them that he was only doing this because there was no help for it; but that he had games to play which would still defeat the whole affair. He was meaning nothing less, and privately declaring nothing less, than that he would, on the first opportunity, be as despotic as ever. He continued, however, to demand, "By what authority am I here? I mean lawful authority, for there are many unlawful authorities in the world—thieves and robbers by the highways. Remember, I am your lawful king: let me know by what lawful authority I am seated here; resolve me that, and you shall hear more from me." Bradshaw told him that he might have observed that he was there by the authority of the people of England, whose elected king he was. That afforded Charles another answer. "England," he said, "never was an elective but an hereditary kingdom for nearly these thousand years. I stand more for the liberty of my people than any here that are come to be my pretended judges." Bradshaw might have told him that the people thought it time to put an end to the hereditary form, and adopt a new one; but he replied, "Sir, how well you have managed your trust is known. If you do not acknowledge the authority of the court I must proceed." Charles, however, turned to another weak place in his adversary's answer, and exclaimed, "I see no house of lords that may constitute a parliament, and the king, too, must be in and part of a parliament." It was unquestionable that Charles could not be answered on the constitutional ground, only on the revolutionary one, and on that principle of the power and right of the people to revolutionise, and anew shape their constitution, which in 1688 was acknowledged and established as a great fact of the rights of nations; and Bradshaw then did bring forward that plea—"If you are not satisfied with our authority, we are satisfied with it, which we have from God and the people." He informed Charles that he would be expected to answer, and adjourned the court to Monday.
The two following days were spent by the court in receiving evidence of the king's having not only commenced the war on his subjects, but had commanded personally in it, and in settling the form of judgment to be pronounced. On the third day, when Charles was again brought forward, the same painful scene was renewed of the king's denying the court, refusing to plead, and yet insisting on being heard. Bradshaw told him in vain that if he pleaded, admitting the authority of the court, he would be at liberty to make any observation in his defence that he pleased; but that in no court could it be otherwise. He then demanded a hearing before a committee of both houses, but he was reminded that the authority of the lords was no longer admitted. He assured him that though he contended that he had no superior in the state, the law was his superior, and that there was a power superior to the law—the people, the parent or author of the law—which was not of yesterday, but the law of old. That there were such things as parliaments, which the people had constructed for their protection, and these parliaments he had endeavoured to put down and destroy. That what his endeavours had been all along for the crushing of parliament, had been' notorious to the whole kingdom. "And truly, sir," he continued, "in that you did strike at all, for the great bulwark of the liberties of the people is the parliament of England. Could you but have confounded that, you had at one blow cut off the neck of England. But God hath been pleased to confound your design, to break your forces, to bring your person into custody, that you might be responsible to justice."
He then combated Charles' argument, that there was no law or example of people deposing or destroying their kings. He quoted many instances from foreign nations, in which they had resisted, fought against, and destroyed their kings. That his own country of Scotland, before all others, abounded with instances of the deposition, and putting to death of their sovereigns. That his grandmother had been set aside, and his own father, a mere infant, set in her place. He referred to the depositions of Edward II. and Richard II., which he contended were effected by parliament, and said that their crimes were not a tenth part so capital against the nation as those laid to his charge. As Charles again continued to reply and argue without submitting to plead, Bradshaw told him the court had given him too much liberty already, and ordered the sentence to be read. But here John Downes, one of the commissioners, a citizen of London, said to those near him, "Have we hearts of stone? Are we men?" and then rising and trembling violently, exclaimed, "My lord, I am not satisfied to give my consent to the sentence. I desire the court may adjourn to hear me." They therefore adjourned, but in half an hour returned with an unanimous verdict of guilty.
Bradshaw then proceeded to pronounce the sentence. When the names of the commissioners were read that morning, on that of Fairfax having been called, a female voice from one of the galleries had cried out, "Not such a fool as to come here to-day." When the name of Cromwell was read, the same voice had exclaimed, "A rogue and a traitor." As Bradshaw now went on to say, the king has been called to answer by the people, before the commons of England assembled in parliament, the same female voice shouted, "It is false! not one half-quarter of them!"
There was a great excitement; all turned towards the gallery whence the voice came, from amid a group of masked ladies. Axtell, the officer commanding the soldiers, ordered them brutally to fire into the group; but the soldiers hesitated, and a lady rose and walked out of the gallery. It was seen to be lady Fairfax, the wife of the commander-in-chief, a woman of very ancient and noble family, the Veres of Tilbury, who had come to object most decidedly to the extreme measures of the army, and had prevailed on her husband to keep away from the court.
After order was restored, Bradshaw ordered the charge to be read, the king still interfering; and then Bradshaw passed the sentence, "That the court being satisfied in conscience that he, Charles Stuart, was guilty of the crimes of which he had been accused, did adjudge him as a tyrant, traitor, murderer, and public enemy to the good people of the nation, to be put to death by severing his head from his body."
After the sentence was pronounced, Charles again requested to be heard; but Bradshaw told him that after the sentence it could not be allowed, and ordered the guards to take him away. The royalist writers state that dur-
