The HISTORYojthePuRITANs. VoL. li. K. Charles I. mons replied to the archbiihop's fpeech Sept. I I. and the fame day his ~ council delivered in thefe two queries, ( 1.) whether in all or any if the Laud's hilt. articles charged againfl the archbijhop, there be contained any treajon by the p. 422. d]ablijhed laws qf this kingdom. (z) ~vhether the impeachment and articles did contain (uch certainties and particularities as are required by law in cafes Points of law if treafln. The lords fent down the queries to the commons, who af;. debated. ter they bad referred them to a committee of lawyers, agreed that the archbiihop's council might be heard to the firjl query, but not to the fe– Laud's hifi. cond. Accordingly OCiober I I. the archbiihop being prefent at the P· 423, bar, Mr. Hearn propofed to argue thefe two general quefl:ions. Mr. Hearn's ( 1.) " Whether there be at this day any other treafon than what is en·. llrgument. " aCl:ed by the fl:atute of z sth Ed7vard Ill. cap. 2. or enaCl:ed by fome " other fubfequent fl:atute ?" (z.) " Whether any of the matters, in any of the articles charged a– " gainfl: the archbiihop, contain any of the treafons declared by that law, " or enaCl:ed by any fubfequent law?" lb. P· 4z4· And for the cleari ng of both thefe he humbly infifled, that an '' en. 425 ' " deavour tofobvert the laws, the protd]ant religion, and the rights if par. " liament, ~vhich are the three general charges to which all the particulars " alledged againjl the archbijhop may be reduced, is not treajon ~vit}Jin the " .Jlatute qf 25 Edward Ill. nor an;• other particular flatute." In maintenance of this propofitiorr he contended , firjl, " that the par– •• ticulars alledged againfl: the archbiihop, were not within the letter of " the fl:atute of the 25th Edward Ill. and then argued~ that the fl:atutes " of this land ought not to be confl:rued by equity or inference, b:cao(e " they are declarative laws, and were defigned for the iecurity of the " · fubjeCI: in his life liberty and efl:ate; and becaufe Gnce the time of " Henry IV. n~ judgment has been given in parliament for any treafon not " expre{sly contained· or declared, in that or fame other fl'atute, bu,t by "bill; from whence it will follow, that the particulars charged again!l: " the archbiihop, being only an endeavour to Jubvert fundamental /awr, " are of fo great latitude and uncertainty, that every aClion not warrant– ' ' ed·by law may be extended to treafon, though there is no particular !la– '' tute to make it fo. If it be replied, that the fl:atute of 2 5 E dward lli. Laud's hill:. '' takes notice of compa!Jt'ng or imagining, we anfwer, it confines it to the l'· 427. " death of the king; but arr endeavour to Jitbvert the laws if the realm, '·' is no determinate crime by the laws of England, but ha s been e!l:eemed " an aggravation of a crime, and has been ufually joined· as the refult of " fome other offence below treafon." Ib, p. ·429· " The-like may be obferved to the fecond charge, of endeavouring to '' fubvcrt rehgion; 'tis not treafon- by the letter of any law efl:abliihed in "'this.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=