Civil War - Regicide - Revision history

Paulreed: /* The Execution and the King's Speech */

2015-01-01T17:30:08Z

The Execution and the King's Speech

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:30, 1 January 2015
Line 57:		Line 57:

	==The Execution and the King's Speech==		==The Execution and the King's Speech==
	The 30th was a bitterly cold day and, having dressed and taken communion, Charles awaited his summons. This came just before 10.00 a.m. and the party left St James’s, walking across the park to Whitehall Palace. Charles was now kept waiting for nearly four hours before finally being led through the Banqueting House, outside which the scaffold had been erected. Once on the scaffold, Charles spoke briefly before kneeling down and placing his head on the block.		The [[date::01/30/1649\|30th]] was a bitterly cold day and, having dressed and taken communion, Charles awaited his summons. This came just before 10.00 a.m. and the party left St James’s, walking across the park to Whitehall Palace. Charles was now kept waiting for nearly four hours before finally being led through the Banqueting House, outside which the scaffold had been erected. Once on the scaffold, Charles spoke briefly before kneeling down and placing his head on the block.

	'' I shall be very little heard of anybody here, I shall therefore speak a word unto you here. [Addressed to the party on the scaffold.] Indeed, I cannot hold my peace very well, if I did not think that holding my peace would make some men think that I did submit to the guilt as well as to the punishment. But I think it is my duty, to God first and to my country, for to clear myself both as an honest man, a good king, and a good Christian. In troth, I think it not very needful for me to insist long upon this, for all the world knows that I never did begin a war first with the two Houses of Parliament, and I call God to witness, to whom I must shortly make an account, that I never did intend for to encroach upon their privileges … So that as to the guilt of these enormous crimes that are laid against me, I hope in God that God will clear me of it … God forbid that I should lay it on the two Houses of Parliament … for I do believe that ill instruments between them and me have been the chief cause of all this bloodshed … Yet for all this, God forbid that I should be so ill a Christian as not to say that God’s judgments are just upon me. Many times he does pay justice by an unjust sentence, that is ordinary. I will only say this, that an unjust sentence that I suffered to take effect is punished now by an unjust sentence upon me. For the people, and I truly desire their liberty and freedom as much as anybody whatsoever. But I must tell you that their liberty and freedom consists in having of government those laws by which their life and their goods may be most their own. It is not for having a share in government; sir, that is nothing pertaining to them. A subject and a sovereign are clear different things. And therefore until they do that, I mean, that you do put the people in that liberty as I say, certainly they will never enjoy themselves. Sirs, it was for this that now I am come here. If I would have given way to an arbitrary way, for to have all laws changed according to the power of the sword, I needed not to have come here, and therefore I tell you … that I am the martyr of the people''.		'' I shall be very little heard of anybody here, I shall therefore speak a word unto you here. [Addressed to the party on the scaffold.] Indeed, I cannot hold my peace very well, if I did not think that holding my peace would make some men think that I did submit to the guilt as well as to the punishment. But I think it is my duty, to God first and to my country, for to clear myself both as an honest man, a good king, and a good Christian. In troth, I think it not very needful for me to insist long upon this, for all the world knows that I never did begin a war first with the two Houses of Parliament, and I call God to witness, to whom I must shortly make an account, that I never did intend for to encroach upon their privileges … So that as to the guilt of these enormous crimes that are laid against me, I hope in God that God will clear me of it … God forbid that I should lay it on the two Houses of Parliament … for I do believe that ill instruments between them and me have been the chief cause of all this bloodshed … Yet for all this, God forbid that I should be so ill a Christian as not to say that God’s judgments are just upon me. Many times he does pay justice by an unjust sentence, that is ordinary. I will only say this, that an unjust sentence that I suffered to take effect is punished now by an unjust sentence upon me. For the people, and I truly desire their liberty and freedom as much as anybody whatsoever. But I must tell you that their liberty and freedom consists in having of government those laws by which their life and their goods may be most their own. It is not for having a share in government; sir, that is nothing pertaining to them. A subject and a sovereign are clear different things. And therefore until they do that, I mean, that you do put the people in that liberty as I say, certainly they will never enjoy themselves. Sirs, it was for this that now I am come here. If I would have given way to an arbitrary way, for to have all laws changed according to the power of the sword, I needed not to have come here, and therefore I tell you … that I am the martyr of the people''.

	The king’s speech from the scaffold, 30 January 1649		The king’s speech from the scaffold, 30 January 1649


	==The Eikon Basilike==		==The Eikon Basilike==

Paulreed: /* The Eikon Basilike */

2015-01-01T16:37:44Z

The Eikon Basilike

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:37, 1 January 2015
Line 69:		Line 69:
	The authorities tried to suppress the book and commissioned [[person::John Milton]] to write an attack upon it, which he did in a book called Eikonoklastes (‘The Image Breaker’). But the authorities could not challenge the image of Charles presented in the Eikon Basilike as a gentle, moderate man, suffering on behalf of his people. The frontispiece, in particular, sums up the image of Charles contained in the book, showing the king as a Christian martyr, patiently enduring his Passion and following in the footsteps of Christ. *Eikon Basilike = ‘The Image of the King’		The authorities tried to suppress the book and commissioned [[person::John Milton]] to write an attack upon it, which he did in a book called Eikonoklastes (‘The Image Breaker’). But the authorities could not challenge the image of Charles presented in the Eikon Basilike as a gentle, moderate man, suffering on behalf of his people. The frontispiece, in particular, sums up the image of Charles contained in the book, showing the king as a Christian martyr, patiently enduring his Passion and following in the footsteps of Christ. *Eikon Basilike = ‘The Image of the King’

	Eikon Basilike went through some 35 editions in England and 25 in Ireland and abroad in 1649 alone. Many editions were printed in secrecy without the place or name of the printer/publisher appearing on the title page. Some merely carried the imprint "In R.M. Anno. Dom. 1648" (In memory of the king, 1648/1649). The first edition of the Eikon Basilike was issued by Richard Royston, whose shop had become a center of royalist activity. The Eikon Basilike, whether attacked or revered, was evidently a very popular work in whatever language or format it appeared. It is curious, therefore, that the authorship of the original treatise has not been definitely decided. Some asserted that the Eikon Basilike was at best a collaboration, with the primary responsibility for its composition falling on the shoulders of John Gauden, Bishop of Worcester.		Eikon Basilike went through some 35 editions in England and 25 in Ireland and abroad in 1649 alone. Many editions were printed in secrecy without the place or name of the printer/publisher appearing on the title page. Some merely carried the imprint "In R.M. Anno. Dom. 1648" (In memory of the king, 1648/1649). The first edition of the Eikon Basilike was issued by Richard Royston, whose shop had become a center of royalist activity. The Eikon Basilike, whether attacked (see[[person::John Milton]]or revered, was evidently a very popular work in whatever language or format it appeared. It is curious, therefore, that the authorship of the original treatise has not been definitely decided. Some asserted that the Eikon Basilike was at best a collaboration, with the primary responsibility for its composition falling on the shoulders of John Gauden, Bishop of Worcester (and Exeter).
			[[File:eikon_basilike.jpg]]

	==The Aftermath of Regicide==		==The Aftermath of Regicide==

Paulreed: /* The Trial of the King */

2014-12-31T23:06:12Z

The Trial of the King

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:06, 31 December 2014
Line 12:		Line 12:
	On 20th January 1649 King Charles was brought from Windsor to St James’s Palace. Security was tight as it was feared he would be captured by elements of the army. There were perhaps 5,000 spectators and it was likely very noisy with competing chants from both sides. The president of the High Court of Justice, [[person::John Bradshaw]], took his seat in Westminster Hall and the court commenced with 67 Commissioners. As well as Bradshaw and Cooke, other prosecutors are lost to history and are never heard of again such as John Aske. Many of the commissioners are low level functionaries of the regime and this added to Charles feeling of contempt. The charges against the King go back almost a year and were that the parliament which represented the sovereignty of the people and Charles 1 is both a tyrant traitor and a murderer. But they are continuing to fine tune the charges on the morning of the trial. Charles calls them a "Rump". (The 180 out of 400 or so MP's sympathetic to the Cromwell and the [[New Model Army]]). Instead of entering a plea, Charles asked by what lawful authority he was tried. If the court could answer that question to his satisfaction he would then enter a plea. When it was said he was being tried in the name of the people, Charles disputed this. The case was adjourned. On the Monday the case commenced and the king reiterated that the court could not try him legitimately. The second day of the trial ended in a stalemate, as did the third. On Wednesday the 24th, the court heard witnesses against the king in private and the following day resolved that there was enough evidence to sentence the king to death. The court reassembled on Saturday the 27th, but when Bradshaw tried to open the proceedings he was heckled by a masked lady in one of the public galleries; it was thought at the time that this lady might be Lady Fairfax. The muskets are levelled at the commander officer threatens to fire. You get a sense of the military presence at the trial Proceedings were further interrupted by one of the judges, [[person::John Downes]], who declared himself dissatisfied with the proceedings.		On 20th January 1649 King Charles was brought from Windsor to St James’s Palace. Security was tight as it was feared he would be captured by elements of the army. There were perhaps 5,000 spectators and it was likely very noisy with competing chants from both sides. The president of the High Court of Justice, [[person::John Bradshaw]], took his seat in Westminster Hall and the court commenced with 67 Commissioners. As well as Bradshaw and Cooke, other prosecutors are lost to history and are never heard of again such as John Aske. Many of the commissioners are low level functionaries of the regime and this added to Charles feeling of contempt. The charges against the King go back almost a year and were that the parliament which represented the sovereignty of the people and Charles 1 is both a tyrant traitor and a murderer. But they are continuing to fine tune the charges on the morning of the trial. Charles calls them a "Rump". (The 180 out of 400 or so MP's sympathetic to the Cromwell and the [[New Model Army]]). Instead of entering a plea, Charles asked by what lawful authority he was tried. If the court could answer that question to his satisfaction he would then enter a plea. When it was said he was being tried in the name of the people, Charles disputed this. The case was adjourned. On the Monday the case commenced and the king reiterated that the court could not try him legitimately. The second day of the trial ended in a stalemate, as did the third. On Wednesday the 24th, the court heard witnesses against the king in private and the following day resolved that there was enough evidence to sentence the king to death. The court reassembled on Saturday the 27th, but when Bradshaw tried to open the proceedings he was heckled by a masked lady in one of the public galleries; it was thought at the time that this lady might be Lady Fairfax. The muskets are levelled at the commander officer threatens to fire. You get a sense of the military presence at the trial Proceedings were further interrupted by one of the judges, [[person::John Downes]], who declared himself dissatisfied with the proceedings.

	John Milburn the [[Levellers\|Leveller]] for example was against the trial so was [[person::Thomas Fairfax]]. [[person::John Holles]], ? Pryn, [[person::Robert Harley]] (the man who cancelled Christmas) were all now considered moderate Presbyterian		John Milburn the [[Levellers\|Leveller]] for example was against the trial so was [[person::Thomas Fairfax]]. [[person::John Holles]], William Pryn, [[person::Robert Harley]] (the man who cancelled Christmas) were all now considered moderate Presbyterian

	==The Charge Against the King and his Reply and his diatribe with the Lord President==		==The Charge Against the King and his Reply and his diatribe with the Lord President==

Paulreed at 22:45, 31 December 2014

2014-12-31T22:45:00Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:45, 31 December 2014
Line 91:		Line 91:
	John Bradshaw contends that the sovereign’s power comes from the will of the Commons and he is accountable to them. It is certainly an interesting dialogue and it is a pity that this debate is had during the trial instead of being more thoroughly debated and argued. Of course, this provides a dilemma for Bradshaw, because if the King does not enter a plea and does not recognize the court it makes it difficult for any sentence to be legitimate in law or in the eyes of the people. I believe Bradshaw is non-plussed as much by Charles assertion that the court can show no precedent for its actions. The court in effect was reinterpreting the laws as it went along.		John Bradshaw contends that the sovereign’s power comes from the will of the Commons and he is accountable to them. It is certainly an interesting dialogue and it is a pity that this debate is had during the trial instead of being more thoroughly debated and argued. Of course, this provides a dilemma for Bradshaw, because if the King does not enter a plea and does not recognize the court it makes it difficult for any sentence to be legitimate in law or in the eyes of the people. I believe Bradshaw is non-plussed as much by Charles assertion that the court can show no precedent for its actions. The court in effect was reinterpreting the laws as it went along.

	<\references>		<references/>
	{{template:Civil War}}		{{template:Civil War}}

Paulreed at 22:44, 31 December 2014

2014-12-31T22:44:30Z

@@ Line 48: / Line 48: @@
 the court does heartily desire that you will seriously think of those evils that you stand guilty of. Sir, you said well to us the other day, you wished us to have God before our eyes. Truly, sir, I hope all of us have so.  That God that is the avenger of innocent blood. That God that does bestow a curse upon them that withhold their hands from shedding of blood, which is in the case of guilty malefactors and those that do deserve death''
 ==The Sentence==
@@ Line 90: / Line 72: @@
 ==The Aftermath of Regicide==
-Some historians have argued that the events between Pride’s Purge and the regicide were the culmination of revolution rather than the dawn of a new millennium and that the Army Grandees who sent Charles to his death intended this as a way of containing rather than encouraging further radical change
+Some historians have argued that the events between Pride’s Purge and the regicide were the culmination of revolution rather than the dawn of a new millennium and that the Army Grandees who sent Charles to his death intended this as a way of containing rather than encouraging further radical change.
 {{template:Civil War}}

Paulreed: /* Analysis */

2014-12-31T22:41:53Z

Analysis

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:41, 31 December 2014
Line 49:		Line 49:

	===Analysis===		===Analysis===
			It is difficult to say the will of the people was being expressed or thwarted by the trial. There were so many factions ranging from the zealots to the unreconstructed Royalists, the Army, the radicals and moderate Presbyterian and Anglicans. It was difficult for the people to follow insofar as this was nothing like a trial that the people has seen before. This is nothing like an English trial, law was by the king, not against the king there was no jury. There was no law under which the king could be tried. In many ways the people were spectators, fascinated with the proceedings as much as they were for, against or confused about where their allegiances lay.

			There is only one possible outcome when you put the king on trial for treachery. The other view was that the trial would force the king to accept a negotiated settlement. But in reality was this too late? On the other hand the commissioners retire to their chambers to discuss the prosecution of the trial. They asked him to admit guilt or more accurately make a plea. The English common law has a remedy for making someone plea. They would take outside and crush them between two stones. If they plea they can be condemned and if they refuse and die then their children can inherit. But the court cannot take the King outside and force a plea. Consequently this throws the court in to turmoil. More successful than refusing to plea he says he will plead if the Rump Parliament is disbanded and a representative Parliament is conveyed. ''I would know by what power, what lawful authority why I am brought hither. He continues to say that if they can do this to him they can try anyone this way.

			The court itself went out of its way to find legal precedents on which to try the King but for other 'Godly" commissioners such as Cromwell is concerned Charles has lost the civil war twice and this was divine providence from God and therefore they felt they were right to try him. The court did not prove that he was personally involved in any atrocities only that he was on the battlefield but had resisted Parliament and the routine violence was the King's fault and that he was plotting the Second Civil War and negotiating with the Scots to invade. Given his duplicity of the the King during the negotiations there was a general view that the only way to stop him was to kill him. The trial bumps along for seven days without really getting anywhere and eventually the commissioner, when they retire to the Painted Chamber for the umpteenth time decide they must come to a verdict. Charles suddenly realizes (and perhaps he was the only one who really did not understand the mood of the court) they they are moving towards his execution and he becomes animated and attempts to speak to the court. But it's too late. The court has made its judgment and no more evidence can be taken. It is said that as the true meaning of the verdict dawns upon him he gives out was parliamentarians say way a haughty "Har!" or what Royalists describe more as a verbal sharp catching of breath.


			It took four days to plan and build the scaffold for the execution. The king is delayed at his execution for four hours while the parliament passes the law to ensure that the new king cannot be proclaimed upon his death. Once he is led out on to the scaffold the judges have inserted metal rings to pin him to the block in case he struggles. He is also given a much lower block on which to place he his head. He is forces to lie on the block and not kneel making any escape that much more difficult. The executioners have donned disguises to avoid reprisals should they be recognized. Such is the ferment at the execution he cannot give the condemned man's speech to the crowd and is forced to give it to the immediate people around him and by all accounts dies a noble death.

			It is said this was the first political trial and a template for subsequent trails of leaders for crimes against the people from Louis XVII to the present day however inaccurate that depiction of the trial it may be.


	Much has be written about John Milton who took on the role as Parliament’s apologist for executing Charles 1st but as a counterpoint Thomas Hobbes gives us insight to why Charles argues that he was the embodiment of the will of the people and not parliament. Not being a political philosopher myself, my understanding is that, as far is Hobbes in concerned, democracy is a flawed model given that it is subject to constant changes in decision making. He believes that the king is the supreme leader and does not need the consent of parliament because there is a contract between each and every person that there is a sovereign who has one will and one voice to act on behalf of the nation and the people give up their individual rights. This is of course a fairly radical interpretation of a contract between people with their king but it would lead Charles at his trial to assert:		Much has be written about John Milton who took on the role as Parliament’s apologist for executing Charles 1st but as a counterpoint Thomas Hobbes gives us insight to why Charles argues that he was the embodiment of the will of the people and not parliament. Not being a political philosopher myself, my understanding is that, as far is Hobbes in concerned, democracy is a flawed model given that it is subject to constant changes in decision making. He believes that the king is the supreme leader and does not need the consent of parliament because there is a contract between each and every person that there is a sovereign who has one will and one voice to act on behalf of the nation and the people give up their individual rights. This is of course a fairly radical interpretation of a contract between people with their king but it would lead Charles at his trial to assert:

Paulreed: /* The Trial of the King */

2014-12-31T22:35:54Z

The Trial of the King

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 ==The Trial of the King==
 On 20th January 1649 King Charles was brought from Windsor to St James’s Palace. Security was tight as it was feared he would be captured by elements of the army. There were perhaps 5,000 spectators and it was likely very noisy with competing chants from both sides. The president of the High Court of Justice, [[person::John Bradshaw]], took his seat in Westminster Hall and the court commenced with 67 Commissioners. As well as Bradshaw and Cooke, other prosecutors are lost to history and are never heard of again such as John Aske. Many of the commissioners are low level functionaries of the regime and this added to Charles feeling of contempt. The charges against the King go back almost a year and were that the parliament which represented the sovereignty of the people and Charles 1 is both a tyrant traitor and a murderer. But they are continuing to fine tune the charges on the morning of the trial. Charles calls them a "Rump". (The 180 out of 400 or so MP's sympathetic to the Cromwell and the [[New Model Army]]).  Instead of entering a plea, Charles asked by what lawful authority he was tried. If the court could answer that question to his satisfaction he would then enter a plea. When it was said he was being tried in the name of the people, Charles disputed this. The case was adjourned. On the Monday the case commenced and the king reiterated that the court could not try him legitimately. The second day of the trial ended in a stalemate, as did the third. On Wednesday the 24th, the court heard witnesses against the king in private and the following day resolved that there was enough evidence to sentence the king to death. The court reassembled on Saturday the 27th, but when Bradshaw tried to open the proceedings he was heckled by a masked lady in one of the public galleries; it was thought at the time that this lady might be Lady Fairfax. The muskets are levelled at the commander officer threatens to fire. You get a sense of the military presence at the trial Proceedings were further interrupted by one of the judges, [[person::John Downes]], who declared himself dissatisfied with the proceedings.
 John Milburn the [[Levellers|Leveller]] for example was against the trial so was [[person::Thomas Fairfax]]. [[person::John Holles]], ? Pryn, [[person::Robert Harley]] (the man who cancelled Christmas) were all now considered moderate Presbyterian
 ==The Charge Against the King and his Reply and his diatribe with the Lord President==

Paulreed: /* The Trial of the King */

2014-12-31T22:33:41Z

The Trial of the King

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 ==The Trial of the King==
-On 19 January 1649 King Charles was brought from Windsor to St James’s Palace.  The president of the High Court of Justice, [[person::John Bradshaw]], took his seat in Westminster Hall and the court commenced. Instead of entering a plea, Charles asked by what lawful authority he was tried. If the court could answer that question to his satisfaction he would then enter a plea. When it was said he was being tried in the name of the people, Charles disputed this. The case was adjourned. On the Monday the case commenced and the king reiterated that the court could not try him legitimately. The second day of the trial ended in a stalemate, as did the third. On Wednesday the 24th, the court heard witnesses against the king in private and the following day resolved that there was enough evidence to sentence the king to death. The court reassembled on Saturday the 27th, but when Bradshaw tried to open the proceedings he was heckled by a masked lady in one of the public galleries; it was thought at the time that this lady might be Lady Fairfax. Proceedings were further interrupted by one of the judges, John Downes, who declared himself dissatisfied with the proceedings.
+On 20th January 1649 King Charles was brought from Windsor to St James’s Palace. Security was tight as it was feared he would be captured by elements of the army. There were perhaps 5,000 spectators and it was likely very noisy with competing chants from both sides. The president of the High Court of Justice, [[person::John Bradshaw]], took his seat in Westminster Hall and the court commenced with 67 Commissioners. As well as Bradshaw and Cooke, other prosecutors are lost to history and are never heard of again such as John Aske. Many of the commissioners are low level functionaries of the regime and this added to Charles feeling of contempt. The charges against the King go back almost a year and were that the parliament which represented the sovereignty of the people and Charles 1 is both a tyrant traitor and a murderer. But they are continuing to fine tune the charges on the morning of the trial. Charles calls them a "Rump". (The 180 out of 400 or so MP's sympathetic to the Cromwell and the [[New Model Army]]).  Instead of entering a plea, Charles asked by what lawful authority he was tried. If the court could answer that question to his satisfaction he would then enter a plea. When it was said he was being tried in the name of the people, Charles disputed this. The case was adjourned. On the Monday the case commenced and the king reiterated that the court could not try him legitimately. The second day of the trial ended in a stalemate, as did the third. On Wednesday the 24th, the court heard witnesses against the king in private and the following day resolved that there was enough evidence to sentence the king to death. The court reassembled on Saturday the 27th, but when Bradshaw tried to open the proceedings he was heckled by a masked lady in one of the public galleries; it was thought at the time that this lady might be Lady Fairfax. The muskets are levelled at the commander officer threatens to fire. You get a sense of the military presence at the trial Proceedings were further interrupted by one of the judges, [[person::John Downes]], who declared himself dissatisfied with the proceedings.
 ==The Charge Against the King and his Reply and his diatribe with the Lord President==

Paulreed: /* The Rump Parliament */

2014-12-26T19:06:14Z

The Rump Parliament

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:06, 26 December 2014
Line 7:		Line 7:

	==The Rump Parliament==		==The Rump Parliament==
	The purged Parliament proceeded to reject the Treaty of Newport and began to prepare the way for the trial of the king. By 22 December the king had been moved from Hurst Castle to Windsor. On 4 January the House of Commons declared itself to be the sole legitimate authority within the kingdom, denying any role to the House of Lords, and on the 6th passed an act, which was a corollary of its vote on the 4th, establishing a High Court of Justice to try the king. Cromwell recognized that they key question would be the authority of the High Court. '' I desire ye to let us resolve here right now what answers we shall give when the king comes before us, for the first question he will ask us is by what authority and commission do we try him''		The purged Parliament proceeded to reject the Treaty of Newport and began to prepare the way for the trial of the king. By 22 December the king had been moved from Hurst Castle to Windsor. On 4 January the House of Commons declared itself to be the sole legitimate authority within the kingdom, denying any role to the House of Lords, and on the 6th passed an act, which was a corollary of its vote on the 4th, establishing a High Court of Justice to try the king. Cromwell recognized that they key question would be the authority of the High Court. '' I desire ye to let us resolve here right now what answers we shall give when the king comes before us, for the first question he will ask us is by what authority and commission do we try him''. For [person::Henry Marten]], the radical it was in the name of the Commons and Parliament. For Cromwell it was a higher authority. It was Providence of God

	==The Trial of the King==		==The Trial of the King==

Paulreed: /* The Rump Parliament */

2014-12-26T19:02:48Z

The Rump Parliament

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:02, 26 December 2014
Line 7:		Line 7:

	==The Rump Parliament==		==The Rump Parliament==
	The purged Parliament proceeded to reject the Treaty of Newport and began to prepare the way for the trial of the king. By 22 December the king had been moved from Hurst Castle to Windsor. On 4 January the House of Commons declared itself to be the sole legitimate authority within the kingdom, denying any role to the House of Lords, and on the 6th passed an act, which was a corollary of its vote on the 4th, establishing a High Court of Justice to try the king.		The purged Parliament proceeded to reject the Treaty of Newport and began to prepare the way for the trial of the king. By 22 December the king had been moved from Hurst Castle to Windsor. On 4 January the House of Commons declared itself to be the sole legitimate authority within the kingdom, denying any role to the House of Lords, and on the 6th passed an act, which was a corollary of its vote on the 4th, establishing a High Court of Justice to try the king. Cromwell recognized that they key question would be the authority of the High Court. '' I desire ye to let us resolve here right now what answers we shall give when the king comes before us, for the first question he will ask us is by what authority and commission do we try him''

	==The Trial of the King==		==The Trial of the King==