accused of high treason, the desire to arrogate to himself unlimited and tyrannical power, to destroy the rights and privileges of the people, to unleash a civil war, to prepare a foreign invasion of England. Charles was declared responsible "for all treason, murder, violence, fires, robberies, losses caused to the nation" during the war. He was declared "a tyrant, a traitor, a public and merciless enemy of the English people."
The king tried several times unsuccessfully to interrupt the reading. President Bradshaw invited the King to comment on the charges. But he, still not recognizing the legality of the court, demanded explanations from the judges. He wondered what legal authority had summoned him to this hall. Indeed, in his eyes, he himself was the only legal authority.
The court did not answer. Karl's passionate speech, which he had prepared, was interrupted at the very beginning. To the shouts of the soldiers "Justice, justice!" the king was removed from the hall. Bradshaw clearly did not want those present to hear from the lips of the defendant that he could not be tried by any of the English courts, especially one that was created without the participation of the House of Lords.
The judges found themselves in an extremely difficult position. Karl 1's refusal to respond to the charges brought against him made it impossible to conduct a trial and, first of all, to hear witnesses and the prosecutor's speech. Without this, the death sentence could not be passed, and this was the main goal of the parliamentarians. The court procedure had to be continued at any cost.
The king was warned: the court will regard his silence as an admission of guilt. But the monarch continued to take the same position: he did not recognize the legality of his trial. Then the prosecutor offered to hear witnesses without explanations from the defendant. In his opinion, the sovereign's guilt was too obvious to comply with the accepted norms.
Over the course of two days, 33 witnesses were questioned. Their testimony was heard at a public hearing in front of a huge crowd of people. The interrogations of the witnesses lasted two days. On January 25, the testimony of witnesses was read out at a public hearing. But, given the scale of the process, they still could not be recognized as grounds for imposing a death sentence.
Most of the witnesses spoke of the king's participation in battles against his own subjects. London weaver Richard Blomfield testified that the royal soldiers robbed captured prisoners in the presence of Charles. Another witness, a peasant from Ratland, spoke of the massacre of the defenders of the city of Leicester. According to his testimony, the sovereign, in response to the protests of one of the officers of his army, said: "I don't care much if three times as many of them are slaughtered - they are my enemies." This, according to the court, was enough to accuse the king of tyranny and the murder of his own subjects (although parliament was equally to blame for unleashing a civil war).
But in the country there were still many royalists and opponents of the trial of the monarch. Among them were many priests who campaigned for the king not only during sermons, but also on the streets and squares of cities. The European powers also tried to put pressure on parliament. The fleet of Charles' nephew, Prince Rupert, cruised off the English coast. The King of France issued a manifesto condemning the trial. And the States General of Holland sent two ambassadors to the capital of England. They were supposed to persuade parliament to refuse the trial.
All this, however, could not affect the situation. On January 27, the last court session took place. Karl was given the last word. The king asked to hear him in the presence of parliamentarians of both houses. Many members of the court were inclined to satisfy the desire of the defendant. However, the initiative was intercepted by Cromwell, who was also in the courtroom. He declared that not a single word of the king could be believed, that nothing good could be expected from a person who had been rejected by God. The monarch's request was rejected.
Then Bradshaw spoke. He stated: “There is a treaty that was concluded between the king and his people, and the obligations arising from it are bilateral. The duty of the sovereign to defend his people, the duty of the people is loyalty to the sovereign. If the king once broke his oath and his obligations, he destroyed his sovereignty. So, in his firm conviction, the judges performed a great work of justice.
In conclusion, the verdict was read out. It read: "The aforementioned Charles 1 Stewart, as a tyrant, traitor, murderer and public enemy, is sentenced to death by beheading from the body." There were only 59 signatures under the document.
The execution was scheduled for January 30, 1649. At two o'clock in the afternoon, the king dressed in all black appeared on the square where the scaffold was built. Several lines of cavalry surrounded him, which separated the crowd from the place of execution. The spectators filled not only the square. Many watched from the balconies, rooftops and street lamps.
On the platform, the executioner and his assistant were wearing masks, wearing sailors' clothes, with glued beards and mustaches. The king ascended the scaffold, took out a folded piece of paper from his pocket and read out his parting words. Nobody except the guards could hear him. A minute later, the executioner's assistant, fulfilling his duties, lifted the severed head of the executed Charles 1 by the hair and showed it to the crowd.
The execution of Charles 1 did not bring relief to the English people. After 10 years, the royal power was restored. The heir to the throne, the son of Charles I, who was crowned as Charles II, returned to England. He gave the order to judge everyone who took part in the trial of his father. During interrogations, many of them said that they protested against the sentence. The body of the main mastermind of the trial and execution of the monarch, Oliver Cromwell, was removed from the grave on the anniversary of the death of Charles 1. The corpse was hanged, and then his head was cut off. The body was buried in a hole dug under the gallows. And for a long time, the head planted on a spear frightened passers-by near Westminster with empty eye sockets.
V. Sklyarenko