of Grove and Berry, of Sidney, Cornish and Alice Lisle, turns to the trials of Preston and Ashton, will be astonished by the contrast.  The Solicitor General, Somers, conducted the prosecutions with a moderation and humanity of which his predecessors had left him no example.  “I did never think,” he said, “that it was the part of any who were of counsel for the King in cases of this nature to aggravate the crime of the prisoners, or to put false colours on the evidence."10 Holt’s conduct was faultless.  Pollexfen, an older man than Holt or Somers, retained a little,—­and a little was too much,—­of the tone of that bad school in which he had been bred.  But, though he once or twice forgot the austere decorum of his place, he cannot be accused of any violation of substantial justice.  The prisoners themselves seem to have been surprised by the fairness and gentleness with which they were treated.  “I would not mislead the jury, I’ll assure you,” said Holt to Preston, “nor do Your Lordship any manner of injury in the world.”  “No, my Lord;” said Preston; “I see it well enough that Your Lordship would not.”  “Whatever my fate may be,” said Ashton, “I cannot but own that I have had a fair trial for my life.”

The culprits gained nothing by the moderation of the Solicitor General or by the impartiality of the Court; for the evidence was irresistible.  The meaning of the papers seized by Billop was so plain that the dullest juryman could not misunderstand it.  Of those papers part was fully proved to be in Preston’s handwriting.  Part was in Ashton’s handwriting but this the counsel for the prosecution had not the means of proving.  They therefore rested the case against Ashton on the indisputable facts that the treasonable packet had been found in his bosom, and that he had used language which was quite unintelligible except on the supposition that he had a guilty knowledge of the contents.11

Both Preston and Ashton were convicted and sentenced to death.  Ashton was speedily executed.  He might have saved his life by making disclosures.  But though he declared that, if he were spared, he would always be a faithful subject of Their Majesties, he was fully resolved not to give up the names of his accomplices.  In this resolution he was encouraged by the nonjuring divines who attended him in his cell.  It was probably by their influence that he was induced to deliver to the Sheriffs on the scaffold a declaration which he had transcribed and signed, but had not, it is to be hoped, composed or attentively considered.  In this paper he was made to complain of the unfairness of a trial which he had himself in public acknowledged to have been eminently fair.  He was also made to aver, on the word of a dying man, that he knew nothing of the papers which had been found upon him.  Unfortunately his declaration, when inspected, proved to be in the same handwriting with one of the most important of those papers.  He died with manly fortitude.12