ESTABLISHMENT OF A LAND-BANK.

After these warm demonstrations of loyalty, the commons proceeded upon ways and means for raising the supplies. A new bank was constituted as a fund, upon which the sum of two millions five hundred and sixty-four thousand pounds should be raised; and it was called the land-bank, because established on land securities. This scheme, said to have been projected by the famous Dr. Chamberlain, was patronised by the earl of Sunderland, and managed by Foley and Harley; so that it seemed to be a tory plan which Sunderland supported, in order to reconcile himself to that party. 067 [See note O, at the end of this Vol.] The bank of England petitioned against this bill, and were heard by their counsel; but their representations produced no effect, and the bill having passed through both houses, received the royal assent. On the twenty-seventh day of April the king closed the session with a short but gracious speech; and the parliament was prorogued to the sixteenth day of June.

Before this period some of the conspirators had been brought to trial. The first who suffered was Robert Charnock, one of the two fellows of Magdalen-college, who, in the reign of James, had renounced the protestant religion; the next were lieutenant King and Thomas Keys, which last had been formerly a trumpeter, but of late servant to captain Porter. They were found guilty of high treason, and executed at Tyburn. They delivered papers to the sheriff, in which they solemnly declared, that they had never seen or heard of any commission from king James for assassinating the prince of Orange; Charnock in particular observed, that he had received frequent assurances of the king’s having rejected such proposals when they had been offered; and that there was no other commission but that for levying war in the usual form. Sir John Friend and sir William Perkins were tried in April. The first, from mean beginnings, had acquired great wealth and credit, and always firmly adhered to the interests of king James. The other was likewise a man of fortune, violently attached to the same principles, though he had taken the oaths to the present government as one of the six clerks in chancery. Porter and Blair, another evidence, deposed, that sir John Friend had been concerned in levying men under a commission from king James, and that he knew of the assassination plot, though not engaged in it as a personal actor. He endeavoured to invalidate the testimony of Blair, by proving him guilty of the most shocking ingratitude. He observed that both the evidences were reputed papists. The curate of Hackney, who officiated as chaplain in the prisoner’s house, declared upon oath, that after the revolution he used to pray for king William, and that he had often heard sir John Friend say that though he could not comply with the present government, he would live peaceably under it, and never engage in any conspiracy. Mr. Hoadley, father of the present bishop of Winchester, added, that the prisoner was a good protestant, and frequently expressed his detestation of king-killing principles. Friend himself owned he had been with some of the conspirators at a meeting in Leadenhall-street, but heard nothing of raising men, or any design against the government. He likewise affirmed that a consultation to levy war was not treason; and that his being at a treasonable consult could amount to no more than a misprison of treason. Lord chief justice Holt declared, that although a bare conspiracy, or design to levy war, was not treason within the statute of Edward III., yet if the design or conspiracy be to kill, or depose, or imprison the king, by the means of levying war, then the consultation and conspiracy to levy war becomes high treason though no war be actually levied. The same inference might have been drawn against the authors and instruments of the revolution. The judge’s explanation influenced the jury, who, after some deliberation, found the prisoner guilty. Next day sir William Perkins was brought to the bar, and upon the testimony of Porter, Ewebank, his own groom, and Haywood, a notorious informer, was convicted of having been concerned not only in the invasion, but also in the design against the king’s life. The evidence was scanty, and the prisoner having been bred to the law, made an artful and vigorous defence: but the judge acted as counsel for the crown; and the jury decided by the hints they received from the bench. He and sir John Friend underwent the sentence of death, and suffered at Tyburn on the third day of April. Friend protested before God that he knew of no immediate descent purposed by king James, and therefore had made no preparations; that he was utterly ignorant of the assassination scheme; that he died in the communion of the church of England, and laid down his life cheerfully in the cause for which he suffered. Perkins declared, upon the word of a dying man, that the tenour of the king’s commission which he saw was general, directed to all his loving subjects, to raise and levy war against the prince of Orange and his adherents, and to seize all forts, castles, &c, but that he neither saw nor heard of any commission particularly levelled against the person of the prince of Orange. He owned, however, that he was privy to the design; but believed it was known to few or none but the immediate undertakers. These two criminals were in their last moments attended by Collier, Snatt, and Cook, three nonjuring clergymen, who absolved them in the view of the populace, with an imposition of hands; a public insult on the government which did not pass unnoticed. Those three clergyman were presented by the grand jury for having countenanced the treason by absolving the traitors, and thereby encouraged other persons to disturb the peace of the kingdom. An indictment being preferred against them, Cook and Snatt were committed to Newgate; but Collier absconded, and published a vindication of their conduct, in which he affirmed that the imposition of hands was the general practice of the primitive church. On the other hand, the two metropolitans and twelve other bishops subscribed a declaration, condemning the administration of absolution without a previous confession made, and abhorrence expressed, by the prisoners of the heinous crimes for which they suffered.

In the course of the same month, Rookwood, Cranborne, and Lowick, were tried as conspirators by a special commission in the king’s-bench, and convicted on the joint testimony of Porter, Harris, La Rue, Bertram, Fisher, and Pendergrass. Some favourable circumstances appeared in the case of Lowick. The proof of his having been concerned in the design against the king’s life was very defective; many persons of reputation declared he was an honest, good natured, inoffensive man; and he himself concluded his defence with 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 seen Goodman at the King’s-head. He declared his intention of receiving the blessed sacrament, and wished he might perish in the instant if he now spoke untruth. No respect was paid to these asseverations. The solicitor-general Hawles, and lord chief-justice Treby, treated him with great severity in the prosecution and charge to the jury, by whom he was capitally convicted. After his condemnation, the court-agents tampered with him to make further discoveries; and after his fate had been protracted by divers short reprieves, he was sent into banishment. From the whole tenour of these discoveries and proceedings, it appears that James had actually meditated an invasion; that his partisans in England had made preparations for joining him on his arrival; that a few desperadoes of that faction had concerted a scheme against the life of king William; that in prosecuting the conspirators, the court had countenanced informers; that the judges had strained the law, wrested circumstances, and even deviated from the function of their office, to convict the prisoners; in a word, that the administration had used the same arbitrary and unfair practices against those unhappy people, which they themselves had in the late reigns numbered among the grievances of the kingdom.

WILLIAM, 1688—1701.