Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-fnpn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-30T02:00:30.315Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

III. State Treason Trials During the Puritan Revolution, 1640–1660

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Adele Hast
Adele Hast
Affiliation:
Newberry Library, Chicago
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The government of the parliamentary party during the Puritan Revolution of 1640–60 instituted changes in judicial and legal procedures to maintain its power and subdue its enemies. This study of treason trials conducted by the state will examine their legal basis and the events and activities considered treasonable. It will show the ways in which the concept of treason changed under a revolutionary government, and to what extent those trials conducted during the interregnum differed in their legal—judicial bases and content from those held before the King's death. Although there were hundreds of treason convictions during the interregnum throughout England, either by military courts-martial, or by common-law courts sitting in the provinces — as is shown by the Acts providing for die sale of estates forfeited to the Commonwealth for treason — this discussion will limit itself to trials initiated by the government in London. These state trials illustrate die political use of the treason charge; diey provide a direct link between the enactment of the interregnum treason laws and their implementation by the same legislative body. Not only was the meaning of treason determined, and die machinery of trial set up, by parliament; but who was to be tried was also decided eidier by parliament or die Council of State, and, after 1654, by the Protector and his council. It will dierefore be instructive to examine the types of treasonous action considered sufficiendy threatening to warrant parliamentary attention.

Type
Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 15 , Issue 1 , March 1972 , pp. 37 - 53
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1972

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

2 The Statutes of the Realm, II vols. (London, 1963), 1, 320, 25 Ed. 3, Stat. 5, c. 2.Google Scholar

3 Ibid. III, 473, 25 H. 8, c. 22; 508, 26 H. 8, c. 13; 665, 28 H. 8, c. 10; 726, 31 H. 8, c. 8; 782, 32 H. 8, c. 25; 958, 35 H. 8, c. 3, and others; Elton, G. R., ‘The Law of Treason in the Early Reformation’, The Historical Journal, XI (No. 2, 1968), 211–36, has a detailed discussion of the additions to the treason law made under Henry VIII.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 Statutes of the Realm, op. cit. iv, 706, 27 Eliz. c. 2.Google Scholar

5 Howell, Thomas B., Cobbett's Complete Collection of State Trials and Proceedings for High Treason and Other Crimes and Misdemeanours from the Earliest Period to the Present Time, 33 vols. (London, 1809–1826), III, 367. Hereafter cited as St. Tr.Google Scholar

6 Firth, and Rait, , I, 991–2.Google Scholar

7 Ibid. III, xv.

8 Ibid. III, iv-v.

9 Ibid. I, 1263, 30 Jan. 1649; 11, 19, 17 Mar. 1649; 406–8, 2 Aug. 1650; 420, 28 Aug. 1650; 550, 12 Aug. 1651; 1036, 27 Nov. 1656.

10 Ibid. II, 18–19.

11 Ibid. II, 120–1; 194.

12 Ibid. II, 121.

13 Nourse, G. B., ‘Law Reform under the Commonwealth and Protectorate’, The Law Quarterly Review, LXXV (10. 1959), 517.Google Scholar

14 Firth, and Rait, , II, 831.Google Scholar

15 Ibid. 11, 1038–9.

16 Inderwick, F. A., The Interregnum (London, 1891), 249.Google Scholar

17 Davies, Godfrey, The Early Stuarts 1603–1660 (Oxford, 1959), 99.Google Scholar

18 St. Tr., III, 1387–1401.

19 Ibid. 1388–9, 1398.

20 Rezneck, Samuel, ‘History of the Parliamentary Declaration of Treason’, The Law Quarterly Review, XLVI (01 1930), 89.Google Scholar

21 St. Tr., III, 1398–9.Google Scholar

22 Ibid. 1401.

23 Russell, Conrad, ‘The Theory of Treason in the Trial of Strafford’, English Historical Review, LXXX (01 1965), 31–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

24 St. Tr., III, 1421.

25 Davies, G., op. cit. 100Google Scholar; Somervell, Donald, in ‘Acts of Attainder’, The Law Quarterly Review, LXVII (07 1951), 306–13, traces the original purpose of the attainder, and shows its abuse by the Long Parliament. The original purpose of attainder and its use before Henry VIII was to obtain, for the Crown, estates of men who had died without trial for treason, or were out of the jurisdiction of English courts. Henry VIII was the first King to use the attainder against persons available for trial. The use of attainder by Long Parliament was an abuse of its intent, but one which had precedent.Google Scholar

26 St. Tr., III, 1478.Google Scholar

27 Ibid. 1508; Cobbett, William, ed., Parliamentary History of England, 36 vols. (London, 1807), 11 757.Google Scholar

28 St. Tr., III, 1479–80.Google Scholar

29 Rezneck, S., op. cit. 81, 87–8.Google Scholar

30 St. Tr., III, 1478;Google ScholarIbid. 92.

31 St. Tr., iv, 579.Google Scholar

32 Ibid. 585.

33 Ibid. 598.

34 Rezneck, S., op. cit. 94.Google Scholar

35 St. Tr., iv, II, 14.Google Scholar

36 Ibid. 9–10; Cobbett, W., Parliamentary History, II, 552, 685.Google Scholar

37 St. Tr., iv, 42.Google Scholar

38 Ibid. 119, 130.

39 SirStephen, Leslie and SirLee, Sidney, eds., Dictionary of National Biography, 22 vols. (London, 1963–1964), XVI, 567. Hereafter cited as DNB.Google Scholar

40 St. Tr., iv, 48–9.Google Scholar

41 DNB, xvi, 568.

42 St. Tr., iv, 63, 69.Google Scholar

43 Ibid. 82. The charge of treason against David Jenkins in June 1647 is another illustration of this type of case. A royalist, he had sentenced to death several parliamentarians within his circuit for treason. As a commoner, his case was initially brought before the King's Bench. It reached the point of attainder by Commons, but was ultimately dropped, although he was confined off and on until 1657. St. Tr., IV, 921–4; DNB, x, 736.Google Scholar

44 St. Tr., iv, 625–52; DNB, xx, 582.Google Scholar

45 St. Jr., IV, 84–6, 134, 138, 174Google Scholar; Cobbett, W., Parliamentary History, II, 1031.Google Scholar

46 St. Tr., IV, 185–7.Google Scholar

47 Ibid. 227.

48 Ibid. 231.

49 Ibid. 228.

50 Ibid. 298.

51 Ibid. 306–12.

52 Ibid. 867–81, 858.

53 Ibid. 21.

54 Ibid. 910–20.

55 Ibid. 983–8.

56 Ibid. 959–84; Firth, and Rait, , I, 991–2.Google Scholar

57 Cobbett, W., Parliamentary History, II, 773, 745.Google Scholar

58 Statutes of the Realm, IV, 706.Google Scholar

59 Cobbett, W., Parliamentary History, II, 713.Google Scholar

60 St. Tr., IV, 59–64.Google Scholar

61 Ibid. 665–6, 689, 744–7.

62 Ibid. 666, 690.

63 Ibid. 989–94; Cobbett, W., Parliamentary History, III, 1257.Google Scholar

64 St. Tr., iv, 1033–5.Google Scholar

65 Ibid. 1032.

66 Ibid. 1044.

67 Firth, and Rait, , I, 1253–5.Google Scholar

68 Ibid. III, lxvii.

69 Ibid. II, 364–6, 419.

70 Ibid. 492–3.

71 Ibid. 917–8.

72 Ibid. 419, 918.

73 St. Tr., iv, 1195; v, 15, 18, 21.Google Scholar

74 Ibid. v, 14, 17–18.

75 Ibid. iv, 1205, 1210.

76 Ibid. v, 295–7.

77 Ibid. 530, 848.

78 Ibid. iv, 1155.

79 Ibid. v, 294–6.

80 Ibid. v, 520–1.

81 Ibid. 772.

82 Ibid. rv, 1320–1.

83 Ibid. 1347–9.

84 Ibid. 1269.

85 Ibid. 1318.

86 Ibid. 1379–80.

87 Ibid. 1405.

88 Firth, and Rait, , III, xxxiGoogle Scholar; Statutes of the Realm, v, 304–5.Google Scholar

89 DNB, xx, 1194; xviii, 960.