EW studies are more fascinating than that of the English State Trials. They are interesting from every point of view. The lawyer observes the details of the legal procedure and the conduct of judges and advocates. The historical student finds a wealth of material, not only in the mere narrative of fact but in the numerous side-lights afforded by the by-play and occasional observations of the parties concerned; and, in looking over lengthened periods, he notes the rise and fall of varying currents of political opinion, whereby now one side and now the other of a controverted question holds power and authority. Even the ordinary reader will discover a rich fund of interest in these records, which may at first sight appear dull and heavy, but which will amply repay a careful perusal.

One of the most interesting of the long series—and one of the most important, in view of the immensely grave legal and constitutional questions involved-is that of King Charles I. We have lately heard a great deal about the life and work of Oliver Cromwell from those who regard him as a champion of liberty, but few of those who have recently spoken and written of him have taken much heed of the King's side of the question, or of the doubtful character of some of the extra-legal, and even absolutely illegal, methods pursued by the Parliamentarians and their army, who were the founders of the Commonwealth. It is not proposed to discuss here these matters, so tempting to a controversialist, but simply to give a narrative of the so-called trial of the King.

It appeared at first that the Parliamentary victory at Naseby had finally vanquished the Royalist cause; but in the midst of intrigues, of bewildering plots and counterplots, the King, even while confined at Carisbrooke, endeavoured again to organise war. Cromwell said "The hour is come for the Parliament to save the Kingdom, and to govern alone." But the Parliament was not ready for such a determination, and many even of those Members who were not in favour of the King were still hopeful that, by negotiation or the mere display of force, some practicable terms of government might be obtained. The wanton renewal of the war, however, incensed the army against the King, and Green tells us that on the evening of their march against the revolt all gathered in a solemn prayermeeting and came 'to a very clear and joint resolution that it

66

was our duty, if ever the Lord brought us back again in peace, to call Charles Stuart, that man of blood, to account for the blood he has shed and mischief he has done to his utmost against the Lord's cause and people in this poor nation.'" This idea seems to have been steadily kept in view, and after some Parliamentary victories the army began to demand "Justice on the King" The council of officers asked for large reforms in many matters, but above all they demanded "that the capital and grand author of our troubles, by whose commissions, commands, and procurements, and in whose behalf and for whose interest only, of will and power, all our wars and troubles have been, with all the miseries attending them, may be specially brought to justice for the treason, blood, and mischief he is therein guilty of."

The Parliament, by a large majority in both Houses, still voted for certain terms offered by the King, and were not prepared to concede the demands of the council of officers. The simple and effective method since known as "Pride's Purge" was thereupon resorted to. Colonel Pride, on the instruction of the council, arrested and put in confinement, or otherwise kept away from the House, in all, one hundred and forty Members who were known or supposed to be hostile to the council's wishes, and the remnant of the Members, scoffingly called the "Rump" of a Parliament, passed a resolution for the trial of the King and the nomination of a Court of Commissioners to conduct it, with John Bradshaw, a lawyer of ability, and of considerable though obscure practice, at their head. The few Peers who remained rejected this resolution, whereupon the "Rump" further resolved "That the People are, under God, the original of all just power; that the Commons of England in Parliament assembled being chosen by and representing the people-have the supreme power in this nation; and that whatsoever is enacted and declared for law by the Commons in Parliament assembled hath the force of a law, and all the people of this nation are concluded thereby, although the consent and concurrence of the King or House of Peers be not had thereunto."

This contention that the country might be governed and committed to the most extraordinary measures by a majority of one in a House of Commons, specially constituted for the occasion, has been curiously revived by some prominent politicians within the last few years. Without entering into controversy upon the proposition, it will be obvious that the manner in which the Act had been passed afforded to the King an unanswerable defence in that the court was not a legally constituted tribunal. As will be seen, however, the Commissioners declined all through the proceedings to admit any argument or question as to their jurisdiction or competence, and, in fact, decided their procedure and made their law day by day.

There are two accounts of the Trial in the Reports. One is entitled "King CHARLES, his Tryal; begun Saturday, January 20, and ended on Saturday, January 27, 1648.* Licensed by Gilbert Mabbot." It is understood that this report was revised by Bradshaw himself, and that he struck out occasional passages. It appears, however, to be a very complete narrative of the public sittings of the court, at which the King was present, and contains nothing in the shape of comment.

The other account is entitled "A true Copy of the Journal of the High Court of Justice, for the Tryal of King CHARLES, as it was read in the House of Commons, and attested under the Hand of Phelps, Clerk to that Court: Taken by J. Nalson, LL.D., January the 4th, 1683. To which are added, by Mr. Nalson, several Particulars that are omitted by Phelps." This report is of extraordinary interest, as it supplies the minutes of the private sittings of the Commissioners before and during the trial itself, with the examinations of the witnesses, none of whom were called in the presence of the King. It will be noted that Nalson published his report in 1683, thirty-five years after the trial, and long after the Restoration of Charles II. He favours the cause of the King, and not only inserts the exact words of speeches briefly summarised in the original Journal, but adds, in square brackets, occasional comments of his own.

It is proposed to take both these reports, and to give a short consecutive account of the whole of the proceedings against the King.

The Act constituting the Court is entitled "An Act of the Commons of England, assembled in Parliament, for erecting of a High Court of Justice, for the Trying and Judging of Charles Stuart, King of England." The preamble sets forth in effect the accusation as follows:

"Whereas it is notorious, That Charles Stuart, the now King of England, not content with those many Encroachments which his Predecessors had made upon the People in their Rights and Freedoms, hath had a wicked Design totally to subvert the Antient and Fundamental Laws and Liberties of this Nation, and in their place to introduce an Arbitrary and Tyrannical Government; and that besides all other evil Ways and Means to bring this Design to pass, he hath prosecuted it with Fire and Sword, levied and maintained a cruel War in the Land, against the Parliament and Kingdom, whereby the Country hath been miserably wasted, the publick Treasure exhausted, Trade decayed, thousands of People murdered, and infinite other Mischiefs committed "

It is subsequently enacted that one hundred and thirty-six persons named (including Fairfax, Cromwell, and Ireton) "shall be and are hereby appointed and required to be Commissioners and

*This is the year given, and repeated all through the Reports and Journals, in at least two editions of the State Trials. The true year appears to be 1649.

Judges for the Hearing, Trying, and Adjudging of the said Charles Stuart." Any twenty are to be a quorum, and powers are conferred to take evidence and to pass and execute sentence. The Act and its authority are to remain in force for one month from its making, and no longer.

The Commissioners, having so limited a time in which to work, speedily came together, though many of them appear never to have acted, the number present on any particular occasion ranging between fifty and eighty. Fifty-three attended the preliminary meeting, fixed the first formal sitting, and appointed counsel, clerks, and messengers. The time and place of this formal sitting were publicly proclaimed at several prescribed places by the Sergeant-at-Arms, who appeared in the streets on horseback, bearing a mace, and attended by six trumpets and two troops of horse. We are told that during his progress "The streets are thronged with spectators, without the least violence, injury, or affront publickly done or offered."

On January 10, the court met, and appointed Bradshaw (who was one of their number but not then present) President of the court. They appointed four counsel on behalf of the commonwealth to prepare and prosecute the charge against the King. A committee of eight was also nominated to deal with matters of order and method, and for that purpose to advise with the counsel and report.

At the next sitting, on January 12, Bradshaw attended, and it was ordered that he should be styled the Lord President. Power was given to the counsel to call for persons and papers; four members were to make preparations for the trial "that it may be performed in a solemn manner;" and it was decided that, in open court, only the President and counsel should speak, members who wished to examine witnesses putting their questions through the President. The President and counsel were to manage” the trial; the counsel were to bring up a draft of the proposed charge; and the Committee of Order were to consider and report as to the place of trial.

66

On the following day, January 13, the place of trial was settled to be in a specified part of Westminster Hall; and on the 15th the counsel submitted the draft charge, and certain members were appointed to assist in preparing evidence and other legal details. As Hilary term was approaching, involving the use of Westminster Hall for ordinary business, it was decided to move the House of Commons to postpone for a fortnight the opening of the term.

On January 17, fifty-six members being present, it was ordered that all the absent members should be individually summoned to attend. A large number of practical details were settled with great minuteness at this meeting, and some of them are of interest.

The place of the King's residence during the trial, his bed chamber and dining-room, his guard and attendants, the passages to the court, the stations and equipment of the soldiers, the supply of provisions and necessaries, the habits of the officers attending the court (as to which reference was to be made to heralds) were all prescribed. It was also resolved that a sword, with a mace or maces, should be carried before the Lord President.

On January 19, after ordering the provision of gowns for the ushers and cloaks for the messengers, the formal charge was finally approved, together with the introductory form of words to be used by the counsel who should prefer the charge on the trial. Instead of the customary form in an indictment, by which the Grand Jury "present" to the court that an accused person did the acts charged, the counsel was to say that, according to an order of that court, he did "in the name and on behalf of the people of England exhibit and bring into this Court" a charge of High Treason, &c., and to desire that the charge might be received, and proceedings had thereupon.

On Saturday, January 20, the first day of the trial itself, the Commissioners met privately at nine in the morning and again at noon. The manner of opening the proceedings, by preferring the charge and calling on the King to plead, was left to the President. The members then tried to anticipate possible difficulties and points of order, and resolved as follows:

"That in case the Prisoner shall in Language and Carriage towards the Court be insolent, outrageous, or contemptuous, that it be left to the Lord President to reprehend him therefore, and admonish him of his Duty, or to command the taking away of the Prisoner; and if he see cause, to withdraw or adjourn the Court. But as to the Prisoner's putting off his Hat, the Court will not insist upon it for this day; and that if the King desire time to answer, the Lord President is to give him time."

After this preliminary conference the members at once adjourned into Westminster Hall and took their seats. The report describes in detail the arrangement of the court, the Lord President being seated in a crimson-velvet chair, having a desk with a crimson-velvet cushion before him, the rest of the members placing themselves on each side of him upon several seats or benches hung with scarlet. The doors were opened to all comers and the available space was at once filled. The King was then sent for, and was brought in with a strong guard. He was received by the Sergeant-at-Arms, who carried a mace, and conducted to a crimsonvelvet chair at the bar. The King looked round somewhat sternly and took his seat, "not at all moving his Hat, or otherwise shewing the least respect to the Court." The Act constituting the Court was then read by the clerk, and the names of the Commissioners were called over, eighty of them answering. The President then stood up and addressed the King thus: