Read Online The King's Revenge by Michael Walsh, Don Jordan - Free Book Online
Authors: Michael Walsh, Don Jordan
Ads: Link
option.
Bradshaw realised the predicament and informed the king: ‘If you acknowledge not the authority of the court, they must proceed.’
Charles reiterated that he did not recognise the court: ‘England was never an elective kingdom, but an hereditary kingdom
for near these thousand years; and therefore let me know by what authority I am called hither.’
Bradshaw decided to adjourn the court. As Charles left the hall, there were cries of ‘God save the king!’ from the public
galleries. From the soldiers there were some shouts of ‘Justice!’ 18 The king was escorted back to Sir Robert Cotton’s house.
The following day, a Sunday, both sides had time to reflect on the trial so far. The tussle in which king and Parliament were
engaged was an ancient one. The issue of the balance of power between the king and his subjects went back to Magna Carta.
For the court, the dilemma was where this left matters in a practical sense. It was decided that Charles should be given another
chance to plead.
On Monday morning, 22 January, Charles returned to a packed and rowdy hall. Once again, there were shouts from the publicgalleries. Bradshaw commanded Colonel Hacker to arrest anyone who disturbed the court.
John Cook took the floor and explained that the king must be given another chance to plead – but now there was a sting in
the tail: ‘My humble motion,’ he said, ‘is that the prisoner be directed to make a positive answer, either by way of confession
or negation; which if he refuse to do, that the matter of charge may be taken
pro confesso
, and the court may proceed according to justice.’
In other words, a refusal to plead became a confession of guilt. The pressure was on Charles to comply with the court’s demand
for an answer. The reply that he gave was unexpected and daring. Charles said that if he spoke just for himself he could plead.
As it was, his hands were tied as he stood for the freedom and liberty of the people and so had to represent them in law:
‘For if power without law make laws, may alter the fundamental laws of the kingdom, I do not know what subject he is in England
that can be sure of his life, or any thing that he calls his own.’
It was a good argument – and a shame it was not delivered by a good king, rather than just a brave one. Unfortunately for
him, Charles had stonewalled one last time. Bradshaw interrupted him, saying he was not to question the authority of the court
but to give a direct answer to the charge.
Charles continued his self-justification, saying that he did ‘plead for the liberties of the people of England more than you
do’. This statement, coming from a king who had ruled without regard for the liberties granted under Magna Carta, cut no ice.
Bradshaw coldly told him he was in contempt of court.
The king continued to argue the case with Bradshaw until the latter grew tired of the confrontation and ordered the sergeant-at-arms
to take the prisoner away. Charles continued to profess his support for the ‘liberty and freedom of all his subjects’.
An exasperated Bradshaw cut across him: ‘How great a friend you have been to the laws and liberties of the people let all
of England and the world judge.’
After this petulant exchange, the court adjourned. On his way out of the court, Charles made an extraordinary admission to
his guards: that he cared nothing for the blood spilt by anyone but the Earl of Strafford, his close advisor who had been
executed for treason eight years before. Given the profuse bloodshed since, this demonstrated to Cook and others that Charles
had a heart of stone and was beyond redemption. 19
That evening, in his temporary jail in Sir Robert Cotton’s house, Charles asked Sir Thomas Herbert about the nature of those
who made up the court. Herbert told him they were a mixture of parliamentarians, army officers and London merchants. The king
replied that he had studied them carefully but
Bradshaw realised the predicament and informed the king: ‘If you acknowledge not the authority of the court, they must proceed.’
Charles reiterated that he did not recognise the court: ‘England was never an elective kingdom, but an hereditary kingdom
for near these thousand years; and therefore let me know by what authority I am called hither.’
Bradshaw decided to adjourn the court. As Charles left the hall, there were cries of ‘God save the king!’ from the public
galleries. From the soldiers there were some shouts of ‘Justice!’ 18 The king was escorted back to Sir Robert Cotton’s house.
The following day, a Sunday, both sides had time to reflect on the trial so far. The tussle in which king and Parliament were
engaged was an ancient one. The issue of the balance of power between the king and his subjects went back to Magna Carta.
For the court, the dilemma was where this left matters in a practical sense. It was decided that Charles should be given another
chance to plead.
On Monday morning, 22 January, Charles returned to a packed and rowdy hall. Once again, there were shouts from the publicgalleries. Bradshaw commanded Colonel Hacker to arrest anyone who disturbed the court.
John Cook took the floor and explained that the king must be given another chance to plead – but now there was a sting in
the tail: ‘My humble motion,’ he said, ‘is that the prisoner be directed to make a positive answer, either by way of confession
or negation; which if he refuse to do, that the matter of charge may be taken
pro confesso
, and the court may proceed according to justice.’
In other words, a refusal to plead became a confession of guilt. The pressure was on Charles to comply with the court’s demand
for an answer. The reply that he gave was unexpected and daring. Charles said that if he spoke just for himself he could plead.
As it was, his hands were tied as he stood for the freedom and liberty of the people and so had to represent them in law:
‘For if power without law make laws, may alter the fundamental laws of the kingdom, I do not know what subject he is in England
that can be sure of his life, or any thing that he calls his own.’
It was a good argument – and a shame it was not delivered by a good king, rather than just a brave one. Unfortunately for
him, Charles had stonewalled one last time. Bradshaw interrupted him, saying he was not to question the authority of the court
but to give a direct answer to the charge.
Charles continued his self-justification, saying that he did ‘plead for the liberties of the people of England more than you
do’. This statement, coming from a king who had ruled without regard for the liberties granted under Magna Carta, cut no ice.
Bradshaw coldly told him he was in contempt of court.
The king continued to argue the case with Bradshaw until the latter grew tired of the confrontation and ordered the sergeant-at-arms
to take the prisoner away. Charles continued to profess his support for the ‘liberty and freedom of all his subjects’.
An exasperated Bradshaw cut across him: ‘How great a friend you have been to the laws and liberties of the people let all
of England and the world judge.’
After this petulant exchange, the court adjourned. On his way out of the court, Charles made an extraordinary admission to
his guards: that he cared nothing for the blood spilt by anyone but the Earl of Strafford, his close advisor who had been
executed for treason eight years before. Given the profuse bloodshed since, this demonstrated to Cook and others that Charles
had a heart of stone and was beyond redemption. 19
That evening, in his temporary jail in Sir Robert Cotton’s house, Charles asked Sir Thomas Herbert about the nature of those
who made up the court. Herbert told him they were a mixture of parliamentarians, army officers and London merchants. The king
replied that he had studied them carefully but
Similar Books
