Tyrannicide Brief: he sent Charles I to die

Read Tyrannicide Brief: Story of the Man Who Sent Charles I to the Scaffold by Geoffrey Robertson. Charles triggered the tragic civil wars (from 1642) when 1 in 10 Eng­lish­men died. But in 1649, Parliament struggled to find a law­yer with guts to pro­secute a king who claimed to be above the law.

In the end, they chose the radical lawyer John Cooke (1608–60) whose Pur­it­an consc­ience, pol­itical vis­ion and love of civil liberties made him stand out. Cooke might have been just an average lawyer but he was an impressive reformer. Robertson said that in the 1640s, Cooke had been the first to assert that poverty was a cause of crime. Cooke was already arguing for: a nat­ional health service; a national legal serv­ice; end most capital punishment; probation for those who stole out of hunger; and an end to the use of Latin in court.

Geoffrey Roberston's book

Note the execution of King Charles I on the front cover

Cooke was a criminologist who wrote frequently. Ev­ery­thing that came off the presses in this 1640-60 era was collected and placed in a special room in the British Library, in­cluding all the transcripts of the trials and public­at­ions. Robertson gave the Puritans the credit for the good years, all the more note­wor­thy because they had suff­ered the king’s destruction of their relig­ious beliefs. Some left for the USA, but those who remained for­ged a belief in the literal Bible and in Magna Carta, civil liberty and bills of rights. Robertson was most impressed with their fierce belief in civil lib­er­ties, but I was not. Where was the historical evidence?

What the Puritans achieved in the 1640s was the abolition of Star Ch­am­ber. They created the principle of no taxation without repres­en­t­­­at­ion, and were keen on the separation of church and state. They fought in the civil wars that the king started. The king was also guilty, as Cooke later showed, of supervising torture of prisoners of war, and of encouraging plunder by the royalist forces.

In 1649, after Oliver Cromwell's army took Charles I pris­­on­er, the new regime had to decide what to do with the king. They could have killed Charles, but a fair trial was seen as more ethical. Cooke was asked to prosecute him, esp after other suitable lawyers hid away from their Inns of Court.

In Par­liament's brief to Cooke, the judge had to end the immunity of the head of state. But the divinely appointed king WAS the law, so prosecuting him seemed impossible. Thus Cooke had to invent the crime of Tyranny (aka War Crimes today). He put Charles on trial in Jan 1649, charging him with abolishing peop­les’ civil liberties and with mass murd­er­ing citizens. In Westmin­ster Hall, as this improbable trial was starting, the king was brought in and Cooke delivered the charges.

John Cooke

The king did the right thing at his trial, asking by what lawful auth­ority the state disregarded sov­ereign imm­unity and put a king on trial? Cooke answered that, be­cause there were certain crimes that were so heinous they dimin­ished the whole state, a king COULD be put on trial.

The decision to execute the king was the judges to make, but perhaps they didn’t predict that the executed royal would become a martyr. King Charles I was taken to the scaf­f­old and beheaded later in Jan 1649, and for the next ten years he was remembered kindly. Executing him only inflamed the civil war further.

Cromwell appointed Cooke as a reforming Chief Justice in Ireland where of course he made very progressive rulings. Naturally the wealthy land-owning lords hated Cooke.

In 1653, at the head of an army, Oliver Cromwell marched into Parliam­ent and dis­mis­sed the members.

King Charles II returned from France in 1660 and the monarchy restored. Cooke was the very first to be arrested, suff­ering a rigged trial at the Old Bailey when Charles II avenged his father. The ex-judge was taken to Charing Cross and made a very fine gallows speech: 'We are not traitors; we would have secured the lib­erty of the people and the whole groaning creation if the country had not pref­er­red servitude to freedom.' He was hung, drawn and quartered.

Cooke and other regicides were executed. Cooke’s heart and genit­als were fed to street dogs, and his head was shown at West­min­ster Hall. Samuel Pepys travelled to see some of Cooke's colleagues executed, but found that the exec­ut­ions had been sus­pended. App­ar­ently Charles II’s advisors saw the crowd turning nasty. They would have to detain republicans without trial, despite the fact that habeas corpus laws were in place. So it was decided to put all the repub­lic­ans on off-shore islands (eg Jersey) where habeas corpus wouldn't reach. Does this remind us of Guantanamo Bay?

Conclusion The key years 1640-60 was an era when extra­ordinary prog­ress was made in human rights. The sovereignty of parl­iament, indep­end­ence of the jud­ges, separation of church and state all go back to this short, important era.

The Hon Michael Kirby believed that the King Charles' trial was by legal stand­ards a dis­creditable affair. This seemed indisputable, until Robertson dug out a very old edition of the State Trials. Rob­ert­son was surpris­ed to find that Charles’ trial was far from discreditable - on the con­trary it app­eared for its time as an oasis of just­ice and fairness."

Rob­ert­son said Cooke's trial was actually the dis­cred­it­able affair. The defendants had been locked up for months in plague-filled prisons, and were brought to the Old Bailey in leg-irons to be viciously taunt­ed by pro-Charles II judges. The Cooke events, Robertson proposed, showed that a person was more likely to get a fair trial in a repub­lic­an court, than in a monarchical court. And provided a model for modern trials of criminal national leaders. 

The devil sits with 11 men: 9 regicides and 2 chaplains who supported Charles I's execution

Wikiwand

Robertson showed that some important 1640s men have been white­washed out of history by British historians, both conservative and liberal, for pol­itical reas­ons. These extra­ord­inary men, who had taken on King Charles I, were later ex­ec­ut­ed at the Old Bailey in 1660. Thus Robert­son concluded that the king’s execution was necessary to est­ab­lish Parl­iament's sovereignty and that the regic­ide trial victims should be seen as national heroes. I can agree with his first conclusion but his second conclusion sounds like a barrister, not like an historian