WHAT IS HIGH TREASON?

Pukekohe & Waiuku Times, Volume 5, Issue 197, 4 August 1916, Page 3 (Supplement)

WHAT IS HIGH TREASON?

War has, once more, drawn atten* tion to the crime of High Treason—a crime the very recollection of which has, in modern days, been apt to slumber in time of peace. It is, of course, the last crime against the State —an offence for which there can be in theory, and there used to be in practice j no forgiveness, and, though the hateful tortures which once accompanied the traitor's death have been abolished, the law to this day invests a trial for treason with soi. c special ceremonies which mark tho heinous nature of the offence. The very name of High Treason has an association of enormity; it was so called to confer upon it a bad eminence and to distinguish it from other crimes so grievous as to demand, in the opinion of our forefathers, a penalty more terrible than mere hanging or beheading. "Petty treason" covered such of. fences as the murder of a lord by one of his own serfs, the murder of a bishop by one of his own clergy, or the murder of a husband by his own wife (but not, since the law was made by men, the murder of a wife by her own husband). For a long- period the crime ot treason was undefined, and uncertainty a ; to what constituted treason placed a terrible power in the hands of judges who held their office at the pleasure of the Crown. In England, a definition was made by a famous statute of Jvlward 111., which still governs our law on the subject. It is treason to compass or" imagine'" the death of the Sovereign. The words quoted describe a mental act, of which some open or overt proof is necessary. Sometimes, unfortunately, such open act; have been only too easy to prove. When the regicides were tried after the Restoration, the execution of Charles I. was not the charge against them: it was the proof of the charge. The crime was an intention to kill ili.c King; the execution merely proved the intention. But, in other cases, there has been more ambiguity. Did an intention to marry >-ary, Queen of scots, then a prisoner in England, prove an intention to kill Elizabeth and place the Scottish Queen on the throne? English judges, without, probably, any grave injustice, decided that it did. Similarly, it has been held that sermons, which had never been preached or printed, but which denounced tho King as unworthy to rule, proved an intention against the life of the monarch.

Extraordinary additions have, at various times, been made to Edward lll.'s statue. In 1534, it was High Treason to deny that Henry \ 111. was lawfully married to Anne Boleyn; two .wars later, it was High Treason to assert that she had ever been lawfully married to him. Under Elizabeth, it was treason to say that any particular person ought to succeed to the Crown — an awkward position for any early supporter of tha Divine Right of Kings. It is High Treason to levy war against the King in his realm or to be adherent to the King's alien enemies, giving them aid and comfort in the realm or elsewhere. This definition involved a distinction between a rebellion and a riot, and it was held that a rebellion must be connected with a public general grievance as opposed to a private or personal grievance. Thus, for example, the Porteous Mob were guilty of a riot, but could not be said to b? guilty of levying war against the King. " Levying' war" is itself a vague term, but there are plenty of decisions to show that enlisting and marching m,°n or seizing or holding a fort in opposition to the royal authority is sufficient proof of the erne even if 110 actual battle resulted.