The reading in Lincolnes-Inne, Feb. 28. 1641.: Vpon the stat. of 25. E.3. cap. 2. being the statute of treasons. / By Robert Holborne, Esq.

The second case.

I. S. slits the great Seale and closeth it to a Commission, and coynes mo∣ney in the forme of shillings invertendo the armes, kils the Lord Keeper of the great Seale in Chancery, and brings in false money like English, to Mar∣chandize, knowing it to be false, but doth not offer it, and I. S. knowing this doth succour him.

The conclusion is, that I. S. is a traytor in omnibus, and I. D. also within this Law; the first act is, slighting of the Seal, and putting of it to the Com∣mission and that is treason; first, because that is slit, whereby it is become now no Seale at all; it cannot be said that this halfe is the broad Seale, or that the other halse is the broad Seale, fer they both together make but one broad Seale, and when he hath closed them together againe, and joyned them to a Commission, he hath made the Seala new, for it was no Seal when it was slit, but now it is.

The second reason is, in respect of the mischiefe that doth come by this translating of an old Seale to a new Commission, for both the King and his

Subjects are as much abused, as if it had beene counterfeited; and the reason of Lawes and not authority, ought to be our rule to goe by; for indicandum est legibus non exemples, and so he conceiveth the case in Bro. Tit. treason 3. to be no grand Law this was treason also at Common-law, as you shall finde it exprest in Bruam ca. 4. fol. 10. and in the mirrour of Justice ca. 1. sex. 6. and since the statute in the same Kings time that this statute was made in and they who knew best the reasons and grounds of this statute, and the meaning thereof, and were at the making therof, by all likelihood, did adjudge it trea∣son, to take an old Seale from an old pattent, and to put it to a new one, as in 40. Ass. pl. 33. and 2. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 4.33. and Stamf. saith, that it was so adjudged in his time.

In all treasons that doe concerne the person of the King, the judgement ought to be, that he shall be hanged, drawne, and quartered; but for o∣ther treasons that doe not imediately concerne the person of the King, the judgement ought to be, that he shall be drawne and hanged onely, and not that he shall be quartered, as it is in 1. H. 6. 5. 19. H. 6. 47.

The second act, is the counterfeiting of the Kings money, and the inverting of the armes of the King whereby the Kings Liege people and others may be deceived, for that is a sufficient alteration to make it treason although it be such a one as cannot be discern'd without speciall notice taken of it; and this doth appeare by the judgement given in the Star-Chamber for the counter∣feiting of farre things, and it is treason for any man to beare the Kings armes, as it appeares in the Earle of Surreys case.

The third act, is the killing of the Officers of the King as of the Lord Kee∣per. and that is treason within this Law, for the Lord Keeper is now Chance∣lour, although at that time when this statute was made, the Lord Chancelours Office, and the Lord Keepers Office, were two severall and distinct Offices, yet they are made now both one Office, and that is by the statute of 5. Eliz. ca. 18. and this statute of 15. E. 3. ca. 2. may and doth extend to that statute of 5. Eliz. which comes after as is very fully exprest to the purpose, though not to this case in Co. 4. fo. 4. Vernons case, the statute of Marlebrige, which was made 4.52. H. 3. gave the word of the tennant that held by Knight service, notwithstanding he had made a feoffment by colusion: from which time and for 200. yeeres and more, till the statute of the 4. of H. 7. ca. 17. which gave the Ward of the heire of Costigase, the heire of Costigase, was not in Ward, and yet it is held in the 27. of H. 8.9. fol. that if Costigase after the statute of 4. H. 7. makes a feoffment in Fee by colution, to defraud the Lord of his Ward, that this is taken within the equity of the statute of Marlebridge, and so of divers other cases that you may see there cited in Vernons case above mentioned.

The fourth Act is the bringing in of false money like unto our English mo∣ney, for to Merchandize withall: and this is treason: for here is not onely an intent, but there is also an act joyned with this intent; for he brings over this money, which is the act, with an intent to Merchandize. The second conclusion is, that I. D. is a traytour within this law, and his treason doth goe or extend to all the other foure treasons that were committed by I. S. for this succouring of him after the fact committed, makes him a traytour within this law: and at the Common-law, before the making of this Statute, if a man had succoured one that had committed treason, knowing him to have committed it he had bin a traytor: and so if one doth now succour a fellon, it is fellony in the succorour; and why should it not be so in our case? for the reason of law in our case is farre stronger that the succorour of a traytour, should be a traytour, then the succouring of a fellon should be a fellon, because the offence is greater, and therefore it is an aggravation of his punishment, to make him that no man shall receive or succour him; for we see the law inflicts a greater punishment upon a traytor then upon a fel∣lon; and that is to deterre men from such acts as those are: and so it ap∣peres that there is reason why he should be a traytour, although he be not within the words of the Statute. And therefore it is in the reason of the Sta∣tute. Another reason is because the Statute doth not say who shall be trai∣tors, but what shall be treason, and this word treason shall be taken with all its concomitants and accidents as it was at Common-law; and then that was a concomitant to treason that the succoror should be a traytor.

[Object.] But it is so in 3. H. 7. fol. 10. that a succoror in treason is no traitour.

[Answ.] The reason of that case there is because the judgement was, that he know∣ing eam ••roditionem predictam perpetrasse felonice hospitalis fuit: and this was not grand, because he was in that case indicted as an accessary and was not in∣dicted as a traytour; for there can be no accessaries in treasons, as there is in fe∣lonies, and he is Enz. titl. Coron. 55. Bro. tit. Coron. 135. and for expresse au∣thority it is in 1. H. 6.5. for if this Statute had made felony treason and one doth commit that treason, and A. succours him, knowing of it, it had bin∣absurd for to have said that the succorour should have bin onely a felon; but our case is stronger, for this Law doth not make any one treason, but onely declares what shall be adjudged treason, but if this statute had exprest that all abettors should have beene traytors, that then the receivers or succourers should not have beene traytors within this Law, for then the intent of the makers would plainly appeare, that it was not intended that the receivers or succourers after the fact should not have beene within this Law, but onely the Abettors before and at the fact.

Notes

• The second case.
• 40. Ass. 33. & Broait. treas. 17. Britta.ca. 4. fo. 10.
• 40. Ass.p. 33. & 2 H. 4.33
• 1. H. 6.5. 19. H. 6.47. 6. H. 7.13.
• 5. Eliz. c. 18.25. E. 3. c. 2.
• Fit. tit. Cor. 55. Bro. tit. Cor. 135.