Oedipus Moment: The Great Trial of King Charles I

 　　The king is above all men, but only under God and the law, because it is the law that makes the king. ——[English] Brackton

　　In 1629, because the Parliament refused to give the king the privilege of levying tariffs, King Charles I of England put aside the "Petition of Rights" that limited the king's power, and forcibly dissolved the Parliament. What he wants is to take power alone and implement the king's will through the star court. Although there was no parliament, he came up with another way to levy taxes in disguise: charging shipbuilding fees to support the navy and imposing fines on those who disobeyed his orders. Since then, the gates of Parliament have remained locked, and the king has managed to maintain his rule with his paltry wisdom and stretched resources. His attempt to restore the bishopric system in Scotland sparked a rebellion of the local allies. After this costly and unsuccessful military conflict, the king had to reconvene parliament in 1640 to clear the way for further taxation. At this point, the parliament and the king once again stood on opposite sides, and the relationship was tense.

　　In 1642, the struggle between the king and parliament culminated in a long and bloody civil war. A large number of soldiers died on the battlefield, and more civilians died on the streets. The total number of people killed in the war accounted for 1/10 of the total population at that time. Countless families were torn apart, numerous homes were torn apart, and many towns were looted. There are many complex reasons for the outbreak of war, one of which is the failure of the king to recognize, and impossible to accept, the fact that he has no divine prerogative to transcend and ignore the laws of the land. Kingship is not law. The rebels claimed that the laws and traditions of England were the common wealth of all peoples and the backbone of the country. This consensus succeeded in rallying the king's opponents.

　　Ultimately the king was defeated and surrendered in 1646, ending the first English Civil War. The king lost his freedom, he lost a lot of power, but he didn't lose his throne and his life. He then attempted to subvert Scotland and provoke a second civil war against disaffected people. The civil war, which lasted from May to August 1648, still ended with the defeat of the royal army. The king's hopes were completely dashed, and his reputation was further damaged. While negotiations continued, unwillingness to compromise in the royal army grew stronger. Charlie was already in a dead end, but he was still reluctant to admit defeat or compromise, which ultimately determined his fate. His opponents describe him as a viper in the political ecology - vicious, treacherous and venomous. Apparently, he was no longer fit to be a king, or even a man.

　　Oliver Cromwell believes that Charlie must be liquidated. The next question is, how can the law be forged into an axe that can cut off a king's head? There is no precedent for this issue, as no king has ever been tried by a court, let alone executed. In the 20 years leading up to 1649, there were some tiny signs that did point the way in some direction. In 1629, Parliament passed three Acts aimed at the "evil" advisers on the King's side. It called ministers who championed taxation beyond parliamentary approval and innovation in religion the "principal enemy of the state". The act resulted in the execution of two of Charles' right-hand men: the Duke of Stratford (1641), and the Archbishop of Lauder (1644). It was in these cases that Parliament expanded its definition of treason to include subversion of the law and abuse of the rights granted to it as treason. This expansion leaves some possibility for the king to be tried - when the king attacks the parliament, an integral part of the national system, he may commit treason.

　　Cromwell decided to take the unprecedented step of putting Charlie on trial of some sort. This trial cannot be a farce with fabricated confessions or bribed witnesses, it has to be public, even if it can't be done in substance, on the surface. The crime committed by the king must have solid evidence and should be shown to the world. His perfidy should be thoroughly exposed, proving that it is rightly contrary to the honour of the cause of Parliament.

　　However, there are holes in the legal veneer of this trial process. Rather than saying that the judgment is correct and glorious, it is better to say that it is due to the status of strength. What was about to take place was not the judge, jury trial with which England was familiar, but an ad hoc tribunal to deal with this insurmountable conundrum: when the presence of the king had brought danger to the whole country, his what fate should be.

　　On 6 December 1648, Colonel Thomas Pride took military action against Parliament, "purifying" all members of the House of Commons who supported continued consultations with the king and opposed the trial of the king. In the end, more than 80 members formed a parliament known as the "Incomplete Parliament" in history, and passed the "Order in the Name of the People of England", announcing the establishment of an institution called "The Supreme Court of Justice" to try the king's treason. The size of the jury is reduced to 135, and they will act as both judge and jury. A Grey College barrister and the little-known Lord John Bradshaw will serve as moderator of the trial. John Cook was appointed Deputy Attorney General.

　　On January 20, 1649, Charles I was secretly taken from St James's Palace and sent to the Tribunal at the south end of Westminster Hall. The partition between the Throne Court and the Court of Justice was removed to make room for trials. Opposite host Bradshaw's table and chairs, was an armchair covered in red velvet, where the king sat. For the convenience of the public, all stalls, shops and barriers in the hall have been removed. They even built a new gallery for the rich to sit on and overlook the entire courtroom.

　　For such a world-renowned court trial, security must be the top priority. They wanted to prevent both attempts to rescue the king and the assassination of the king or the court. Presenter Bradshaw was the most visible target, and he had to add an iron lining to his beaverskin hat to keep his head from being shot through by rounds fired from the corners. To better maintain order, the public parts of the building and the trial area are separated by two parallel columns of barriers—two columns of wood, built from one end of the wall to the other, and a few feet below. There are strong railings. In the central part of the hall is another railing that runs through the entire long hall, with soldiers standing on both sides. Flags captured by the Puritans at the Battle of Nasby hang around the hall as a reminder of how the trial began. Cromwell was one of only 68 of the 135 jurors who were ready to appear on the first day out of fear or disgust.

　　Guards with guns escorted the king into the hall. Charlie took his seat after "looking around the courtroom and the crowd with a firm look", "he didn't take off his hat or pay the least respect to the courtroom in any other way." Bradshaw retorted He also called the king by his first name as "Charlie Stuart" and told Charlie that he would try the case "in accordance with the fair process of the court". When Deputy Attorney General Cook read out the indictment as required, Charlie waved his cane, pressed Cook's shoulders, and asked Cook to roll aside. Seeing that there was no effect, Charlie pushed Cook away again and stood up to speak. But Cook ignored him and continued to speak to the court. Annoyed, Charlie hit Cook with the cane for the third time. This time, he hit the silver head of the cane with such force. Charlie nodded and asked Cook to retrieve the cane head for himself, but Cook still ignored it. Cook continued to speak, and the king had no choice but to get up and pick up the head of the stick. This ominous sign shocked all the bystanders present. The king who considers himself holy, at this moment has to bend before his former law, from the creator of the law to the object of the law. In the eyes of those who witnessed the scene, this was the most glorious moment of the law.

　　Cook charged Charlie with "grave treason and other serious crimes" and was "a tyrant, traitor and murderer, a mortal enemy of England and its public." The charge was based on the principle that the king of England did not Not a person, but a position. The individual is entrusted with this position and his duty can only be the preservation of liberty. Charlie Stuart "was entrusted with a limited power to rule, which can only be exercised by and in accordance with the laws of the land. By his duty and by oath he must use the power entrusted to him in the maintenance of the people interests, rights and freedoms.” But he “placed himself in a brutal position of unlimited power through despicable means, acting arbitrarily and arbitrarily, undermining the rights and freedoms that belonged to the people.” In order to achieve his goals, he "betrayed and maliciously provoked war against Parliament and the people present, and tried to introduce foreign aggression". He instigated a second civil war and was brewing a third. Therefore, Charlie is responsible for all murders, pillages and looting in the Civil War.

　　Charlie began responding to the allegations, in Bradshaw's words, "in the name of the people of England who chose him as king". He had no defence lawyer, but he was rumored to be under the guidance of another jurist of the time, Sir Matthew Hale. As Cromwell expected, Charlie challenged the court's qualifications. In response to Bradshaw's constitutional claims, he pointed out that England "has never been an elective kingdom; it has been a hereditary kingdom throughout its thousand-year history". On this point, Charlie is certainly right. He went on to point out that the king was the source of the law and therefore could not be charged. This is also true to some extent. When Bradshaw reminded Charlie that he was sitting before the court of justice, Charlie retorted that "I'm just sitting before the power, and that power comes from the sword, not from justice."

　　Unsurprisingly, Charlie completely denied the court's authority to try him. He tactfully responded that he had made his reign as a common law advocate and had been slandered. He acted not for himself, but for "the liberty and liberation of the people of England". He defended the liberty of the people more firmly than these accusers and judges, "for if power can create laws beyond the law, and can pervert the most basic legal principles of this kingdom," then all life and property will be lost be put at risk. The wanton, arrogant twist on the law during his reign seems to be overshadowed by this apparently illegal trial.

　　His steadfast eloquence, or "stubborn resistance," created a dilemma for the court.

　　Charlie sealed his fate. This may be his active choice. The death penalty is the only penalty for treason. At this critical moment, and even throughout the trial, he was only heard muttering contrition for betraying and allowing the Duke of Stratford to be executed. For the war he provoked in his own country and the thousands of ordinary people who lost their lives in the war, he neither expressed remorse nor condolences. His intransigence and insensitivity may have been the trigger for the judge's final verdict. But it is more likely that his fate was already doomed.

　　Before delivering the "enemy of the nation" the death sentence, Bradshaw read out a lengthy verdict to justify the verdict. There were 59 judges who signed the death sentence, but their inner attitudes were clearly divided. The first to sign was Bradshaw, whose signature was small and vague, perhaps reflecting his concerns and fears. And the third one was signed by Cromwell. His signature was big and thick without hesitation at all. Perhaps Cromwell had pondered that the death penalty was not only a "cruel necessity," but that this necessity could cover up the sin of cruelty.

　　In the end, the only king in the history of England to be sentenced to death by a judicial decision stood on the guillotine on January 30, 1649 in front of the State Banqueting Room in Whitehall, London - the primary consideration in choosing this place as the execution site is still security, At the same time, public executions are very necessary: ​​it is not some despicable act that needs to be done secretly, but in the presence of the people who are suffering from the misery he has caused. Charlie crossed Whitehall and stood on the guillotine. In the Whitehall room hangs a painting by the Dutch painter Rubens, depicting the scene of Charles ascending to the throne and taking over the divine power. Before the axe fell, he remembered his betrayal of the Duke of Stratford. He was heard to say: "I have painstakingly handed down an unjust sentence, and now I myself have another unjust sentence." Seconds later, Charles I's head fell from his body. The executioner stood still. Onlookers dipped the king's blood with handkerchiefs, believing that it had a miraculous healing effect on diseases. "His demeanor was not humble / In the face of this historic scene", this is the famous line of British poet Andrew Marvell. There has never been a better moment in Charlie's life than this moment.

　　In the thousand-year history of English law, the law has gone from a few simple provisions for quelling disputes, restraining violent revenge, and keeping the peace, to a system that could bring all kings under it. Bradshaw stood firm and unwavering, acting resolutely and decisively even when legitimacy was not on his side, as if it were his actions that established the basic principle that the king should be held accountable to the law. Cook had no remorse either, and in what he later wrote, The King Charles Case, recorded the speech he prepared to deliver when Charles refused to defend, arguing that the Court had "established its broadest, fairest, The most glorious example of justice".

　　No matter how just or less just the proceedings were viewed by people, putting the king on the court was an extraordinary and audacious achievement in itself. It gives all dictators a chill down their spines by showing the fate they may face in the future. Geoffrey Robertson, a modern human rights lawyer and Cook's biographer, even believes that this trial is the first political trial of a monarch on the grounds of crimes against the people. It is a landmark event of international significance. The originator of criminal law.