Indeed Charnock, in another paper, which is still in existence, but has never been printed, held very different language.  He plainly said that, for reasons too obvious to be mentioned, he could not tell the whole truth in the paper which be had delivered to the Sheriffs.  He acknowledged that the plot in which he had been engaged seemed, even to many loyal subjects, highly criminal.  They called him assassin and murderer.  Yet what had he done more than had been done by Mucius Scaevola?  Nay, what had he done more than had been done by every body who bore arms against the Prince of Orange?  If an array of twenty thousand men had suddenly landed in England and surprised the usurper, this would have been called legitimate war.  Did the difference between war and assassination depend merely on the number of persons engaged?  What then was the smallest number which could lawfully surprise an enemy?  Was it five thousand, or a thousand, or a hundred?  Jonathan and his armourbearer were only two.  Yet they made a great slaughter of the Philistines.  Was that assassination?  It cannot, said Charnock, be the mere act, it must be the cause, that makes killing assassination.  It followed that it was not assassination to kill one,—­and here the dying man gave a loose to all his hatred,—­who had declared a war of extermination against loyal subjects, who hung, drew and quartered every man who stood up for the right, and who had laid waste England to enrich the Dutch.  Charnock admitted that his enterprise would have been unjustifiable if it had not been authorised by James; but he maintained that it had been authorised, not indeed expressly, but by implication.  His Majesty had indeed formerly prohibited similar attempts; but had prohibited them, not as in themselves criminal, but merely as inexpedient at this or that conjuncture of affairs.  Circumstances had changed.  The prohibition might therefore reasonably be considered as withdrawn.  His Majesty’s faithful subjects had then only to look to the words of his commission; and those words, beyond all doubt, fully warranted an attack on the person of the usurper.679

King and Keyes suffered with Charnock.  King behaved with firmness and decency.  He acknowledged his crime, and said that he repented of it.  He thought it due to the Church of which he was a member, and on which his conduct had brought reproach, to declare that he had been misled, not by any casuistry about tyrannicide, but merely by the violence of his own evil passions.  Poor Keyes was in an agony of terror.  His tears and lamentations moved the pity of some of the spectators.  It was said at the time, and it has often since been repeated, that a servant drawn into crime by a master was a proper object of royal clemency.  But those who have blamed the severity with which Keyes was treated have altogether omitted to notice the important circumstance which distinguished his case from that of every other conspirator.  He had been one of the Blues.