2E - The problem of Charles I: divisions within the army and Parliament
Charles's execution resulted from a disputed decision to place the king under judgement, not simply from his battlefield defeat. Follow the divisions, military intervention and trial of 1648–49, then use the king's own written defence to understand the competing claims about lawful authority.
Divisions over the king's fate
The Second Civil War persuaded many soldiers that Charles was responsible for renewing bloodshed after his defeat. Some officers interpreted victory as evidence of God's judgement and believed that leaving him in power would invite further war. Ireton's Army Remonstrance of November 1648 demanded justice against the king and a new political settlement. Punishment and constitutional reconstruction became connected: a government secure against Charles would need a different source of authority.
There was still no agreement across Parliament or the army. Many MPs regarded monarchy as essential to lawful government and considered Charles's Newport concessions a possible basis for peace. Presbyterians feared army domination and religious radicalism. Some Independents also preferred accommodation to regicide. The labels Presbyterian and Independent therefore do not identify a simple divide between opponents and supporters of execution.
The army itself was divided. Fairfax did not participate in the king's trial and did not endorse the course taken by its most determined leaders. Leveller critics opposed the unaccountable military and parliamentary power being constructed, even where they had little sympathy for Charles. A conviction that the king must be restrained could lead to deposition, stronger constitutional safeguards or a trial: these were different choices. Cromwell's eventual support for trial should not be projected backwards as an unchanging policy throughout 1647.
Pride's Purge and the Rump
On 5 December 1648 the Commons judged that Charles's concessions provided grounds for proceeding towards settlement. On 6 December Colonel Thomas Pride's soldiers arrested or excluded MPs whom the army regarded as obstacles to its policy. More withdrew in protest. Pride's Purge changed which opinions could be expressed through Parliament by changing who was allowed to attend.
The Rump Parliament
The surviving portion of the Long Parliament after the army's purge of December 1648. It claimed parliamentary authority while depending on the armed force that had removed many fellow MPs.
This dependence created a legitimacy problem. Army leaders claimed to protect the nation's liberties from an untrustworthy king, but they prevented many elected representatives from deciding the settlement. The purge therefore cannot be described simply as Parliament freely choosing a republic. It was an intervention that made a policy possible which the unpurged Commons had not accepted. Parliament's account of the purge and regicide explains this sequence.
The remaining Commons claimed that the people were the origin of lawful power and that their representatives could act without the consent of King or Lords. The Lords rejected the proposal to try Charles, but the Rump proceeded regardless and established a High Court of Justice in January 1649. This asserted a new constitutional principle: kings were accountable to a public authority that could judge them. It also raised the question whether a purged House could convincingly speak for the people.
The trial and execution
Charles's trial began in Westminster Hall on 20 January 1649, with John Bradshaw presiding. The charge treated Charles as responsible for using power entrusted to him against his people and for bringing war upon them. Regicide means the killing of a monarch; the trial's supporters sought to present this regicide as lawful public justice, rather than assassination or victory alone.
Continue this lesson.
You’re previewing NovaLearn without an account. Create a free account to read the rest.
Create free account