Charles I Quotes
The king was found guilty and was decapitated, but not wearing a crown.
Ironically, Cromwell himself had eloquently observed that “necessity” is the avowed justification of post politicians to justify their breaking the law or doing something that is immoral and wrong. See {632372}. Also see {57408}, {599566}. But the most eloquent statement was given by Prime Minister William Pitt: {585477}
At that time the king not only called Parliament into session but terminated the session and set the agenda. In this case, Charles I didn't want royal activities regarding taxation to be debated much less legislated upon. As the speaker rose to leave the chair, he was forcibly held in place by two members as the house voted by acclamation to condemn the taxes and even the merchants who paid them. This was perhaps the first legislative tax revolt in history.
When Henry came to “George II” he was interrupted by the Speaker, John Robinson, who shouted “Treason!” Henry had been railing against the Stamp Act.
Charles I had caused the death of his subjects with impunity and was called to account. However, the English Parliament did not know what specific crime the King had committed. Kings had executed people, guilty of crimes and otherwise, for centuries. For what could a king be accountable. Cooke developed the crime of Tyranny and drew up and presented the indictment for that. The King was found guilty and executed. This was the first time in legal history that a ruler was called to account for crimes committed against his own people. It became the foundation for many trials thereafter including that of Saddam Hussein in 2006.
The Regicide of Charles I was still a very sensitive subject with Englishmen loyal to the King in the Colonial era. So this was an incredibly radical and incendiary statement for an American minister to make. However, he did acknowledge that a people had a right to have a king {634001} unlike Thomas Paine who did not—see {634004}.
Cooke was a bitter foe of monarchy in general and not just of Charles I. His argument here is that when the people support a king, they are breaking the Biblical commandment of not worshipping idols. Thus God is against monarchy. See {634004} for another religious attack on monarchy.
money for the king's government In 1628 there was a classic English struggle between the king, Charles I, and Parliament. While Parliament was sitting, Dr. Manwaring, an Anglican Bishop, preached a sermon. He claimed that God intended all private property to be at the disposal of the King in times of national emergency. Further, that the King could levy an taxes without the consent of Parliament. The King liked the sermon so much that he had it printed and distributed by special command. The House of Commons went bonkers and impeached Manwaring. He was imprisoned by order of the House, fined the then huge sum of 1,000 pounds, and prohibited from holding any ecclesiastical or secular office in the future. As soon as the session of Parliament ended, the king pardoned him, gave him a huge salary raise, and several years later Manwaring was appointed Bishop of Asaph. King Charles I, perhaps England’s worst sovereign, then provoked two civil wars and was finally tried for treason and beheaded. Manwaring was in and out of prison during the conflicts. He faded from public view.
Reaction when the Dutch heard that the English King Charles I had been beheaded. The regicide was very shocking to most people in Europe—even in the Netherlands which then had a republic.
In 1628 Parliament, in response to abuses by King Charles I, was about to pass The Petition of Rights–-a type of Bill of Rights. The King gave assurances that the practices—such as forcing nobles to lend him money—would not continue and didn't want to be embarrassed by passage of a law which he claimed would indicate that the Parliament did not trust him and weaken the dignity of the monarchy. The Petition of Rights passed with Cole’s leadership.
Prior to Cooke’s indictment of English King Charles I, there was a concept of Royal Impunity—that a sovereign could not legally be called to account for his actions as ruler of the state. The concept of “sovereign immunity” was a concept where the sovereign and his agents could be given immunity for specific actions, but they never would have impunity again where there were no limits to the crimes they might commit against their own people. Charles I refused to even recognize Cooke’s indictment and so have heads of state called to account for their major crimes since then all the way down to Saddam Hussein in 2006 who made the same argument. Cooke was himself hanged, drawn and quartered almost 20 years after the Charles I trial for his part in the “Regicide” so the concept of Royal Impunity did not die quickly.
