may be a distinct treason in itself, i.e., levying war against the King. Words only, or unpublished writings, do not constitute the offence of "compassing" but may be admitted as evidence of an overt act of treason, as in the cases of Peacham and Algernon Sidney. (Appendix B.) This clause of the statute was frequently much strained, e.g., in the case of the Duke of Norfolk convicted Jan. 16, 1572 of compassing the Queen's death, the overt act of proof being his intrigue for a marriage with the Queen of Scots, Elizabeth's rival. By a constructive interpretation a conspiracy to imprison1 or depose the sovereign has been held to be an overt act of compassing; whilst, in order to bring conspiracy to rebellion, which the statute does not notice until it assumes the form of levying war, under the penalties of treason, it was held that evidence of such a conspiracy might be admitted to prove the overt act of compassing. Conspiracies to rebel were however declared treasonable by Statutes of 1571, 1661, and 1795, (the duration of the Act on each occasion being limited to the reign in which it was passed), and finally by the Treason Act of George III., 1817 (57 Geo. III., c. vi.) 2. Violating the King's companion, eldest unmarried daughter, or eldest son's wife. 3. Levying war against the King in his realm. "Force," says Mr. Hallam, "unlawfully directed against the supreme authority constitutes this offence." The treason may be either directly against the King's person, or against him constructively as being aimed at his Government, e.g., the rebellion of the Earl of Essex, 1601, and popular risings, even when such risings are only 1 66 Experience hath shewn that between the prisons and the graves of princes the distance is very small."-Sir Michael Foster on High Treason. Treason Act, 1817. Riot Act, July, 1715. Legislation on 1397. 1559. 1571. for the purpose of destroying meeting houses or enclosures, (See case of Damaree and Purchase, Appendix B.), if such risings have a general object, i.e., to destroy all enclosures, as opposed to a particular object to destroy some particular enclosure. The Riot Act of 1715 has, however, given the Government power to deal with rioters as felons rather than as traitors. 4. Adhering to, and aiding, the King's enemies, in his realm and elsewhere. 5. Counterfeiting the King's Great or Privy seal. 6. Counterfeiting the King's money, or bringing false money into the realm. 7. Slaying the Chancellor, Treasurer, or Justices whilst discharging their duties. In 1382, owing to the insurrection of the previous year, it was made treason to begin a riot, and in 1397 the heads of treason were still further defined. Under Henry VI. and Henry VIII. the list of treasonable offences was greatly increased, but these new treasons were abolished by Edward VI. 1547, 1553, 1486. (1547), and Mary (1553). In 1486 it was declared that treason could only be committed against a King de facto not de jure; in 1559 it was made treason to deny the Queen's title; in 1571 to deny the power of the Queen and Parliament to limit the succession; in 1702 to hinder, or attempt to hinder, the next in succession to the throne according to the Act of Settlement; in 1707 to assert by writing or printing the right to the crown of any other person than the next in succession according to the Act of Settlement, or to deny the power of the Sovereign and Parliament to limit the succession ; whilst in 1817 was passed the Treason Act of George III. declaring it treason, 1702. 1707. Treason, Act, 1817. 1. To compass the death, bodily harm, restraint, deposition, or dishonour of the King. 2. To levy war, or conspire to levy war, against the King to induce him to alter his measures, or for the purpose of overawing Parliament. 3. To treat with any foreigners for the invasion of the King's dominions. 4. To express such compassing or intentions by publishing any printing or writing, or by any overt act or deed. Treason, 1552. In 1552 a statute of Edward VI. made two wit- Legislation on nesses necessary to prove an act of treason. In 1695 1695. it was provided that the two witnesses must depose to acts relating to the same treason (e.g., one witness to an act of imagining the King's death, and one to an act of adhering to the King's enemies, were not sufficient), whilst the same statute allowed the accused to have a copy of the indictment five days before the trial, and a panel of the jury two days before. Counsel were allowed for the prisoners, who were also permitted to compel the attendance of their witnesses; no prosecution for treason (except for an attempted assassination of the King) could be commenced after three years from the commission of the offence. In 1708 it was 1708. further provided that the copy of the indictment should be delivered ten days before the trial, together with a list of the witnesses for the prosecution, and of the jury. Prosecutions for treason were still further regulated in 1800, 1825 and 1842. 1848 the offences which had before been regarded as High Treason, with the exception of those actually committed against the sovereign, were made treason felony, and in 1870 forfeitures for treason 1870. were abolished and the punishment reduced to hanging. In 1800, 1825, 1842. Early checks on royal power. Hereditary succession. William Rufus. The growing power of the King was, from the earliest times, subject to two checks.1 1. The increasing power of the nobles from grants of land, sac and soc, etc. 2. The elective character of the monarchy. The Succession and growth of the hereditary principle. The germ of the hereditary principle may be traced very early in the fact that, while the Witan (ch. iii.) had the sole power of electing the Anglo-Saxon King, they almost invariably confined their choice to the royal family and to the eldest male representative, supposing him to be of full age and capacity. Exceptions, Canute, 1017; Harold, 1066. The principle of hereditary succession was not developed until EDWARD II. The elective character of the monarchy was almost the only check on the irresponsible despotism of the Norman Kings. WILLIAM RUFUS and HENRY I. supplanted their elder brother Robert, and Henry (in the Charter of 1 The strength of these checks depended greatly on the personal character of the King, which in early days, even more than in later, had much to do with his power and the welfare of his people. Notice the distinct decline in the royal power owing to the weakness of Kings like Edward the Martyr, Ethelred II. and Edward the Confessor. 2 The nominee of the late King occasionally had the advantage, e.g., Harold named by Edward the Confessor. Minors as a rule were not elected for practical reasons-the only instances being the two brothers, Edward the Martyr, 975, and Ethelred II., 978 (or some authorities 979)—thus Ethelred I. was chosen (866) in preference to his young nephew; Alfred (871) was preferred to the sons of Ethelred; Athelstan, the illegitimate son of Edward the Elder, was chosen (925) before his legitimate brother; Edred (946) before Edwy; and Edward the Confessor (1042) before the son of Edmund Ironside.See also STUBBS, Sel. Charters, 62. Conc. Legatin, Cap. xii. liberties 1100) declares himself crowned "by the consent of the baronage of the realm." Henry endeavoured to procure the throne for his daughter, the Empress Maud, by making the barons swear fealty to her, but STEPHEN obtained the Stephen. crown by his own energy, and the voice of the people of London; he declares himself "elected King by the assent of the clergy and people,” he failed however to secure the recognition of his son Eustace as his successor; and HENRY II.,1 son of Henry II. the Empress, was said to have "received his hereditary kingdom by the voice of all." RICHARD I., Richard I. Henry's eldest surviving son, was recognised as his father's heir 1189, and is said to have been "elevated to the throne by hereditary right after a solemn election by the clergy and the people." JOHN, how- John. ever, obtained the crown in preference to his nephew Arthur, a minor, and at his coronation Archbishop Hubert Walter "declared in the most explicit terms that the crown was elective, giving even to the blood royal no other preference than their merit might challenge."" The idea that the succession was confined to the male line, which, in spite of the efforts made in favour of the Empress Maud, was a prevalent one, prevented Arthur's sister Eleanor from being named, and on John's death the succession of the youthful HENRY III. Henry III. was secured by the admirable policy of the Earl of Pembroke notwithstanding his father's bad govern ment. EDWARD I. declares himself to have obtained Edward I. WILLIAM the Conqueror. 1 |