THE TRIAL AND EXECUTION OF CHARLES I

This article challenges the recent interpretation of the trial of Charles I which sees it as an ‘ extended negotiation ’, an attempt to achieve a settlement with the king, and depicts the execution as the byproduct, contingent and reluctantly undertaken, of the failure of that attempt. This argument was developed by Dr Sean Kelsey in a number of articles, not least one in this journal, and has been embodied in recently published general works on the period. I argue that this revisionist account of on-going negotiation with Charles I up to and during the trial is defective. It relies on an uncritical approach to the evidence, particularly that distilled from newspaper accounts. It misunderstands the significance of several key texts, notably the army’s November Remonstrance, the Act establishing the High Court of Justice, and the charge against the king. Finally, it emphasizes a unity of purpose among conservative judges eager to do a deal with Charles, and fails to comprehend the force of the army’s and Cromwell’s insistence on public justice upon ‘ this man against whom the Lord hath witnessed ’.