Second Civil War, Pride's Purge and regicide
Charles I’s Gamble: The Second Civil War
After his defeat in 1646, Charles I was not a prisoner in the modern sense — he retained considerable freedom to negotiate. He used this time not to reach a genuine settlement but to play different factions off against each other. In December 1647 he signed a secret treaty (the Engagement) with Scottish commissioners, promising to establish Presbyterianism in England for three years in exchange for a Scottish invasion on his behalf.
In 1648 a series of Royalist uprisings broke out across England — in Kent, Essex and Wales — coordinated with a Scottish invasion. This Second Civil War was suppressed with speed and ruthlessness. Cromwell crushed the Scots at the Battle of Preston in August 1648. To many in the army, the Second Civil War was worse than the first: Charles had knowingly invited foreign invasion and domestic rebellion after already being defeated. Army officers began to use the word “traitor” for their former king.
In December 1647 Charles signed the Engagement with the Scots, promising three years of Presbyterianism in exchange for a Scottish invasion. When this plan failed at Preston (August 1648), army hardliners concluded Charles could never be trusted in any peace settlement.
Pride’s Purge: December 1648
Despite the army’s hostility, Parliament’s Presbyterian majority continued to negotiate with Charles through the Newport Treaty talks. The army saw this as treachery. On 6 December 1648, Colonel Thomas Pride stationed soldiers at the entrance to the House of Commons and physically prevented around 140 Presbyterian MPs from taking their seats — an act of military purge known as Pride’s Purge. Many were arrested; others withdrew voluntarily. What remained was the Rump Parliament — a small minority of MPs who were willing to proceed against the King.
Trying a king presented enormous legal difficulties. In English law, the King was the source of justice — courts acted in his name. There was no legal precedent for a court judging the monarch. The Rump Parliament declared itself supreme and established the High Court of Justice. However, when the Lords refused to participate, the Rump proceeded without them. Many lawyers and contemporaries regarded the court as constitutionally illegitimate. John Bradshaw, the court’s president, wore a bullet-proof hat at the trial, fearing assassination.
The Trial of Charles I: January 1649
The trial ran from 20 to 27 January 1649. Charles refused to acknowledge the court’s authority. He argued that no court had the power to try a king, and that by accepting its jurisdiction he would legitimise a precedent that could destroy the English constitution. His silence in the face of charges was therefore a principled constitutional stand, not simple stubbornness. This refusal meant no defence was mounted and the proceedings became one-sided.
Charles was found guilty of making war upon his people and sentenced to death. On 30 January 1649, he was beheaded on a scaffold outside the Banqueting House in Whitehall. Eyewitnesses reported a groan from the crowd when the axe fell. Charles died with great dignity, insisting he died as a martyr for the Church of England and for the people, “a subject and a sovereign are clean different things.” His execution shocked the courts of Europe.
Charles I refused to recognise the court’s authority, arguing that no court had jurisdiction to try a king, whose authority came from God. He was executed on 30 January 1649 outside the Banqueting House, Whitehall.
Commonwealth Proclaimed: 1649
In the weeks after the execution the Rump Parliament abolished the monarchy and the House of Lords and proclaimed England a Commonwealth. This was a revolutionary act — England had become a republic. However, the Commonwealth rested on a narrowly-based parliament that lacked popular legitimacy. It faced immediate threats: Royalist resistance in Ireland led by the Catholic Confederacy, and in Scotland where Charles II was proclaimed king.
Historians remain divided on the regicide. Some (e.g. Sean Kelsey) argue the court hoped to force Charles into a settlement, and that his refusal to plead — not a fixed plan to kill him — drove it to a death sentence. Others (e.g. Blair Worden) emphasise the army’s determination that there could be no settlement while Charles lived — his duplicity in the Engagement had made a treaty impossible. Both perspectives agree that the trial was legally anomalous: constituted by a purged parliament, with the Lords excluded, and with most of the appointed judges absent on the day of sentencing. The regicide divided the English political nation and shocked Protestant Europe.