ith the most solemn protestation of his own
innocence. Great intercession was made for his pardon by some noblemen;
but all their interest proved ineffectual. Cranborne died in a transport
of indignation, leaving a paper which the government thought proper to
suppress. Lowick and Rookwood likewise delivered declarations to the
sheriff, the contents of which as being less inflammatory were allowed
to be published. Both solemnly denied any knowledge of a commission from
king James to assassinate the prince of Orange; the one affirming that
he was incapable of granting such an order; and the other asserting
that he, the best of kings, had often rejected proposals of that nature.
Lowick owned that he would have joined the king at his landing; but
declared he had never been concerned in any bloody affair during the
whole course of his life. On the contrary, he said he had endeavoured
to prevent bloodshed as much as lay in his power; and that he would not
kill the most miserable creature in the world, even though such an act
would save his life, restore his sovereign, and make him one of
the greatest men in England. Rookwood alleged he was engaged by his
immediate commander, whom he thought it was his duty to obey, though the
service was much against his judgment and inclination. He professed his
abhorrence of treachery even to an enemy. He forgave all mankind,
even the prince of Orange, who as a soldier, he said, ought to have
considered his case before he signed his death warrant; he prayed God
would open his eyes, and render him sensible of the blood that was from
all parts crying against him, so as he might avert a heavier execution
than that which he now ordered to be inflicted. The next person brought
to trial was Mr. Cooke, son of sir Miles Cooke, one of the six clerks
in chancery. Porter and Goodman deposed that he had been present at two
meetings at the King's-head tavern in Leadenhall-street, with the lords
Aylesbury and Montgomery, sir William Perkins, sir John Fenwick,
sir John Friend, Charnock, and Porter. The evidence of Goodman was
invalidated by the testimony of the landlord and two drawers belonging
to the tavern, who swore that Goodman was not there while the noblemen
were present. The prisoner himself solemnly protested, that he was ever
averse to the introduction of foreign forces; that he did not so much
as hear of the intended invasion until it became the common topic of
conversation; and that he had never