Testimony, Tyranny and Treason: The Witnesses at Charles I's Trial

TY - JOUR

T1 - Testimony, Tyranny and Treason: The Witnesses at Charles I's Trial

AU - Vallance, Edward

PY - 2021/11/11

Y1 - 2021/11/11

N2 - The trial and execution of Charles I have been the subject of considerable historical study, especially in the last twenty years. One aspect of the trial, however, remains largely unexplored: the role of witness testimony. The witness depositions received on 24 and 25 January 1649 have sometimes been dismissed as a mere stalling tactic, intended to provide Charles with further time to consider entering a plea. In contrast, this article contends that the witnesses’ depositions shed important new light on the trial. Exploring the witnesses’ backgrounds allows us to connect individuals with the regiments of regicides such as John Hewson and John Barkstead. These connections, through the army petitions of 1648, also link the witnesses’ testimony and, in broader terms, the trial, with the radical ideas of justice embodied in the Levellers’ ‘Large Petition’. Connecting the trial with the arguments made in the petitions for justice of the autumn and winter of 1648/9 also allows us to reconsider the importance of the concept of ‘blood guilt’. This article suggests that, far from being marginal to the king’s trial, the multi-faceted idea of blood guilt not only influenced the court’s procedure (in terms of the calling of multiple witnesses) but also was central to many of the witness depositions. Finally, drawing on both historical and philosophical work on personal testimony, the article suggests that the witness depositions may be connected to the broader, non-legal purposes of ‘witnessing’ in offering narratives of personal suffering.

AB - The trial and execution of Charles I have been the subject of considerable historical study, especially in the last twenty years. One aspect of the trial, however, remains largely unexplored: the role of witness testimony. The witness depositions received on 24 and 25 January 1649 have sometimes been dismissed as a mere stalling tactic, intended to provide Charles with further time to consider entering a plea. In contrast, this article contends that the witnesses’ depositions shed important new light on the trial. Exploring the witnesses’ backgrounds allows us to connect individuals with the regiments of regicides such as John Hewson and John Barkstead. These connections, through the army petitions of 1648, also link the witnesses’ testimony and, in broader terms, the trial, with the radical ideas of justice embodied in the Levellers’ ‘Large Petition’. Connecting the trial with the arguments made in the petitions for justice of the autumn and winter of 1648/9 also allows us to reconsider the importance of the concept of ‘blood guilt’. This article suggests that, far from being marginal to the king’s trial, the multi-faceted idea of blood guilt not only influenced the court’s procedure (in terms of the calling of multiple witnesses) but also was central to many of the witness depositions. Finally, drawing on both historical and philosophical work on personal testimony, the article suggests that the witness depositions may be connected to the broader, non-legal purposes of ‘witnessing’ in offering narratives of personal suffering.

KW - Charles I

KW - execution

KW - treason

KW - witnesses

KW - trial

KW - regicide

U2 - https://doi.org/10.1093/ehr/ceab272

DO - https://doi.org/10.1093/ehr/ceab272

M3 - Article

SN - 0013-8266

VL - 136

SP - 867

EP - 893

JO - The English Historical Review

JF - The English Historical Review

IS - 581

ER -