§ LORD ASHBOURNEMy Lords, I have listened with pleasure to the statement made by the noble Earl who has just spoken for His Majesty's Government. Warren Hastings left a name and a fame that were long connected with Westminster Hall, for I think the impeachment and its completion occupied something over seven years. My noble friend Lord Curzon, in introducing the subject this evening, mentioned two other tablets which are in Westminster Hall, and I intimated privately to the noble Earl that I would take the opportunity of referring to one of these tablets, that relating to Charles I, which in my opinion contains words that are inaccurate and therefore misleading.
The words on that tablet are as follows:—
This tablet marks the spot where Charles Stuart, King of England, stood before the Court which sat pursuant to the ordinance for erecting a High Court of Justice for his trial which was read the first, second and third time and passed by Parliament on the 4th January, 1648–9.Casual circumstances drew my attention particularly to this tablet, and on reading it closely I was struck by the fact that it was false in fact and therefore false in history. Any one reading the inscription on that tablet would think that the King "stood" like any criminal before the Court. That is not according to history. I do not discuss now the position of Charles I, or the trial, or anything connected with it; but every one knows that Charles I repudiated the whole tribunal, its constitution as a Court of Justice and everything connected with it. So far from standing before the tribunal he sat the whole time with his head covered. He did not acknowledge them in the smallest degree.I looked this afternoon at a most interesting volume in your Lordships' library entitled "The Trial of Charles I," which records everything that was done and every syllable that was said from the beginning to the end of the proceedings. The King had no counsel and no advisers, and his position throughout was uniform and clear. He said—
I do not recognise you as a Court. You are not a Court. No law has brought me here. I repudiate the whole position.And he remained throughout, not standing 193 before the tribunal but sitting and covered, and any one will find that Clarendon in his "History of the Civil War" has an interesting picture of the trial showing the King sitting in his seat and covered. It is worthy of note that that picture was copied into Lord Morley's "Life of Oliver Cromwell," a book that I am sure many of your Lordships have read with the attention and respect which every one would give to a work by such a distinguished writer as Lord Morley. The noble Viscount introduced the picture and has many statements in reference to this trial that are of the highest interest. Speaking of the constitution of the tribunal he says that it might he called "neither better nor worse than a drumhead court martial," and he points out that, the word "ordinance" should have been "resolution." "Parliament" is an unfortunate word to bring into the inscription when we remember that only fifty Members of the House of Commons could be found to assemble to pass the resolution, and that any Peers who could be collected at the time declined to give their assent to it. In these circumstances Lord Morley points out that the legal authority of the tribunal was small, and not to be regarded as stronger.I do not wish to discuss these matters of history. All I am suggesting is that the tablet should only record facts that are past controversy. The present tablet is a misleading one. It states in terms that the King "stood" before this tribunal, and that the tribunal was one which had the sanction of being passed by Parliament. I submit that a statement of the bare facts is all that should appear on the tablet. My point is that the word "stood" is improper and misleading, and that the reference to Parliament, unless seriously qualified, is untrue in fact. If the words about standing or sitting suggest any difficulty, words could be placed on the tablet stating that it marked the position occupied by the King on the occasion I have referred to. I think it would be well, when considering the tablet to be placed to commemorate the great name referred to by Lord Curzon, that the noble Earl should also consider the removal of the present tablet concerning Charles I and substitute one more in harmony with the facts of the case.
§ EARL BEAUCHAMPI am sure your Lordships will agree that this subject, if it is less important than many we discuss in this House, is also more interesting than some. I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord for having been good enough to give me notice of his intention to raise this question, because it has enabled me to discover more mistakes in the inscription than those to which the noble and learned Lord has referred. I am not quite sure that I should approve of the alternative he suggests or that in the particular he mentions there is any real need for alteration. The tablet states that it marks the spot where King Charles stood for his trial.
§ LORD ASHBOURNENo; stood before the Court.
§ EARL BEAUCHAMPI submit that what the phrase means is that he stood for his trial. That is a common phrase, and one which I think is used quite irrespective of the particular attitude assumed by the person who is undergoing his trial. "Stood for his trial" is not a phrase which is very easy to improve upon. But I have been able to make some inquiries as to a similar use of the word "stood," and I came down prepared with a large number of quotations from classical authors which would, I hope, have convinced the noble and learned Lord opposite that there was nothing improper in the use in this case of the word "stood."
§ LORD ASHBOURNENot improper, but wrong.
§ EARL BEAUCHAMPOur distinguished librarian has furnished me with a quotation from Wordsworth's Prelude, which I hope will by itself, without the necessity of reading the other quotations, be sufficient to satisfy the noble and learned Lord. Of course, nobody thinks that the word "stood" in this connection means the particular attitude assumed, but that that was the spot where he remained during his trial. This quotation runs, "Rising or sitting would he stand alone," the word "stand" obviously referring to either attitude of rising or of sitting.
§ EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTONTo whom does that refer?
§ EARL BEAUCHAMPI am not sure. The real point is that it is a question of remaining in one spot. The notice of the noble and learned Lord's Question enabled me to discover one or two other mistakes which seem to have been made in this particular inscription. One of them deals with the word "Ordinance." The proper word should be "Act," seeing that in Gardiner's History of the great Civil War he says that the word "Ordinance" had been dropped and that the word "Act" was the proper one.
§ LORD ASHBOURNELord Morley says "resolution" is the proper word.
§ EARL BEAUCHAMPThen, again, the date, instead of being January 4, ought to be January 6; and I am also told that the First, Second, and Third Readings of the Act were not on one day as they are stated on the tablet to have been. Therefore there is something very wrong with this tablet, and I shall be happy to consider the question of making an alteration in it. But I confess that I cannot feel quite sure when I do make an alteration that the word "stood" will not remain in the inscription. I shall, however, be glad to consider the matter, and will try to consult with some such literary authorities as those mentioned, and I hope the noble and learned Lord opposite will be willing to abide by their judgment. There is justification, and a very curious justification, for fixing tablets of this kind with proper inscriptions upon them from the fact that in St. Stephen's Hall at the present time there are eight little brass tablets in the floor, four of which mark the spot where the Speaker's Chair used to stand before the burning of the House, and four mark the place where the Table used to be; and there is also in the Hall a tablet which marks the spot where the Bar of the old House of Commons used to be. There are those nine little brass tablets, but I doubt if any large number of your Lordships who go through that Hall either coining to or going from this House have ever remarked the fact. I think there is great justification for seeing that a proper inscription is put on both of the tablets referred to.
§ THE EARL OF VERULAMI suggest that the wording should be "stood his trial" instead of "stood for his trial." That would explain the position and would be in accordance with common-sense.
§ EARL BEAUCHAMPI will gladly consider the suggestion.