King Charles I (That Man of Blood) The conclusion of the English Civil War (to give it one of its many names) has often been portrayed as the death of Divine Right Rule and the birth of Parliamentary Democracy. Whilst it did indeed herald the death of the former it most certainly was not the dawn of the latter. This misconception has always resulted in the King being cast as the villain of the peace; as the autocrat, heedless of the needs of his people, trampling on their rights, and abusing the peoples' representatives in Parliament, as nothing less than a tyrant - that man of blood. But rather than being the perpetrator of iniquities it could be argued that he was a victim of a conspiracy, a plot hatched by Puritan fanatics and the vested commercial interest, to undermine his rule and transfer power to a small and unrepresentative clique of ruthless and ambitious men.
That Man of Blood The entire career of Charles Stuart, King of England, Scotland and Ireland, was a model in what not to do. Every major decision he made only ever seemed to exacerbate an already volatile situation, every option he chose would transpire to be the wrong one. His entire strategy for his Kingdom, however, would ultimately be undermined by his unswerving belief the in the use of force; it is ironic, therefore, that his deep sense of duty and faith in the constitution would come to nothing because of his unwillingness to act arbitrarily enough. This is not a history of the Civil War it is only my intention to chart the sequence of events that were to lead to the unlawful execution of the King on 30 January, 1649. An execution that I believe set the tone for the development of the diluted, restricted, tightly controlled and essentially undemocratic form of representative politics that continues to dominate our politics to this day. In July, 1637, the King and Archbishop Laud, tried to impose the Common Book of Prayer on the Calvinist Scots. It provoked a predictable response and resulted in the Edinburgh Prayer Book Riots when the venerable gentlemen of the cloth who attempted to read from the new liturgy were pelted with missiles and chased unceremoniously from the church. A national covenant of resistance against the new prayer book was then organised and enthusiastically signed by tens of thousands of Scots. The Duke of Hamilton, the King's representative in Scotland, organised a counter-petition and garnered 28,000 signatures, but it was too late, the damage had already been done, and the horse had already bolted. The King in response to the Scots refusal to accept the prayer book and do his bidding was to impose it by force. But he had no effective army with which to do this. As such, the so-called First Bishop's War was a fiasco. The King, however, undaunted by the humiliation of the First Bishop's War determined to wage another and was even more humiliated in the second, as the Scots invaded northern England capturing Newcastle and cutting off the coal supply to London. The King needed money to raise an army, or at least enough to pay the Scots to go away. His
only means to do this was to recall Parliament and end his 12 years of personal rule. But some in Parliament, aware of the King's weakness were determined to exploit it and set an agenda of their own. Believing themselves to be representative of Parliament as a whole, though they were in fact a minority, they demanded the redress of their grievances. These it turned out were the abolition of the Star Chamber, the repeal of Archbishop Lauds religious reforms and the end of the hated 'Catholic liturgy', but most of all they wanted the head (quite literally) of the King's chief advisor, Thomas Wentworth, Earl of Strafford, a bluff straight-talking Yorkshire man, who had suggested that the King use an Irish Catholic army to suppress the rebellious Scots. So Parliament charged him with treason for intending to use an Irish army against the people of England and their representatives in Parliament. But there was no evidence for this so John Pym, the leading recalcitrant, changed the charge to a Bill of Attainder. This didn't require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, merely a body of evidence to secure a conviction. It also, however, required the signature of the King for sentence to be carried out, and this, the King refused to do. Indeed he was vocal in his support of Strafford. Yet again the King's was acting against his own best interests for the Bill was designed to deflect criticism away from the King and onto his 'evil counsellors'. Under increasing pressure and with Strafford himself requesting he do so, he signed the Bill. Shortly after, despite pleas of clemency from the King, Strafford went to the block. Parliament, with the smell of victory in its nostrils, in November, 1641, issued the Grand Remonstrance, a bitter attack on the King's years of personal rule. It passed through the House of Commons but only by 11 votes, and swords were drawn in the Chamber for the first time. It was designed to rein in the King and reinforce the supremacy of Parliament in English political life. But to the surprise of Pym and his co- conspirators the King pointedly refused to recognise, acknowledge, or respond to it. As such, it failed in its design but nevertheless remained an irritant to those in the Royalist camp. Far more significant, and ultimately disastrous for the King, were events overseas. In October, 1641, Ireland exploded in revolt, and atrocity stories soon spread of Papist peasants disembowelling Protestant priests, burning women alive and impaling babies on pikes. Worse for the King, already tainted with the suspicion of Catholicism, the Irish rebels claimed to be acting on his behalf. It wasn't true, but the accusation stuck. It was believed by many that Charles Stuart was trying to impose Catholicism on Protestant England by armed force. It was time this cantankerous Parliament was nipped in the bud. On 4 January, 1642, the King decided to act. He presented himself at the House of Commons accompanied by an armed escort. He carried with him warrants for the arrest of John Pym, John Hampden, Denzil Holles, William Strode, and Arthur Haslerig, along with Lord Mandeville. These were the people whom the King believed were the cause of all his troubles. They were, however, warned in advance by spies at Court, in particular the unscrupulous Lady Carlisle, of the King's intentions, before they could be arrested they fled. The King, however, blissfully unaware of this continued on his way. Entering the Chamber of the House of Commons he deferentially doffed his hat and politely requested the use of the Speakers chair. It was given up to him. He then asked the Speaker to point out the accused to him. The Speaker replied that he had "only eyes to see and tongue to speak as the House directs me". But the King could see for himself and what he saw was that "the birds are flown". The whole affair was a fiasco. The King was made to look a fool and worse, a tyrant. London was in uproar and Pym and his co-accused were lauded as the hero's of liberty. Later that night, fearing for the safety of his family, the King fled the city. There could be no recourse now but to war. The King raised his Standard in Nottingham on 22 August, 1642. Perfunctory peace negotiations came to nothing as both sides set themselves on a war footing. The King was determined to settle the issue by force of arms, though in typical fashion he had no army with which to do so. But he had the promise of troops from Wales and the West Country. Also his nephew, the 6'4� Prince Rupert of the Rhine, a professional soldier had arrived along with his toy poodle, boy, to take effective command of the King's army; and Queen Henrietta Maria had been despatched to the continent to pawn the Crown Jewels and purchase arms.
I do not intend to discuss the war in detail but needless to say after some initial successes and an abortive attempt to take London the King was defeated. He fled from Oxford, which he had made his capital, in disguise with just his priest and a manservant for company, in the hope of taking ship for the continent; unable to do so he surrendered himself to the Scots. They in turn sold him to the English for £400,000. Charles complained that they had bartered him away rather cheaply. After much prolonged, tortuous discussion, endless bluff and double bluff, a failed escape attempt, a second civil war and considerable agonising, the purged Parliament, now under the sway of the army, in particular Oliver Cromwell and his militant son-in-law Henry Ireton, determined upon the King's trial and execution. There was no precedent for putting a King on trial. To do so was in essence illegal. Therefore, what was in effect a show trial began on 20 January, 1649. From the start the King riled the Court by not recognising its authority and refusing to plea. In his opening statement to the Court he said: "I would know by what power I am brought hither. What lawful power? for there are many kinds of power. Robbers on the highway when I know by what lawful power. I shall answer. Remember, I am your King, your lawful King - and what sins you bring upon your head and the judgement of God upon this land think well upon it, before you go from one sin to a greater". Nothing the King said in his own defence would be to any avail Parliament would have its judicial murder. Frustrated by the King's refusal to co-operate and denied their show trial proceedings continued in private, without the King. But why kill the King at all? The Monarchy had been toppled, he had been defeated and stripped of his powers, the House of Lords and Episcopacy abolished. Moreover, there were, any number of Stuart heirs to the throne? The King's execution was to be a point of emphasis. His death would confirm that he and he alone was responsible for plunging the nations of Britain into a bloody and devastating war that would leave more than 800,000 deaths in a population of only 5 million. It would also wash the hands of others and help legitimise Parliaments right to rule. The King was arraigned on charges of treason. He was the first ruling Monarch to be charged with committing treason against his own people. But he behaved towards Parliament no different than had his predecessors. He behaved towards them with requisite deference and respect. Yes, he ruled as an absolute Monarch, but that was his birthright as enshrined in the constitution. His defenders would argue that he merely sought to bring harmony to his Kingdom through the wisdom and disinterested justice of his personal rule. Charles Stuart was a thin, short, physically unprepossessing man. He was neurotically formal, painfully reserved, always polite, and took his responsibilities deadly serious. But he did without equivocation believe in his divine right to rule, and on this he would not compromise. He would not bequeath to his son and heirs a truncated or emasculated Monarchy. Even so, and despite his many mistakes, it is difficult to define - that man of blood. Oliver Cromwell, however, saw things differently. To him Charles Stuart, by refusing to concede his right to rule to Parliament, was not only blind to the new realities he was acting in direct opposition to God's own judgement that had been expressed so vividly in the utter destruction of his cause. For this reason his execution must be witnessed by as many people as possible. He would, he said, "Cut off his head with the Crown on it�. It was a monumental mistake. The King had never been so popular and the collective groan that passed through the crowd as his severed head was held aloft boded badly for the newly- created Commonwealth. h Charles Stuart faced his own execution with a considered equanimity. Wearing two shirts so that any shivering on a freezing cold morning would not be seen as fear, he requested that the block
be raised slightly, his request was denied. He believed that his coming martyrdom would in future secure the throne for his son. As he addressed the crowd for a last time, reading from a piece of paper and without his habitual stammer, he remained as defiant as ever: "I never did begin a war with the two Houses of Parliament. And I shall call God to witness, to whom I must shortly make an account, that I never did intend for to encroach upon their privileges. They began upon me . . . For the people. And truly I desire their liberty and freedom as much as anybody whomsoever. But I must tell you, that their liberty and freedom consists in having of Government those laws by which their laws and their God's be most their own. It is not for having a share in Government, Sir that is nothing pertaining to them. A subject and a Sovereign are clear different things".