56. 4. Bl. 125.
(* 2) 25. E. 3. st. 5. c. 2. 7. W. 3. c. 3. 2.
(* 3) Though the crime of an accomplice in treason is not here
described, yet, Lord Coke says, the partaking and maintaining a
treason herein described, makes him a principal in that treason: it
being a rule that in treason all are principals. 3 Inst. 138. 2 Inst.
590. 1 H. 6. 5.
(* 4) These words in the English statute narrow its operation.
A man adhering to the enemies of the Commonwealth, in a foreign
country, would certainly not be guilty of treason with us, if these
words be retained. The convictions of treason of that kind in England
have been under that branch of the statute which makes the compassing
the king's death treason. Foster 196, 197. But as we omit that
branch, we must by other means reach this flagrant case.
(* 5) The stat. 25. E. 3. directs all other cases of treasons
to await the opinion of Parliament. This has the effect of negative
words, excluding all other treasons. As we drop that part of the
statute, we must, by negative words, prevent an inundation of common
law treasons. I strike out the word "it," therefore, and insert "the
said cases, and no others." Quaere, how far those negative words may
effect the case of accomplices above mentioned? Though if their case
was within the statute, so as that it needed not await the opinion of
Parliament, it should seem to be also within our act, so as not be
ousted by the negative words.
Pages:
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45