Did Charles Receive a Fair Trial? Essay Example

standard at Nottingham. This was true, or so we have learnt (!?). Next a soldier who had changed sides from the king to the parliamentarians gave evidence against Charles which put him across as brutal, not caring for his prisoners that were being mistreated, not caring for his own people, saying they were his enemies. Then a letter from Charles to his son was shown, showing that while he was talking with parliament about a peace settlement he was also asking his son to get together another army to fight. This could have been true, as it was known that he had written to the Scots and persuaded them to attack England, and started a second civil war, killing many of his own people.

Charles was then promised he could make a speech before the verdict was read out. When he said he had a peace plan to show the House of Commons, he was not allowed to show them. Then, when he asked to make a statement, he was not allowed to do this either. He was not allowed to say anything to defend himself. Charles was then pronounced guilty, because 'It was the king's duty to see that Parliaments were called frequently.' Because Charles had not done this he had therefore attacked the basic liberties of everyone in the country, or so was protested by Bradshaw.

The trial received by Charles was quite obviously biased towards the prosecution and unfair. There was nothing allowed to be done or said to defend Charles- not even by himself. Only 59 of the 132 judges signed Charles' death warrant, and some had to be forced to do so.

Hardly

any of the trial was fair, although some of the evidence given and perhaps one of accusations made were true. Not much else could be said to be true, or fair anyway.