The Trial of Charles I (1649)

Introduction

The trial of Charles I was a unique situation.  Following nearly five years of civil war between Charles and his royalist supporters and Parliament and its supporters, Charles was captured in 1647 and held in captivity for almost two years as Parliament secured their victory and determined what to do with the monarch.  The English Civil War stemmed from a dispute over the distribution of power in England’s constitution.  Royalists asserted Charles’ divine right as king to raise revenue without permission from Parliament and summon Parliament only at his pleasure, and supported his religious affiliation which struck dissenting Protestants as trending towards absolutist Catholicism.  Parliamentary supporters challenged these assertions, particularly royalist claims that the king was endowed with divine rights that could not be circumscribed by his subjects.  The fundamental disagreement between the nature and legitimacy of power underscored the entire conflict.  For the victors, a definitive answer was needed to the question of the monarch’s power. 

A trial was a means to answer this question publicly and, after bypassing a reluctant House of Lords, the trial of Charles I for treason commenced on January 20, 1649 at Westminster Hall.  John Bradshaw, a local London judge, was appointed as Lord President of the trial and John Cook, the Solicitor General, led the prosecution of the king.  As you read the trial excerpts below, keep an eye out for the question of authority.  What are the specific charges brought against Charles and what do they tell us about Parliament’s view of monarchical power? How does Charles behave towards those trying him?  How effective is this trial in answering the question of whether kingly power has limits?  If limits exist, what are they?  How does the trial proceedings square up with Charles’ Eikon Basilike?