The legitimacy of the trial of Charles I: historical precedent, the law and the roots of political power in England

© 2011 Dr. Claudia Catherine GuliThe prevailing view amongst scholars is that there was no precedent or legal basis for the trial of Charles I: the trial was contrary to both the substantive and procedural law of the land. This thesis argues that such a view fails to take into consideration the justifications for the king’s trial that can be found in contemporary printed works. During the trial, the Lord President of the High Court of Justice, John Bradshaw, advanced arguments justifying the people’s right to try their king. These arguments have been the primary source used by historians when examining the legitimacy and legality of the king’s trial. However, Bradshaw was constrained by his position as the Lord President of the court. His role was to preside over the trial of the king, not to engage in a legal and philosophical debate with Charles I over the jurisdiction of the court and the power of the House of Commons. The justifications that he did provide constitute little more than bald declarations rather than reasoned arguments supported by evidence. Authors writing in support of the trial, however, were in a much better position to argue the case for the right of the people and the parliament to try their king. An examination of pamphlets and tracts written around the time of the trial shows that many contemporaries saw the trial proceedings as commensurate with historical precedent, with natural and divine law and with fundamental law. They also show that the focus of authors supporting the trial was not so much on demonstrating that the people had the right to place their king on trial. Instead, their focus was on establishing that the people had the right to call their king to account for tyranny or misgovernance. Implicit in these authors’ works was the idea that if the people had the right to call their king to account, then they were entitled to do that by any means they chose: by deposing him, executing him, or placing him on trial. Whilst the trial of a reigning king was unprecedented, the event of the people calling their king to account was not. This thesis will demonstrate that such an event and the justifications of writers supporting it were based on classical, medieval and early modern ideas of law, governance and justice, and that action based on these ideas was well established in historical precedents