substantive Treason in itself. But as there can be
no reason to suppose that any direct or immediate
intention of injuring the sacred person of the
Queen, can by possibility be surmised to have
existed on this occasion, it will be unnecessary,
as it appears to me, to occupy you with any
observations on this head of Treason.
I will proceed, therefore, at once, to the only
branch of Treason which can apply to the
circumstances of the present case, that of levying
war against the Queen in her Realm, which,
as before observed, is a direct and substantive
Branch of Treason under the earlier Statute,
and the bare compassing and intending of which,
for the purposes and with the objects mentioned
in the later Statute is made Treason by that
Statute -
And in considering the limits and
boundaries of this branch of Treason we are
not left without lights to guide our steps, so
clearly has the Law been laid down by
decisions of Courts of Law in more ancient times,
and the expositions of those text writers on the
subject, who have been held in the greatest
veneration both by their contemporaries, and by
posterity; amongst whom I shall only refer
to the names of Lord Chief Justice Hale, and
Sir Michael Foster. I shall proceed
therefore, to call your more particular attention
to some instances in which the Law has been
10 [bottom centre]