Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T22:35:16.817Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

England's “Black Tribunal“: an Analysis of the Regicide Court

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2014

William L. Sachse
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

On January 6, 1649 the House of Commons set its seal of approval on the agency by which Charles I would be tried and sentenced to death. By an Act “for erecting of a High Court of Justice for the Trying and Judging of Charles Stuart, King of England,” he was charged with “a wicked design totally to subvert the ancient and fundamental laws and liberties of this nation, and, in their place, to introduce an arbitrary and tyrannical government.” The Commons maintained that they had shown tolerance toward such “high and treasonable offenses.” But the King's persistence in perverse activities — his raising of “new commotions, rebellions and invasions” — had forced them to take the present course. They were determined that no future ruler should “presume traitorously or maliciously to imagine or contrive the enslaving or destroying of the English nation, and to expect impunity for so doing.” The measure designated one hundred and thirty-five persons to try and adjudge the royal defendant.

Thus came into being the most extraordinary judicial body to be met with in English history. Certainly, no court has ever been so vigorously disclaimed as to jurisdiction, or so bitterly vilified as to personnel. To the Cavaliers, who had fought for Charles at Marston Moor and Naseby, as well as to the Presbyterians, who had trooped under the banners of Parliament to reshape, but not destroy, the monarchy, the court and its works were anathema.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of British Studies , Volume 12 , Issue 2 , May 1973 , pp. 69 - 85
Copyright
Copyright © North American Conference of British Studies 1973

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

1. Journals of the House of Commons, VI, 110–13Google Scholar; Firth, C. H. and Rait, R. S., (eds.), Acts and Ordinances of the Interregnum (London, 1911), I, 1253–55Google Scholar.

2. For instance, England's Black Tribunall, Set Forth in the Triall of King Charles I (London, 1660)Google Scholar. Other invidious labels were applied, as in such titles as: A Hue and Cry after the High Court of Injustice (London, 1660)Google Scholar; Cromwell's Bloody Slaughter House (London, 1660)Google Scholar; Prynne's, WilliamBriefe Memento to the Present Unparliamentary Junto (London, 1649)Google Scholar.

3. Gent., J. H., The History of the Life and Death of Oliver Cromwell (London, 1663)Google Scholar, in Harleian Miscellany (London, 1808–1813), VII, 280Google Scholar; Winstanley, William, The Loyall Martyrology (London, 1685), p. 143Google Scholar.

4. For example, Wingfield-Stratford, Esmé, King Charles the Martyr, 1643-1649 (London, 1950)Google Scholar; Belloc, Hilaire, Charles the First, King of England (Philadelphia, 1933)Google Scholar.

5. According to John Lawrance (or Lawrans) the military would have preferred to rid themselves of Charles without a trial. On Dec. 4, 1648, he wrote to Secretary Nicholas: “The Commanders & Officers were for murdering the K. privately, the Levellers and Agitators would have brought him to a tryall, & Justice to be done upon him in publike”: Bodleian Library, MS. Clarendon 34, f. 7.

6. For sources on the royal trial, see Wedgwood, C. V., The Trial of Charles I (London, 1964), pp. 123–27, 227–28Google Scholar; Muddiman, J. G., Trial of Charles the First (Notable British Trials Series, Edinburgh and London, n.d.), pp. ix–xii, xvii–xviiiGoogle Scholar. Muddiman prints (pp. 193-230) a document in the PRO (S. P. Car. I, vol. 517) known as “Bradshaw's Journal.” Nalson's, JohnTrue Copy of the Journal of the High Court of Justice for the Tryal of King Charles I (London, 1684)Google Scholar, includes minutes by the court's clerk, John Phelps. This text and an account known as A Perfect Narrative (London, 1649)Google Scholar, authorized by Mabbott, Gilbert, are reprinted in Cobbett's Complete Collection of State Trials (London, 1809–1828), IV, 990–1154Google Scholar. See also Lockyer, Roger (ed.), The Trial of Charles I [Folio Society] (London, 1959)Google Scholar, giving the proceedings as printed by John Rushworth, who used A Perfect Narrative.

7. One finds pointed references to Richard's fate as early as 1642. For example, The Life and Death of King Richard the Second, who Was Deposed of His Crown, by Reason of His not Regarding the Counsel of the Sage and Wise of His Kingdom; also A Pious and Learned Speech Delivered in Parliament, 1 H. 4, by Thomas Mercks …, where He Declares what Should be Done with the Deposed King Richard the Second, both published in London in that year.

8. Formal documentary evidence for this tribunal is lacking. According to Muddiman, , Trial, p. 61Google Scholar, full details are only to be found in Walker's, HenryPerfect Occurrences, Dec. 29-Jan. 5, 1648/1649Google Scholar.

9. As recently as November 15, 1648, Wilde, in a speech before the Commissioners of the Great Seal, had referred to the need for restoring the King to “his Just Rights & Soveraigntye, & setlinge all things upon there true Bottome”: BM, Add. MSS, 46,500. See also Journals of the House of Lords, X, 592Google Scholar.

10. Masson, David, The Life of John Milton (London, 1859–1894), IV, 600Google Scholar; Whitelocke, Bulstrode, Memorials of the English Affairs (Oxford, 1853), IV, 368Google Scholar; Hyde, Edward, Earl of Clarendon, History of the Rebellion and Civil Wars in England, ed. Macray, W. D. (Oxford, 1888), IV, 475Google Scholar.

11. SirWarwick, Philip, Memoirs of the Reign of King Charles I (London, 1701), p. 336Google Scholar; Fuller, Thomas, The Worthies of England, ed. Freeman, John (London, 1952), p. 70Google Scholar.

12. He appears to have served for a time in this capacity in 1644.

13. Whitelocke called him a “stout man”; Warwick “a bold and seditious person”; Clarendon speaks of his “great insolence and ambition”: Whitelocke, , Memorials, IV, 368Google Scholar; Warwick, , Memoirs, p. 336Google Scholar; Clarendon, , History, IV, 475Google Scholar.

14. His wife is said to have urged him to dissociate himself from the sentence. See Muddiman, , Trial, pp. 103–4Google Scholar, quoting SirManley, Roger, Commentariorum de Rebellione Anglicana (London, 1686Google Scholar; English translation, London, 1691).

15. Commons Journals, VI, 102Google Scholar; Whitelocke, , Memorials, II, 484, 487Google Scholar. He was, however, back in London by January 9.

16. Edmond Prideaux, Solicitor General, also steered clear; his name is not in the commission. See Brunton, Douglas and Pennington, D. H., Members of the Long Parliament (London, 1954), pp. 173–74Google Scholar.

17. Abbott puts the figure at twenty-two, but Keeler assigns Henry Marten to the Inner Temple: Abbott, W. C., The Writings and Speeches of Oliver Cromwell (Cambridge, Mass., 1937–1947), I, 34nGoogle Scholar. Keeler, Mary Frear, The Long Parliament, 1640-1641: A Biographical Study of Its Members [Memoirs of the American Philosophical Society, XXXVI] (Philadelphia, 1954), p. 267Google Scholar.

18. Whitelocke held that Ireton “had a little knowledge of the law, which led him into the more errors”: Whitelocke, , Memorials, II, 473Google Scholar.

19. They were, respectively, Recorders of Great Yarmouth, Reading, Basingstoke and Winchester.

20. See Foss, Edward, Tabulae Curiales (London, 1865), p. 64Google Scholar.

21. State Trials IV, 1113Google Scholar. Lisle was President of the High Court of Justice in 1652.

22. Blencowe, R. W. (ed.), Sydney Papers (London, 1825), p. 46Google Scholar; the quotation is from the Earl's journal.

23. They were: Thomas Scott, James Chaloner, Thomas Mauleverer, John Alured, Peregrine Pelham, William Constable, Thomas Chaloner, John Bourchier, John Anlaby, Francis Lascelles, James Nelthorpe, Richard Darley, William Allanson (the last three not sitting).

24. Sir Arthur Haselrig, one of the M. P.s whom Charles attempted to arrest in 1642, is said to have done so, though his name appears in the commission.

25. Out of a total of forty-seven who refused to participate. See Abbott, , Writings, I, 728Google Scholar.

26. Included among them were two London aldermen, Atkins and Wilson, Haselrig, and John Lenthall, the Speaker's son. Neither Cromwell's co-member for Cambridge, John Lowry, nor his comrade-in-arms, Skippon, ever took their seats.

27. Walker, , Perfect Occurrences, Dec. 29-Jan. 5, 1648/1649Google Scholar.

28. Lords Journals, X, 642Google Scholar.

29. See above, p. 69. According to Clarendon, “all the chief officers of the army were named, and accepted the office”: Clarendon, , History, IV, 474Google Scholar.

30. A generation later a satirist wrote that the members who voted against the King “were not the major part, but the major-general part”: The Last Speech and Dying Words of Thomas (Lord, alias Colonel) Pride, Being Touched in Conscience for His Inhuman Treatment of the Bears in the Bear-garden (London, 1680)Google Scholar.

31. Abbott, , Writings, I, 727Google Scholar.

32. See his petition in 1660, quoted in full in Dawson, William H., Cromwell's Understudy: The Life and Times of General John Lambert (London, 1938), p. 398Google Scholar.

33. See Gibb, Mildred A., The Lord General: A Life of Thomas Fairfax (London, 1938), pp. 212–13Google Scholar. John Lawrance wrote on January 26, 1649, that Fairfax was “bayted with fresh doggs all Tuesday night to bring him into the hall on the morrow to countenance the buisines; but by no means would he consent”: MS. Clarendon, 34, f. 88. See also Underdown, David, Pride's Purge: Politics in the Puritan Revolution (Oxford, 1971), pp. 189–93Google Scholar.

34. Smith and Blakiston attended twenty-three, Scrope and Pride twenty-two sessions.

35. Richard Ingoldsby, for example, who attended but once. And see Underdown, , Pride's Purge, pp. 184–85Google Scholar.

36. Weyman, Stanley J., “Oliver Cromwell's Kinsfolk,” English Historical Review, VI (Jan. 1891), 57CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

37. Ingoldsby attended one, Pickering four sessions.

38. See Abbott, , Writings, I, 119nGoogle Scholar. Signers of the death warrant included Oliver Cromwell and ten of his kinsmen: Weyman, , “Oliver Cromwell's Kinsfolk,” E.H.R., VI, 60Google Scholar.

39. Among these we may mention Lord Lisle, brother of Algernon Sidney, and such brother-in-law combinations as Godfrey Bosvile and Arthur Haselrig, or John Brown and John Trenchard.

40. Perrinchief, Richard, The Royal Martyr, or, the Life and Death of King Charles I (London, 1676), p. 180Google Scholar.

41. Beaven, Alfred B., The Aldermen of the City of London Temp. Henry III — 1908 (London, 1908), II, 88Google Scholar.

42. Frederick Inderwick associates Harrison with a “respectable” north country family: Side-lights on the Stuarts (2nd ed.; London, 1891), p. 284Google Scholar.

43. See Dictionary of National Biography, art. Thomas Waite. Other examples could be given. Richard Deane had been “a kinde of Hayman in Suffolk,” according to the author of The True Characters of the Education, Inclinations and Several Dispositions of … those Bloody and Barbarous Persons who Sat as Judges upon the Life of … King Charles I (London, 1660)Google Scholar.

44. Young, G. M., Charles I and Cromwell (London, 1936), p. 153Google Scholar. In the commission seven men were listed as baronets, and more than a quarter as knights or esquires.

45. Algernon Sidney and Lord Lisle.

46. The Pretended High Court of Justice Unbowelled (London, 1660), p. 2Google Scholar. See also Clarendon, , History, IV, 487–88Google Scholar.

47. The author of The History of King-killers, or, the Fanatick Martyrology (London, 1720)Google Scholar claimed that Danvers and Mildmay were the only commissioners “of whom his Majesty had any personal knowledge” (pt. v, p. 36). This seems incredible. Warwick adds Lord Monson and Cornelius Holland to the “King's own faithless servants”: Warwick, , Memoirs, p. 336Google Scholar. Charles told Sir Thomas Herbert that he knew but eight of the faces: Stevenson, Gertrude S. (ed.), Charles I in Captivity, from Contemporary Sources (New York, 1927), p. 190Google Scholar.

48. Godwin, G. N., The Civil War in Hampshire (new and rev. ed.; London, 1904), p. 371Google Scholar; Keeler, , Long Parliament, pp. 377–78Google Scholar.

49. Ibid., pp. 213-14.

50. A colonel, Moore also served as Mayor of Liverpool and fitted out ships at his own expense for the war in Ireland; he is said to have been £10,000 in debt when he died in 1650: ibid., p. 277. Yule names Lord Grey of Groby, Simon Mayne, Henry Marten, Lord Monson, Sir Gregory Norton and Robert Wallop as examples of radical M.P.s who were of the “greater gentry”; Yule, George, The Independents in the English Civil War (Cambridge, 1958), p. 49Google Scholar.

51. Keeler, , Long Parliament, p. 379Google Scholar.

52. Brunton, and Pennington, , Members, p. 49Google Scholar.

53. In Noble, Mark, Lives of the English Regicides (Birmingham, 1798)Google Scholar.

54. See “Account of the Sales of Bishops' Lands between the Years 1647 and 1651,” Collectanea Topographica et Genealogica (London, 1834–1843), I, 1–8, 122–27, 284–92Google Scholar. For contemporary comment, see History of King-killers and True Characters; also Oliver Cromwell, the Late Great Tirant His Life-guard (London, 1660)Google Scholar.

55. The author of Invisible John Made Visible (London, 1659)Google Scholar accused Barkstead of supporting a commonwealth “from no other principle then the preservation of his interests” (p. 4). It was said of Goffe: “Gain was the only God he really worshipped, and therefore [he] could change principles as was most for his interest,” and of Rowe: “the main Article of his Religion was Gain, and therefore he so closely adher'd to the prevailing Party”: History of King-killers, II, 12, 85Google Scholar. Among the commissioners for sequestrations we find George Fleetwood and Simon Mayne; among the members of the committee for compounding, Nicholas Love, Gregory Clement, John Blakiston, Miles Corbett.

56. That is, men serving as aldermen in January, 1649: Thomas Atkins, Thomas Andrews, John Fowke, Isaac Pennington and Rowland Wilson. Atkins, Fowke and Wilson never attended.

57. Beaven, , Aldermen I, 13Google Scholar; II, 64.

58. History of King-killers, pt. iii, 29.

59. Beaven, , Aldermen, II, 72Google Scholar; Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series (1637), p. 488; ibid., (1652-53), p. 478.

60. Beaven, , Aldermen, II, 72, 290Google Scholar. John Barkstead, an active participant, did not become prominent in City affairs until the 1650s.

61. Winstanley, , The Loyal Martyrology, p. 126Google Scholar; Keeler, , Long Parliament, p. 300Google Scholar. Noble, , Lives of the English Regicides, II, 118Google Scholar gives Pelham an illustrious lineage.

62. On the Cawley family, see Sussex Archaeological Collections, XXXIV, 21Google Scholar; “The Sussex Regicides and Their Contemporaries,” in Fleet, Charles, Glimpses of Our Ancestors in Sussex (2nd ed.; Lewes, 1882)Google Scholar. Another provincial mercantile figure was John Dove, a Salisbury alderman. Among non-participating commissioners we may note Sir William Allanson, a draper who became Mayor of York, and John Lowry, a chandler, Mayor of Cambridge.

63. According to Clarendon, the Rump “laid this for a ground, that if they should make only their own members to be judges in this case, they might appear in the eyes of the people to be too much parties, as having from the beginning maintained a war, though defensive, against the King, and so not so fit to be the only judges who were in the fault: on the other hand, if they should name none of themselves, it might be interpreted that they looked upon it as too dangerous a province to engage themselves in, and therefore they had put it off to others; which would discourage others from undertaking it”: Clarendon, , History, IV, 474Google Scholar.

64. At the Restoration, several tried to prove that they had shown some consideration for Charles. John Downes pled that he had attempted to procure a hearing for the King, in his True and Humble Representation … Touching the Death of the Late King (London, 1660)Google Scholar; according to Perrinchief, Downes “endeavoured to make a Mutiny in the Army to hinder the wickedness”: Royal Martyr, pp. 203-4. Edmund Harvey claimed that he, with a few others, had tried to avert the sentence: The State of the Case of Edmund Harvy, Prisoner in the Tower of London (London, 1660)Google Scholar, reprinted in Somers Tracts, ed. SirScott, Walter (London, 1809–1815), X, 107Google Scholar. See also Considerations Humbly Tendered by Simon Mayne, to Shew that He Was no Contriver of That Horrid Action of the Death of the Late King (London, 1660)Google Scholar, also in Somers Tracts, X, 196–97Google Scholar. Yet two of these men, Downes and Mayne, signed the death warrant, and all were present for the sentence.