Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Dedication
- Contents
- List of Illustrations
- Abbreviations
- Introduction
- PART I LAYING DOWN THE LAW: 600–1500
- PART II CONFLICT OF LAWS: 1500–1766
- 10 The King's Conscience, the Lord Chancellor's Foot
- 11 Star Chamber: Keeping England in Quiet
- 12 Troture
- 13 The Writ and Charter of Liberty
- 14 Rex Lex v. Lex Rex: Sir Edward Coke
- 15 Oedipus Lex: The Trial of Charles I
- 16 Free-born John
- 17 From Restoration to Revolution and Reaction
- PART III THE TRANSFORMATION OF THE LAW
- PART IV THE RULE OF LAW: 1907–2014
- Bibliography
- Index
15 - Oedipus Lex: The Trial of Charles I
from PART II - CONFLICT OF LAWS: 1500–1766
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 May 2015
- Frontmatter
- Dedication
- Contents
- List of Illustrations
- Abbreviations
- Introduction
- PART I LAYING DOWN THE LAW: 600–1500
- PART II CONFLICT OF LAWS: 1500–1766
- 10 The King's Conscience, the Lord Chancellor's Foot
- 11 Star Chamber: Keeping England in Quiet
- 12 Troture
- 13 The Writ and Charter of Liberty
- 14 Rex Lex v. Lex Rex: Sir Edward Coke
- 15 Oedipus Lex: The Trial of Charles I
- 16 Free-born John
- 17 From Restoration to Revolution and Reaction
- PART III THE TRANSFORMATION OF THE LAW
- PART IV THE RULE OF LAW: 1907–2014
- Bibliography
- Index
Summary
The King can do no wrong, that is, no Process can be granted against him.
John Selden, Table TalkIf ever a lawless act was defensible on the principle of self-preservation, the murder of Charles might be defended.
Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Notes on English DivinesCharles, when he felt financially secure enough, ignored the Petition of Right and dissolved parliament. He would rule alone, enforcing his will through the Court of Star Chamber. He resorted to an alternative form of taxation, raising finance by levying Ship Money – to pay for a navy – and by fining those who opposed his demands. For over a decade parliament's doors were locked and the king ruled on his own meagre wits and resources. After a costly military fiasco against the Scottish Covenanters, provoked into opposition by Charles's attempts to impose episcopacy in Scotland, the king, in 1640, was forced to recall parliament to raise money. Parliament and king remained at loggerheads.
One head had to fall: Thomas Wentworth, earl of Strafford would be for the chop. He was put on trial at Westminster Hall for high treason, but defended himself so ably that the Commons, fearing that he would be acquitted, was reduced to deploying a parliamentary device to bypass the proceedings. The House preferred a Bill of Attainder against Strafford. This would ensure the required end simply by declaring that his death was necessary for the safety of the realm. The same device would do for Laud in due course. Charles cravenly gave way and assented to Strafford's attainder and beheading, a fate which he had promised ‘upon the word of a king’ would never befall his loyal servant, a betrayal for which he never forgave himself, and a humiliation which forever rankled. Charles had broken his royal oath, and sacrificed his own minister. His lesser subjects were more than justified in not trusting in their king's word.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Law, Liberty and the ConstitutionA Brief History of the Common Law, pp. 133 - 148Publisher: Boydell & BrewerPrint publication year: 2015