TRAVESTY. 



TBBASOH. 



between each trver*e and the interior aide of the glacis, i* a otrong 

 gate, or barrier, which i* closed in the event of the defenders being 

 obliiinl to retire from one traverse to the next, or to abandon the 

 ooTered-way entirely. 



As, at the time of an aasault being made at the salient part of a 

 coTered-wy, the defender* might be bayoneted in attempting to retire 

 along the purages between the traverse* and the gUci* (thoee passages 

 being then comtnandfid by the enemy), it baa been recommended to 

 form other paaaigm about four feet wide between the opposite extre- 

 mities of the traverses and the top of the counterscarp ; and, in order 

 that the retreat may be effected without mnleatation, a line of palisades 

 Is planted from each travcrae to the next along the middle of the 

 covered-way, in addition to the line which i> alwayi planted along the 

 foot of the interior slope of the glacu. 



The traverse*, like other parapets, are usually above eighteen feet 

 thick at the upper part, in order that they may not be immediately 

 destroyed by the heavy artillery of the enemy; but the French 

 engineers recommend that all the traverses in the covered-way, except 

 thoee which are close to the re-entering places of arms, L, i. ( KOHTIH- 

 CATIUX], should not exceed twelve feet in thickness, as it may be advan- 

 tageous for the defenders to destroy them in the event of the enemy 

 endeavouring to protect himself by them during the operation of cut- 

 ting a trench across the covered-way for the purpose of making a 

 descent into the ditch of the fortress. 

 TRAVESTY. [PARODY.] 



TREACLE. [MOLASSES ; SDOAR CPLTI-UE AND MANUFACTURE.] ' 

 TREASON. This term, in its legal ^signification, w derived from the 

 French trahiton ; and in conformity with this derivation, the offences 

 designated by it in English law always contained the notion of treachery, 

 or a breach of that allegiance supposed to be due from an inferior to a 

 su|>erior. Thus petit-treason was the murder of a husband by his 

 wife, or a master by his servant, or a bishop by his subordinate in the 

 church ; and high treason consists in an attack upon the sovereign 

 as the political head of the state. The former of these two kinds 

 of treason was placed in another class of crimes by the statute of 

 9 Oeo. IV., c. 81, s. 2, which made petit-treason murder only, and no 

 greater offence. The only crime therefore now known to the law of 

 England under this term U high treason, which, as it is composed of 

 numerous acts and circumstances, constructively and remotely, as well 

 as immediately, affecting the safety of the person of the sovereign, 

 cannot be accurately described by any simple definition. 



In early periods of the history of England, the law upon this subject 

 was extremely vague and uncertain, in consequence of the great 

 variety of acts which were held to constitute high treason as tending 

 to diminish the power or dignity of the crown: killing the king's 

 father or brother, or even his messenger, refusing to answer in the 

 king's courts, and summoning an English subject to appear and defend 

 himself in the court of a foreign prince, were deemed to be acts of 

 treason. (3 ' Inst.' 7; Hawkins's 'Pleas of the Crown,' b. 1, e. 17.) 

 Indeed, immediately before the date of the statute of treasons, a knight 

 was indicted for high treason in " usurping royal power within the 

 lung's realm," by assaulting another on the highway, taking his horse 

 and detaining him until he paid 90(. (Male's ' Pleas of the Crown,' 

 vol. i., p. 80.) From these and many other 'instances which are to be 

 found in law books, it appears that almost every act that could be in 

 any way considered as a breach of the allegiance due to the king, or a 

 constructive assumption of royal authority, was deemed to be high 

 treason, as an " accroochment of royal power." This arbitrary state of 

 the law became the cause of intolerable oppressions, and a petition to 

 Edward III. from a parliament, which Mr. Hallam calls "one of the 

 best that ever sat" ('Constitutional History,' vol. iii., p. 204), occa- 

 sioned the statute 25 Edward III., commonly called the "Statute of 

 Treasons." This enactment gave for the first time an intelligible 

 definition of the crime of treason, and, notwithstanding the total 

 change of national habits, still continues, after the lapse of five 

 centuries, to be the governing -law on the subject Valuable as this 

 law undoubtedly was in the comparatively rude times in which it was 

 made, the inadequacy of its provisions to meet the complicated 

 relations of a more refined state of society has frequently rendered 

 supplemental statutes necessary, and has been the cause of those 

 subtle and forced interpretations of iU simple language, which have 

 introduced scarcely lea* uncertainty and injustice into this department 

 of the criminal law than prevailed before its enactment. 



The several acts and circumstances constituting high treason by the 

 "Statute of Treasons " are as follows: 1. Compassing or imagining 

 the death of the king, the queen consort, or their eldest son and lieir. 

 2. Violating the king's companion (by which is meant the queen con- 

 sort), or the king's eldest daughter unmarried, or the wife of the king's 

 eldestson and bear. 8. Levying war against the king within hi* realm. 

 4. lieing adherent to the king's enemies in hi* realm, giving them aid 

 and comfort in the realm or elsewhere. 6. Counterfeiting the king's 

 great or privy seal. 6. Counterfeiting the king's money, or knowingly 

 bringing false money into the realm counterfeit to the money ol 

 England, to merchandise and make payment withal in deceit of the 

 kiiiK and his people. 7. Slaying the chancellor, treasurer, or the king's 

 justices of cither beach, justices in eyre, justices of aasizo, or any 

 other justices stilgnrd to hear and determine, being in their places, 

 doing then- office*. A* several of the offence* above enumerated are 



act*' of the mind, and consist in intention, the statute declare* that 

 In such eases the intention, in order to come within the meaning 

 of the law, must be manifested by some open or overt act done 

 towards the accomplishment of the traitorous intention. This pro- 

 vision, although by it* position in the statute it is apparently limited 

 to the offence of adhering to the king's enemies, has been held to apply 

 to all the treason* before mentioned. (Hales ' 1'leas of the Crown,' 

 vol. i. p. 108.) 



The word " king," used in the first clause of the statute describing 

 the offence of compassing the king's death, comprehends the cose of a 

 queen regnant, as she is invested by the constitution with full royal 

 authority, and is entitled to the allegiance of her subjects. But the 

 husband of the queen regnant i* not within the words or meaning of 

 the statute. The precise meaning of the word* " compass " and 

 " imagine " in this clause of the statute has been the subject of some 

 discussion. Mr. Luders has thrown much light upon their significa- 

 tion by collecting the instance* in which the same language has been 

 used in writings contemporaneous with the statute; and although 

 attempts have been made to give them a more enlarged significa- 

 tion, it is clear that they mean nothing more than "attempt" and ' con- 

 trive." (' Considerations on the Law of High Treason in the article of 

 Levying War,' p. 137.) If this be so, the meaning of this clause i* 

 sufficiently obvious to an ordinary reader, and would be certainly 

 limited in his apprehension to attempts or contrivance* against the 

 natural life of the king. But by means of legul construction, the 

 words have received a much wider meaning. Than, a conspiracy to 

 imprison or depose the king, which by the statute of treasons is not 

 declared to be a substantive treason, ho* been repeatedly held to be 

 high treason in the article of compassing his death, because, ace 

 to a saying of Moohiavelli, " There i* but a short interval between the 

 prisons and graves of princes." Mr. Hallam justly observes, that " it 

 seems not very reasonable to found a capital conviction on this sen- 

 tentious remark." It appears indeed formerly to have been question- 

 able law, for Chief Justice Brooke, who compiled his 'Abridgment of 

 the Law ' at the commencement of the 16th century, expresses a 

 doubt whether a design to depose the king be within this clause of 

 the statute ; " for," says he, " one may deprive the king of his crown, 

 without designing his death;" and in confirmation of his view of the 

 matter, he refers to the statutes which had been passed from time to 

 time to remedy this defect in the Statute of Treasons. (Brooke's 

 ' Abridgment,' tit. ' Treason,' fol. 24.) And in fact experience show* 

 that the adoption of this proposition would frequently lead to a false 

 result, several instances of rebellion having occurred in English history, 

 in which the designs of the rebels would have been wholly defeated by 

 the death of the king, whose name they designed to employ. (' Con- 

 stitutional History,' vol. iii., p. 208.) Nevertheless the doctrine that a 

 design to depose is an overt act of compassing the death of the king, has 

 been repeatedly confirmed by treatises of the highest authority. . 

 as by judicial decisions. (Foster's ' Discourse on High Treason,' p. 196 ; 

 Howell's ' State Trials,' vol. xxiv., p. 1861 ; TO!, xxv., p. 725.) A still 

 more extensive signification has been given to these words of the 

 statute by the forced interpretation that a conspiracy to levy war 

 against the king and also consulting with a foreign enemy to invade 

 the realm, were overt acts of treason in the article of compassing the 

 king's death. (Hole's ' Pleas of the Crown,' vol. L, p. 120.) This mode 

 of reading the plain words of a penal statute was obviously liable to 

 serious objections and led to great oppression and injustice ; " such a 

 method," as Sir M. Hole says, " admitting of no limits or bounds, but 

 running as far as the wit or invention of accusers, and the odiousness 

 and detestation of persons accused, will carry men." (' Pleas of the 

 Crown,' voL i., p. 86-7.) 



The doctrine of constructive treason having been brought into pro- 

 minent notice and much discussed in the trials of Hardy, Home 

 Tooke, and others in 1794, the statute 86 Qeo. III., c. 7. was poised 

 with a view of superseding the necessity of resorting to any such 

 modes of interpretation for the future. This statute, which, although 

 originally in force only for the life of George III., wo* mode perpetual 

 by the stat. 57 Oeo. III., e. 6, enacted that "if any person shall, 

 within the realm or without, compass, imagine, invent, devise, or 

 intend death or destruction, or any bodily harm tending to death or 

 destruction, maim or wounding, imprisonment, or restraint of the per- 

 son of the king, or to deprive or depose him from the style, honour, or 

 kingly name of the imperial crown of this realm, or of any other of 

 his majesty's dominions or countries, or to levy war against his 

 majesty within this realm, in order by force or constraint to compel 

 him to change his measures or councils, or in order to put any forcu 

 or constraint upon, or to intimidate or overawe both Houses or cither 

 House of Parliament, or to move or stir any foreigner or stranger with 

 force to invade this realm, or any other of his majesty's dominions or 

 omul rics under the obeisance of his majesty ; and such compassing*, 

 Imaginations, inventions, devices, and intentions, or any of them, shall 

 express, utter, or declare, by publishing any printing or writing, or by 

 any overt act or deed, every such offender, being legally con 

 upon the oath of two lawful and credible witnesses, shall bo adjudged 

 a traitor, and suffer a* in cases of high treason." It was no doubt 

 the intention of the legislature that this statute should put an end to 

 all artificial constructions of the statute of Edward III. ; nevertheless 

 the practice of resorting to these forced interpretations hag been con- 



