1646-1649: The Trial and the Execution of Charles I

To Kill a King - an Act of Regicide

The trial of Charles I began on January 20th 1649 in Westminster Hall. The public were allowed access to the trial. 135 commissioners were appointed as judges and John Bradshaw, an inexperienced judge, was President of the Court. 

After Pride's Purge, it was difficult to assemble a Court to judge Charles as many stayed away from Westminster and many did not want to be associated with the trial of the Kind. Fairfax, although a leader of the NMA, only attended one meeting on the trial of Charles. When his name was called to register attendance at the trial, there was silence - his wife, who was in one of the public galleries, shouted "he hath more wit then to be here."

Only 68 out of the 135 commissioners attended the trial - with only 59 signing the death warrant. 

• This suggests how radical the commissioners must have thought the event was. Also, there was also the possibility of one of Charles' sons or a member of the royal family becoming monarch again and the people who had allowed the execution of Charles would be hunted down, tried and executed themselves for treason. 

Charles was tried for crimes against his people and the laws of England. It was claimed that Charles had attacked the fundamental constitution of the Kingdom and also banned the people from their traditional right to government. 

Charles complained about these charges, due to the fact that the legality of the trial was in question. The Rump Parliament was different as it was biased and did not support the King, plus the fact that it had not been elected. Charles questioned their right to judge him as they were not a legitimate authority and they had no right to put the King to trial. 

January 30th - Charles' public execution 

Before his death, Charles' last speech declared that he had fought for the liberties of the people and declared himself a "martyr of the people."

After Charles' execution, some reports suggest that there was a stunned silence at the moment of execution. One 17 year old boy in the crowd at Whitehall recorded that the execution was met with "such a groan as I have never heard before, and desire I may never hear again." Similar views were repeated as one man claimed no king "ever left the world with more sorrow: women miscarried; men fell into melancholy."

Was the Trial of Charles I always meant to end in Execution?

Yes 

• Many believe that Charles was responsible for two wars and this was his justice. He needed to be removed so there would be no more Royalists uprisings.
• The NMA's success during the Civil Wars was seen as "God's providence" (God's doing) he was meant to be punished. Coward states that religious zeal pushed Cromwell to execute Charles.
• The intransigent settlement negotiations had gone on for too long. Coward saw Charles as "blocking future peace" and "had to executed"
• Pride's Purge appears to be calculated - Charles was going to suffer a punishment 
• Kishlanksy states that in the weeks before the trial began "there was no turning back."

No

• Settlement period was hugely unsuccessful due to Charles. Some saw the impending trial as a way to force Charles into settlement, not to remove him. Many MPs felt pressured into appearing as commissioners - execution was not the only option 
• Starkey - the death warrant of Charles suggests there was indecision over the event. Starkey refers to the corrections made to the document - the date had been changed twice and the original executioner refused to be involved, so names were altered. 

1646-1649: What led to Pride's Purge and what were the Consequences?

So far...

• The Engagement, December 1647 - Threat of the Scottish invasion - Charles made an agreement with the Scots for Presbyterianism to be in England for 3 years - Solemn League and Covenant. Charles' intransigence blamed as he could no longer be trusted.
• Vote of No Addresses, January 1648 - An Act by Parliament where negotiations with Charles was banned 
• Second Civil War, April 1648-1649 - In 1648, Cromwell squashed the invading Scots and people saw the New Model Army as "God's Instrument"
• Remonstrance of the Army, November 1648 - Ireton made this, where it stated that Parliament should put Charles on trial. If parliament refused there would be a purge on Parliament and then the King's trial
• Politicalisation - the nation had become more "politicalised" mainly due to the NMA, getting more involved in politics and having their say in how Charles' and the nation should be treated. 
• Newport Treaty, December 5th 1648 - Parliament revoked the Vote of No Addresses and negotiated with Charles. A vote was held in Parliament where 129 MPs voted to continue with the Newport Treaty with Charles, with the 83 against reacting with the Remonstrance of the Army. Here, Parliament had become a barrier of settlement.

Pride's Purge

The vote in the House of Commons on December 5th, 1648, confirmed the Newport Treaty and Parliament's willingness to negotiate with the King. This made the Army act. 

• December 5th, 1648 - a vote in Parliament with 129 for/83 against - confirmed the Newport Treaty and Parliament's willingness to negotiate with the King, This was a trigger point for the Army - Ireton and Independents held a meeting where they persuaded the army to use military action to force a purge on Parliament on all of the King's supporters
• December 6th, 1648 - Troops led by Colonel Thomas Pride headed to purge Parliament. Pride had a list of MPs that were regarded as enemies of the Army and stood at the entrance of Parliament, deciding who should enter. Around 180 out of 470 MPs were prevented from entering. A small number were regarded as extremists (Holles) and were forced to fled London, but others were arrested. Around 100 MPs stayed away from London during the Purge. 

Who was involved?

• Henry Ireton - organised the Purge
• Fairfax - apparently had no knowledge of the event, and was said to be furious when he heard what had happened. 
• Cromwell - opinions divided and no direct evidence of his involvmenent with the event, which stood in his favour. However, many do comment that he did approve the event, 

What were the Consequences?

All of the MPs who were leading, involved in or supported negotiations with Charles were excluded from Parliament during the Purge or had been warned to stay away. Only 80 MPs sat in the "Rump Parliament," leaving Cromwell and the Independent MP's. Consequentially, this left the NMA, mainly the Grandees, in an exciting situation - they could finally do as they pleased as they had eliminated all barriers to their aims. 

1646-1649: The Levellers

The Levellers - Who were they and why did they have such influence?

"Wee still find the Nation oppressed with grievances of the same destructive nature as formerly though under other notions." (Leveller Large Petition, March 1647)

The Levellers were a group of people who called for economic, political and religious reform due to the result of economic distress caused by civil war. They were influenced by the ideas of natural law and built an intellectual tradition of dissent. 

• Natural Law - a law that is set by nature and therefore has validity everywhere above human laws. Associated with natural rights that limited the power of the monarchy. 

The Levellers were led by John Lilburne, Richard Overton and William Walwyn. John Lilburne had suffered persecution in the 1630's by publishing literature against the Armenian reforms of William Laud. 

The Diggers - the "True Levellers"

The Diggers were another response to the political, economic and social effects of the Civil War. They established a commune as a solution to the social inequalities. They were led by Gerrard Winstanely who said "freedom is the man that will turn the world upside down." They believed in total political and social equality. 

Kishlansky argued that the "Digger movement appeared more ominous that it actually was" because the ideas and actions of the movement offered a fundamental challenge to the nature of politics and society at the time, but their influence was limited.

Why did the Levellers deny connections with the Diggers?

Their agenda of "leveling of all debates" - the amendment of private property rights - was too much of a radical step for the Levellers, who were attempting to negotiate a political settlement within the existing social order. 

What were the main aims of the Diggers?

1. Communal cultivation of the land and end to property rights 
2. People to support themselves by cultivating the waste and common land of England 
3. Utopian communistic society

The Putney Debates

The Putney Debates, held in November 1647, were a series of discussions between factions of the New Model Army and the Levellers concerning a new constitution for England. They were held at the Church of St Mart the Virgin, Surrey. 

• The Grandees failed attempt to negotiate a settlement with Charles had lost the support of the military and civilian radicals. The Levellers criticised Ireton in particular for being too lenient in his negotiations with the King and Parliament, and accused the Grandees of betraying the interests of the common soldiers and people of England. 
• In October 1647, the 5 of the most radical cavalry regiments elected new Agitators - known as the "New Agents" - to represent their views. The New Agents issued a political manifesto: "The Case of the Armie Truly Stated" and endorsed the constitutional proposals drafted by civilian Levellers in the "Agreement of the People."
• The radicals wanted a constitution based upon manhood suffrage ("one man, one vote"), biennial parliaments and a re-organisation of parliamentary constituencies. Authority was to be vested in the House of Commons rather than the King and Lords. Certain "native rights" were declared for all Englishmen - freedom of conscience, freedom from imprisonment into the armed forced and equality before the law.
• Cromwell and Ireton regarded the Levellers' demands for manhood suffrage as "tantamount to anarchy"

The Agreement of the People, 1647

• MP's should be elected in proportion to the amount of people in their constituencies
• Parliament should be dissolved on the 30th September 1648
• Parliaments should be held biennially and sit every other year from April to September
• A biennial parliament should be the supreme authority in the land, with the powers to make/repeal laws, appoint officials and conduct domestic and foreign policy. 

The Whitehall Debates

• After the King's defeat in the 2nd Civil War, an extended version of the Agreement of the People was promoted by Lilburne who hoped to find a middle way between royal despotism (or tyrannical absolutism) and military dictatorship. 
• The new Agreement was discussed by Levellers, London Independents and the Army Council at Whitehall in December 1648 in the aftermath of Pride's Purge. 
• Lilburne wanted to secure Parliament's acceptance of the Agreement before the King was brought to trial so that the trial would  have a basis in a legitimate and legal constitution. 
• However, Lilburne and his colleague Richard Overton walked out of the discussions when Army officers, led by Ireton, insisted upon making further modifications to the Agreement before it was presented to Parliament. 

Why was this significant?

Here, both Cromwell and Ireton were trying to curb the extremism of the Levellers, particularly over a proposal that wanted to extend the vote to all adult males. Attempts to get support for the Agreement at a meeting of the Army at Cochbush field were forcibly opposed by the Grandees. Lilburne tried making a midway point between tyrannical anarchy and military dictatorship, but this still was not enough for Cromwell and Ireton. 

In the end, discussions continued without Lilburne's input. The revised Agreement was finally presented to the House of Commons as a basis of a new constitution on 20 January 1648, the very days that the public sessions of the High Court of Justice began. As Ireton had calculated, MP's postponed discussion of the Agreement until after the King's trial, and it was never taken up again by Parliament. 

1646-1649: The Windsor Prayer Meeting, April 1648

The NMA held a prayer meeting that was Puritan in April 1648 where preachers referred to Charles as "Charles Stuart" and that "man of blood."

This is significant because this was the first time in public that the army declared that there was a possibility that Charles could, and should, die. 

1646-1649: Charles' Intentions during the Settlement Period

Debate centres around Charles' intentions during the settlement period:

By 1648, he knows there will be no settlement and now aims to be a martyr for the monarchy to be resorted in the future

Or

Charles never wanted a settlement (due to his "divine right"). He is the main reason why he is executed. 

Suicide or murder?

Charles after escaping Hampton Court fled to the Isle of Wight and hoped that his relative Colonel Hammond would protect him, then he planned to head to France. Colonel Hammond, however, was loyal to Parliament and turned him in, where he was imprisoned in Carisbrooke Castle. Charles then began corresponding with the Scots and in December 1647, he signed the Solemn League and Covenant in the English Parliament and imposed Presbyterianism for 3 years. He also agreed that Scotsmen would have greater influence in the English government with a view of eventually combining England and Scotland as one Kingdom. In return the Scots would take him to London to negotiate with Parliament, who if refused, the Scots would then send an Army to England to assist Charles. 

Why was the Engagement Significant?

It meant a real possibility of war or Scottish invasion and hardens views towards the King. It lead to the Vote of No Addresses in January 1648, which stated that there would be no further negotiations with Charles. 

1646-1649: The Heads of Proposals

Reading - July 16th, 1647

• The Army's General Council met. Appeared to be signs that the general unity of the army that had held to date was beginning to break down. 
• The agitators had become more impatient with the slow progress in achieving their demands and were pushing for a more immediate march on London to secure their demands 
• At Reading, it became more clear that senior officers now had a fundamental design for settlement and were negotiating directly with Charles
• These negotiations opened Ireton and Cromwel up to charges of hypocrisy. 

Heads of Proposals - August 2nd, 1647

• Regular biennial parliaments 
• Reform of parliamentary representation 
• Parliamentary control of army and navy
• Parliamentary appointment of great offices of state for 10 years 
• Religious settlement that maintained national Church with bishops, but no coercive power
• Act of Oblivion (pardon) that exempted only a few royalists from punishments 

Negotiations with Charles 

• Their willingness to compromise with Charles brought division in the army to a head and would also be the basis of their own more hard-line attitude to Charles after the 2nd Civil War 
• The Grandees of the NMA wanted settlement because they wanted a good working relationship with the King, with Berkley commenting that Ireton may able to get the "Heads" through the Army Council. 
• Ireton modified the "Heads" after talking to the King and there is little doubt that Ireton and Cromwell went as far as they felt they could in trying to get Charles to accept the Heads
• The tension between the Army and Parliament increased. The Political Presbyterians organised demonstrations in favour of peace on the 26th July, with the convenience of Holles, a mob invaded the Commons and forced the passing of a resolution to invite the King to London. 
• By 3rd of August, the Army was just outside of London, where the Political Independents joined them after walking out of Parliament. 
• Charles escaped from Hampton Court on 11th November. In response to the new military threat posed by Charles' escape and his negotiations with the Scots, the NMA officers reunited. An attempted Leveller inspired military in the army at Wore was crushed. 

1646-1649: The Role and Influence of the New Model Army

After Charles' surrender, the New Model Army became increasingly politicised. This was due to their dissatisfaction with the settlements offered to the King by Parliament. They also had material concerns - wages were £3 million in arrears and Parliament had proposed to disband them in the Newcastle Propositions. As Parliament failed to address their concerns, the demands of the army became more radical.

When Parliament proposed to disband the Army, Fairfax ordered a meeting at Newmarket on 4th/5th June 1647. During this meeting a more formal political structure in the army was developed. A General Council was created to allow official strategies and possible settlement to be discussed. The General Council was made up of two officers and two agitators (more radical, pushing for change) from each regiment. This was led by Henry Ireton who had the role of Commissary General.

What were the Heads of Proposals?

The army had so much say during the settlement period because:

Physical control of Charles: 
Charles had been placed under semi-protective house arrest by Parliament after his surrender. He was based at Holmby in Northamptonshire. On 2nd June, 1647, the Army seized Charles from Parliament. George Joyce, a Coronet in the army arrived at Holmby House and said that he had Cromwell's permission to remove the King. Joyce had associations with the agitators. He was allowed to take custody of Charles and immediately took him to the Army's headquarters at Newmarket. Most of the garrison protecting the King went with Joyce. Fairfax was furious but it seemed as though Joyce had the approval of Cromwell and Ireton

The Solemn Engagement:
The first step of the army's demands that had been declared in the Humble Remonstrance were put into action through the documents of the Solemn Engagement which encouraged cooperation between the army's officers and the agitators. This document was mainly drafted by Ireton. In June, Cromwell, Ireton and Fairfax met with Charles and to reinforce the Solemn Engagement, impeachment charges were drawn against 11 MPs, including Holles (Political Presbyterian) - the army saw him as leading Parliament against them.

Humble Remonstrance 
Produced on the 4th June, 1647. The Remonstrance declared that the army would not disband until their grievances were met - i.e. indemnity (no prosecution or punishment for affairs during the First Civil War) and also the removal of the Political Presbyterians who wanted to disband the army.

"A Representation of the Army" 
Drafted on the 14th June, 1647 by Ireton, Lambert and Cromwell. The Representation outlined the army's political position and what they wanted. Main points focused on:

• Purge of Parliament
• Future Parliaments of Fixed Duration 
• Guaranteed right of freedom or people to petition to Parliament (meaning free speech and say)
• Liberty of tender consciences (religious freedom)

All these influenced what was to be in the Heads of Proposals 

1646-1649: Newcastle Propositions Revised and Significance

In the winter of 1646-1647 the Newcastle Propositions were revised:

• Demobilise the NMA but keep a smaller armed force to send to Ireland 
• Create an alternative "safe" army based on London trained bands 

What was the significance of the Newcastle Propositions?

The approach that the Political Presbyterians took allowed an entrance for the New Model Army to negotiate on the terms of settlement, thus being the zenith of their politicisation 

1646-1649: Newcastle Propositions

1646-1649: The Failure to Reach Settlement - Key Groups in the Settlement Period

Key Groups in the Settlement Period 

In 1646, the settlement meant making a deal with the King. There was no thought of making a deal for the future which did not include Charles I (at this point no man was thinking of regicide).

Why couldn't a settlement be reached?

• Charles - attitude and intransigence made negoitation difficult. Arguably Charles could never have accepted any form of a settlement 
• New Model Army - increasingly politicised. Relationship with Parliament had changed
• Parliament - there was division and factions among groups who had their own different ideas - this was the rift of the Political Presbyterians and the Political Independents 
• Radicalism - development of religious and political radicalism, especially within the NMA. 

Parliament during this time

Division within Parliament over how to fight the Civil War alerted Charles to the growing factions and he played on this - it was one of his political advantages over Parliament 

 

Political Presbyterians (Peace Party) V. Political Independents (War Party)

Political Presbyterians - Willing to accept settlement with the King on minimal terms

• Most influential group in Parliament by 1646 
• Conservative on social and political matters
• Opposed to religious toleration 
• Favoured negotiations for peace with the King 
• Drew closer to the Scots 
• Disenchanted by the NMA
• Main aim to prevent social revolution 

Political Independents - Charles must accept limitations before NMA is disbanded (meaning security within the settlement)

• Oliver Cromwell a member of this group
• Dislike the authoritarianism of Scottish Presbyterianism 
• Wanted increasingly religious tolerance
• Allied with the NMA 

What was equally important at the time was what the nation wanted - Farr comments that "most of the country actually favours a quick resolution in order to gain peace." 

This is understandable as people didn't want to go to war in the first place. The war continued longer than many people thought it would have and therefore this made it easy to back the Political Presbyterians as they were willing to go back to the traditional system. 190,000 Englishmen died and this caused an appeal and need for settlement.