The Dominion. SATURDAY, JUNE 24, 1916. HIGH TREASON

Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2805, 24 June 1916, Page 8

The Dominion. SATURDAY, JUNE 24, 1916. HIGH TREASON

h The trial of Sir Eoger Casement on the charge'of high, treason, which will be opened at the Old Bailey next.week,: carries us back in imagination to times- and events of the far-away past;which we.read about in our history books at school. Treason is treachery against the King. In former days people guilty of this crime were hung, drawn, and quartered, : after having been dragged to tho place of execution on ■a hurdle. Dr. Ptjsey's mother, who died' in 1858; could remember seeing fixed on Temple Bar the head oi one of the rebels of 1745. This gruesome custom was abolished in 1870, though quartering and beheading may still, under an Act of 1814, be ordered by Iloyal warrant. It is still the law that' executions for treason shall be performed in'public. Treason trials havo been shorn of one of'their picturesque features by the Indictment Act which came into force in April of the present year.' The ancient form of indictment declared -with impressive, solemnity that • . :

the jurors for our Lord tho King upon their oath preseut that A. B. being a subject of our said Lord tlio King, not regarding the duty of his allegiance nor having, the fear of God in his heart,but being moved and seduced by tho instigation .of the devil, as a false traitor against our said Lord the King wholly withdrawing tho allegiance, fidelity, and obedience whichi every tvuo and- faithful subject of our said Lord the King should and of right ought to bear towards our said Lord the King ....... maliciously and traitorously . . . did compass, imagine, devise, and intend to: depose our said' Lord the King from the Royal state, title, power, and government of . this realm , and from the style, honour, and kingly name of the Imperial, crown thereof and to bring and put our said Lord tho King to death.

The charge against Sir Roger Casement will be stated in less rhetorical and more modern language. Charges of high treason, happily, have been rare in recent years. Previous to the case of Rex v. Lynch, which came before the Courts in 1903, thero had not been a treason trial for sixty-two years. The law ■relating to treason goes back to the Statute of Treasons of 1352. This did not make the previous law more stringent. It lessened the scope of treason charges. Nearly every in~ fringement of the Royal prerogative—even hunting deer in the Royal forests—had formerly been regarded as treason, but the' Act of 1352 only recognised seven forms of this 'crime. It is treason to compass the death of the King, the 1 Queen, or of their eldest son and heir. It ■is treason to'levy war against the. King in his realm, or to adhere to the King's enemies in his realm by giving them aid in his realm or Jelsewhere. In the charge against. Lynch it. was moved to quash the indictment on the ground that he was charged with adhering to the King's enemies ■without the realm (namely, in tho Transvaal); but the Court held that the statutory words clid ,not mean merely that the accused, being in the realm, has been adherent to the King's enemies wherever they were, as so narrow a construction would not only enablo an Englishman to engage with a' Hostile Power against his own country _ so long as he took care to remain abroad, but also makes the words or elsewhere meaningless. This case also decided that the Naturalisation; Act does not enable a British subject to bccome naturalised in an enemy State in time of war, and that to do so is in itself an overt'act of treason. Interest-ing-light is throwk upon the' law against rebellion by the advice' given to_ the House of Lords by tho Judges in the trial of the Eaiu, of Essex in tho days of Queen Elizabeth. The Judges held that "where a subject attempteth to put himself into such strength' as the King shall nut bo able to resist him and to force and compel the King to govern otherwise than according to his ,own_ Roya} authority and direction it is manifest rebellion . . . and in every rebellion the law intendeth as a consequent the compassing the death and deprivation of the King as foreseeing that the rebel will never suffer that King to live and reign who might punish or take revenge of his treason or rebellion." In an article which recently appeared in the Manchester Guardian, Mn. J ; S. Blake Reed points out that while "war," in one sense of the term, may be levied in a mere extended series of street rows, tho crime of "adhering to the King's enemies" must be interpreted in the international sense. "Enemies" are belligerent Governments. Of this kind of treason the most memorable of modern examples was afforded by the trial of Arthue Lyncii in 1903 for participation in the South African War on the side of the Boer Republics. Tho decision in the case involved a further important refinement on the already, somewhat diffuse law of' treason. _ The essence of the crime consists in the violation of the innorn and natural right of allegiance

owed by every British-born subjeefc 'to .his .King as .represcntating the State in which he lives. The crimo is incapable of being committed by an alien, as no allegiancc is owed by such person to the British Crown. In times p.ist the decisions of tho Courts in reference to treason - havo been very far-reaching. Passages in the manuscript of, a, sermon (which had never been prcached), found in the study'of. .Edward Peaoham, iri 1615, . led to ~his .conviction. Peachaji died in prison. Algernon Sidney had to go to the scaffold in 1653 owing -to views expressed in the manuscript of a treatise oil sovvereignty discovered' in his - house. This interpretation of the law was felt to be unduly harsh, and Parliament reversed tho conviction. But the reprieve camo too.. late. The penalty had been carried out. Special care is taken to secure a fair trial for persons accused of treason. They are given the fullest opportunities of - defending' themselves. There must bo some overt act; the crime must be proved by at least .two witnesses ..in. the] absence of a free-confession; and 'except in the case of a designed asfassination of the Sovereign, the prosecution must, take place not more than three years after the commission of the crime. The prisoner can demand a copy of the indictment; ten days before : the trial, also a list of the witnesses against -liim, ..and a list of the ' jury. ' He'may'-peremp-torily challenge thirty-five -jurors. He is permitted to employ two counsel for his defence, and is entitled to address the'jury. " These; special favours have been granted in order to protect prisoners from the harshness, which,' in by-gone'.'days, too often characterised trials for treason. Erskinei .states that.after the days of the SJuarts Parliament ."met the headlong violence of angry power by covering the accused ail over with the armour of the law." It is. curious to. find that people accused' of treason were allowed to employ counsel for their defence as far back as 1695, whereas it was not 'till 1836 that prisoners in felony charges were given this privilege. The use of the adjective- "nigh" in connection with ' treason has now 'lost its significance.. ;It is a'sur.vival 'from -the times when it was- thought necessary to fake- more -stringent measures against this class -of lawlessness than those now in force.: There used-to be two,forms,of treason, "high" arid 1 ■ "petit," but the latter is now treated as murder in 'the ordinary sense. The history of treason affords -an interesting example of the evolution' of English law.' Until the'famous-Statute of 'Edward 111 came, into operation, 'treason rested on common law. The Statute of 1352 has been modified in various ways in order to prevent oppression and to protcct the rights arid liberties of the people. The possibilities of monarchical tyranny and personal vindictiveness were in the course of time eliminated, and nothing short of a serious attempt to endanger the State, or tho Sovereign, as tho official representative of tho State, would now be treated as high treason.