The first problem was to get judges, or at least a sufficient number of judges, to preside over this irregular court. The initial drafts of the Bill had named the two Chief Justices (of the King's Bench and of Common Pleas), Henry Rolle and Oliver St John as well as Lord Chief Baron Wilde of the Exchequer Court to preside at the King's trial. All had refused to serve. Their names were therefore omitted. Although all of the named judges had lately been appointed by Parliament and were strong opponents of the King, each had long experience in the courts. Clearly each regarded the new "High Court of Justice" as outside the law because of the axiom of English law, universally accepted at that time, that all justice proceeded from the sovereign. In the absence of Lord Chief Justice St John the Commissioners chose for the office of President one John Bradshaw. He had been a judge of the Sheriff's Court in London. He had recently been appointed the Presiding Judge in Chester and a Judge in Wales. Bradshaw protested the insufficiency of his experience for so great a task. But he was eventually persuaded to take the chair. He accepted the title of "Lord President" 13 . Four lawyers were chosen to prosecute the King. The most vigorous of these was the Solicitor-General John Cook, a barrister of Gray's Inn and a man of considerable education. He combined fervent religious faith with convinced republicanism and a considerable interest in moral and social reform. He was assisted by a distinguished scholar from the Netherlands, Dr Isaac Dorislaus, who had once been Professor of Ancient History at Cambridge University where he had expressed views subversive of monarchy. Cook and Dorislaus took great pains, and much time, in drafting the charge. It was decided that the King should be tried at the South End of Westminster Hall. To permit this to be done space was cleared by removing the partitions between the Court of King's Bench and the Court of Cha...
