BS: 1649

Subject: BS: 1649
From: Le Scaramouche
Date: 19 Oct 05 - 01:16 PM

Saturday, 20 January, 1649

That [he] the said Charles Stuart, being admitted King of England and therein trusted with a limited power to govern by and according to the laws of the land and not otherwise, and by his trust, oath, and office being obliged to use the power committed to him for the good and benefit of the people and for the preservation of their rights and liberties, yet nevertheless out of a wicked design to erect and uphold in himself an unlimited and tyrannical power to rule according to his will, and to overthrow the rights and liberties of the people, yea to take away and make void the foundations thereof and of all redress and remedy of misgovernment, which by the fundamental constitutions of this kingdom were reserved on the people's behalf in the right and power of frequent and successive Parliaments or National Meetings in Council, he (the said Charles Stuart) for accomplishment of such his designs and for the protecting of himself and his adherents in his and their wicked practices to the same ends, hath traitorously and maliciously levied war against the present Parliament and the people therein represented. * * *

The charge being read, the Lord President replied: "Sir, you have now heard your charge read, containing such matter as appears in it. You find that in the close of it, it is prayed to the court in the behalf of the Commons of England that you answer to your charge. The court expects your answer."

The King: I would know by what power I am called hither. * * * And when I know what lawful authority, I shall answer. Remember, I am your King — your lawful King — and what sins you bring upon your heads and the judgment of God upon this land, think well upon it — I say think well upon it — before you go further from one sin to a greater. Therefore let me know by what lawful authority I am seated here and I shall not be unwilling to answer. In the meantime, I shall not betray my trust. I have a trust committed to me by God, by old and lawful descent. >> note 4 I will not betray it to answer to a new unlawful authority. Therefore, resolve me that, and you shall hear more of me.

Lord President: If you had been pleased to have observed what was hinted to you by the court at your first coming hither, you would have known by what authority. Which authority requires you — in the name of the people of England, of which you are the elected King — to answer them.

The King: No, sir, I deny that.

Lord President: If you acknowledge not the authority of the court, they must proceed.

The King: I do tell them so — England was never an elective kingdom but an hereditary kingdom for near these thousand years. Therefore, let me know by what authority I am called hither. I do stand more for the liberty of my people than any here that come to be my pretended judges. And therefore let me know by what lawful authority I am seated here, and I will answer it. Otherwise, I will not answer it.

Lord President: Sir, how really you have managed your trust is known. Your way of answer is to interrogate the court, which beseems not you in this condition. You have been told of it twice or thrice.

* * *

Monday, 22 January 1649.

Lord President: Sir, you may remember, at the last court you were told the occasion of your being brought hither and you heard a charge against you containing a charge of High Treason and other high crimes against this realm of England. You heard likewise that it was prayed in behalf of the people that you should give an answer to that charge, that thereupon such proceedings might be had as should be agreeable to justice. You were then pleased to make some scruples concerning the authority of the court, and knew not by what authority you were brought hither. You did divers times propound your question and were as often answered that it was by the authority of the Commons of England assembled in Parliament that did think fit to call you to account for those high and capital misdemeanors wherewith you were then charged. Since that, the court hath taken into consideration what you then said. They are fully satisfied with their own authority and they hold it fit you should stand satisfied with it too, and they do require it that you do give a positive and particular answer to this charge that is exhibited against you. Their authority they do avow to the whole world that the whole kingdom are to rest satisfied with it. And thereunto you are to lose no more time, but give a positive answer thereunto.

The King: When I was here last, 'tis very true I made that question. And truly, if it were only my own particular case, I would have satisfied myself with the protestation I made the last time I was here against the legality of this court and that a King cannot be tried by any superior jurisdiction on earth. But it is not my case alone — it is the freedom and the liberty of the people of England. And do you pretend what you will, I stand more for their liberties — for if the power without law may make laws, may alter the fundamental laws of the kingdom, I do not know what subject he is in England that can be sure of his life or anything that he calls his own. Therefore, when that I came here I did expect particular reasons to know by what law, what authority, you did proceed against me here. * * *

Lord President: Sir, you have offered something to the court. I shall speak something unto you — the sense of the court. Sir, neither you nor any man are permitted to dispute that point. You are concluded. You may not demur [to] the jurisdiction of the court — if you do, I must let you know that they overrule your demurrer. >> note 5 They sit here by the authority of the Commons of England, and all your predecessors and you are responsible to them —

The King: I deny that. Show me one precedent.

Lord President: Sir, you ought not to interrupt while the court is speaking to you. This point is not to be debated by you, neither will the court permit you to do it. If you offer it by way of demurrer to the jurisdiction of the court, they have considered of their jurisdiction. They do affirm their own jurisdiction.

* * *

Tuesday, 23 January 1649.

* * * This court took into consideration the managing of the business of the court this day in the hall and the King's refusal to answer (notwithstanding he had been three several times demanded and required thereunto) and have thereupon fully approved of what on the court's part had then passed, and resolved that notwithstanding the said contumacy of the King and refusal to plead (which in law amounts to a standing mute and tacit confession of the charge) and notwithstanding the notoriety of the fact charged, the court would nevertheless, however, examine witnesses for the further and clearer satisfaction of their own judgments and consciences, the manner of whose examination was referred to further consideration [at] the next sitting, and warrants were accordingly issued forth for summoning of witnesses.

* * *

Saturday, 27 January 1649.

* * * The Prisoner is brought to the Bar, and proclamation is again (as formerly) made for silence, and the Captain of the Guard ordered to take into his custody all such as should disturb the court. * * *

Some discourse [was] used by the President for vindicating the Parliament's justice, explaining the nature of the crimes of which the Prisoner stood charged, and for which he was to be condemned, and by way of exhortation of the Prisoner for serious repentance of his high transgressions against God and the people and to prepare for his eternal condition.

* * *

Lord President: The court then, sir, hath something else to say unto you, which, although I know it will be very unacceptable, yet notwithstanding they are willing and are resolved to discharge their duty. * * *

Sir, the difference has been: who shall be the expositors of this law, sir? Whether you and your party, out of courts of justice, shall take upon them to expound the law, or the courts of justice who are the expounders — nay, the sovereign and highest court of justice, the Parliament of England, that is not only the highest expounder but the sole maker of the law. Sir, for you to set yourself with your single judgment, and those that adhere unto you to set themselves against the resolution of the highest court of justice — that is not law. Sir, as the law is your superior, so truly, sir, there is something that is superior to the law and that is indeed the parent or author of the law — and that is the people of England. For, sir, as they are those that at the first (as other countries have done) did choose to themselves this form of government, even for justice's sake, that justice might be administered, that peace might be preserved, so, sir, they gave laws to their governors, according to which they should govern. And if those laws should have proved inconvenient or prejudicial to the public, they had a power in them, a power reserved and innate to alter them as they should see cause. * * *

Sir, the term traitor cannot be spared. We shall easily agree it must denote and suppose a breach of trust, and it must suppose it to be done by a superior. And therefore, sir, as the people of England might have incurred that respecting you, if they had been truly guilty of it as to the definition of law, so on the other side when you did break your trust to the kingdom, you did break your trust to your superior. For the kingdom is that for which you were trusted. And therefore, sir, for this breach of trust when you are called to account, you are called to account by your superiors — "when a king is summoned to judgment by the people, the lesser is summoned by the greater." And, sir, the people of England cannot be so far wanting to themselves, God having dealt so miraculously and gloriously for them, they having power in their hands and their great enemy, they must proceed to do justice to themselves and to you. For, sir, the court could heartily desire that you would lay your hand upon your heart and consider what you have done amiss, that you would endeavor to make your peace with God.

Truly, sir, these are your high crimes — tyranny and treason. And there is a third thing too, if those had not been, and that is murder, which is laid to your charge. All the bloody murders that have been committed since the time that the division was betwixt you and your people must be laid to your charge that have been acted or committed in these late wars. * * * Sir, all I shall say before the reading of your sentence it is but this — 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 we know is a King of Kings and Lord of Lords, that God with whom there is no respect of persons, that God that is the avenger of innocent blood — we have that God before us, 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.

* * *

Subject: RE: BS: 1649
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 Oct 05 - 02:42 PM

I remember 1949. (Sorry)

Subject: RE: BS: 1649
From: gnu
Date: 19 Oct 05 - 02:43 PM

Hmmm... keep up the gun control. The newly anoited won't subjugate the masses. Not like it ever happened before, right?

Subject: RE: BS: 1649
From: gnu
Date: 19 Oct 05 - 02:44 PM

Of course, they can spell anointed.

Subject: RE: BS: 1649
From: open mike
Date: 19 Oct 05 - 03:03 PM

1649 to St. George's Hill
a ragged band they called the Diggers
came to show the people's will...

The World Turned Upside Down,
Leon Rosselson

Subject: RE: BS: 1649
From: Le Scaramouche
Date: 19 Oct 05 - 03:10 PM

Read first paragraph again and see why it's relevant.

Subject: RE: BS: 1649
From: Cluin
Date: 19 Oct 05 - 04:02 PM

You think Dubya should be beheaded?

Leaves you with a Cromwell. Out of the frying pan...

Subject: RE: BS: 1649
From: Le Scaramouche
Date: 19 Oct 05 - 04:42 PM

Who said anything about Dubyah?

Subject: RE: BS: 1649
From: TheBigPinkLad
Date: 19 Oct 05 - 06:43 PM

Le Scaramouche: Are you presenting Charles I--one of only two English heads of state to be beheaded--as Saddam?

Subject: RE: BS: 1649
From: paddymac
Date: 19 Oct 05 - 07:26 PM

Fascinating stuff - funny how the kings of peoples and their followers are thought answerable to the people, but the "king of kings" and his followers hold themselves answerable to none. Messy little problem, I suppose.

Subject: RE: BS: 1649
From: GUEST,Le Scaramouche
Date: 20 Oct 05 - 09:49 AM

I am saying that the parallels between the trials are quite fascinating. Look at the language used for both, and look at the defence adopted by the acused.

Subject: RE: BS: 1649
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 20 Oct 05 - 12:57 PM

And look at how those who persecuted the king ended, accused of Regicide, and Cromwell's body disinterred from his grave and hung upon a public scaffold.

There are, unfortunately, great parallels here.


For the deposing of Saddam, and the consequent chaos in Iraq, one can go back much further, to the teachings of Christ. Luke 11; 24-26

24 "When an unclean spirit goes out of a man, he goes through dry places, seeking rest; and finding none, he says, 'I will return to my house from which I came.' 25 And when he comes, he finds it swept and put in order. 26 Then he goes and takes with him seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter and dwell there; and the last state of that man is worse than the first."

Making the point that Saddam should not have been deposed without a firm plan for how he should be replaced.


Nigel

Subject: RE: BS: 1649
From: TheBigPinkLad
Date: 20 Oct 05 - 01:03 PM

Nothing would guarantee Saddam's martyrdom more effectively than using a religious "authority' to condemn him.

Subject: RE: BS: 1649
From: robomatic
Date: 20 Oct 05 - 03:40 PM

I started a thread linking the Trial of Saddam with the events in England of this period. What is the point of starting this thread?

Subject: RE: BS: 1649
From: Le Scaramouche
Date: 20 Oct 05 - 05:52 PM

I never saw your thread. When did you start it?

Subject: RE: BS: 1649
From: Le Scaramouche
Date: 20 Oct 05 - 05:54 PM

Ok, I missed it, but mine is a lot fuller.

Subject: RE: BS: 1649
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Oct 05 - 08:28 AM

1649 to St. George's Hill
a ragged band they called the Diggers
came to show the people's will...

The World Turned Upside Down,
Leon Rosselson

http://www.mudcat.org/@displaysong.cfm?SongID=7972

Subject: RE: BS: 1649
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Oct 05 - 08:30 AM

The Trial of Saddam

Subject: RE: BS: 1649
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 21 Oct 05 - 06:07 PM

As Nigel pointed out, Charles II had those who had sentenced his father to death and were still alive tried for regicide and executed.
I suspect that the U. S. and UK will learn in less than 11 years that Iwithout a strong dictatorial government, civil war and fragmentation will result. By the time they learn, however, many more will be slaughtered.

Subject: RE: BS: 1649
From: robomatic
Date: 21 Oct 05 - 10:16 PM

Thank you "The" and "Scara-"

I'm wondering if social and political organizations must go through stages as we were taught in history, feudalism, mercantilism, capitalism, etc. and the lesson here is you can't skip steps.

I do not really believe this. I think it is possible to attempt to do a thing that's worth doing, but do it so haplessly, unluckily, etc. that things get worse.

I do not think that history recapitulates destiny. I think Homer Simpson was more to the point when he said: "History is just stuff that happens."