ither . ▁I ▁would ▁know ▁by ▁what ▁authority , ▁I ▁mean ▁law ful ▁[ author ity ] ". ▁Charles ▁maintained ▁that ▁the ▁House ▁of ▁Commons ▁on ▁its ▁own ▁could ▁not ▁try ▁anybody , ▁and ▁so ▁he ▁refused ▁to ▁ple ad . ▁The ▁court ▁challeng ed ▁the ▁doctrine ▁of ▁so ver eign ▁imm unity ▁and ▁proposed ▁that ▁" the ▁King ▁of ▁England ▁was ▁not ▁a ▁person , ▁but ▁an ▁office ▁whose ▁every ▁occup ant ▁was ▁entr usted ▁with ▁a ▁limited ▁power ▁to ▁govern ▁' by ▁and ▁according ▁to ▁the ▁laws ▁of ▁the ▁land ▁and ▁not ▁otherwise ' ." ▁ ▁The ▁court ▁proceeded ▁as ▁if ▁the ▁king ▁had ▁ple aded ▁guilty ▁( pro ▁conf esso ), ▁rather ▁than ▁subject ing ▁Charles ▁to ▁the ▁pe ine ▁forte ▁et ▁d ure , ▁that ▁is , ▁pressing ▁with ▁stones , ▁as ▁was ▁standard ▁practice ▁in ▁case ▁of ▁a ▁ref us al ▁to ▁ple ad . ▁However , ▁witness es ▁were ▁heard ▁by ▁the ▁jud ges ▁for ▁" the ▁further ▁and ▁clearer ▁satisfaction ▁of ▁their ▁own ▁jud g ement ▁and ▁cons ci ences ". ▁Th irty ▁witness es ▁were ▁sum mon ed , ▁but ▁some ▁were ▁later ▁exc used . ▁The ▁evidence ▁was ▁heard ▁in ▁the ▁P aint ed ▁Chamber ▁rather ▁than ▁West min ster ▁Hall . ▁King ▁Charles ▁was ▁not ▁present ▁to ▁hear ▁the ▁evidence ▁against ▁him ▁and ▁he ▁had ▁no ▁opportunity ▁to ▁question ▁witness es . ▁ ▁The ▁King ▁was ▁declared ▁guilty ▁at ▁a ▁public ▁session ▁on ▁Saturday ▁ 2 7 ▁January ▁ 1 6 4 9