ATKINS; 371 tc There is, nor ought to be, no fuch thing as ronfiru&ive " trealon ; this dcfc.us the very (cope and deliLMiof tlie ftatute '* of the 25111 rt Edward III. which is to make .1 plain de- " claration, what fhall be adjudged treafon l>v the ordinary
- k courts of juQice. The confpiring any thing againft the
- ' king's pcifon is moft jufliy taken to be, to confpirc againft
" his life ; but confpiiiug to levy war, or to feize the guards, " is not confpiring againlt the king's life j for thefe arc trea- " fons of a different fpecies." In 1684, he .1 10 have "iven a frcfh proof of his deep learning, in the cafe between the king and fir William Wil- liams. An information was exhibited againft William Wil- liams, elq. late fpeakcr of the houfe of commons, for endea- vouring to iiir up (edition, and procure ill- will, between the king and his !ubje.:ts, bv appointing a certain feditious and infamous libel, intitied " The information of Thomas Dan- " gerficld, to be print..d and published." The defendant pleaded to the juriUliclion of the court, letting forth that re
is fpeaker of the houfe of commons, and that in obedience
to their order he had appointed that Narrative to be p . in^-d ; wherefore he demanded the judgement of the court of king's bench, whether it ought to take farther cognizance "{ the matter. Sir Robert Atkins undertakes, in his argument in fupport of this plea, to prove three proportions: firf', that what ie in this cafe was done in a courfe of juitice, and that in the higheft court of the nation, and according to the law mid euftom of parliament. Secondly, that, how- ever, that which was done in this cafe was not to be imputed to the defendant, who aflcd in it but as a fervant, orminiiter, of the pariiament, though in a very honourable ftation.
- irdly, that thefe, being matters tranfadted in parliament
and by the parliament:, the court of king's bench ought not to take cognizance of them, nor had any jurifdi&ion to judge or determine them. An v.ciion as brought in Eafler term, in the ferond yep.r of king James IJ. aga;nft iir Edward Hales, for acting as a coionel or foot without icctiving the :acrarn<.'nt, or taking certain oaths appointed by an act of parliament to be taken within a certain time ; whereupon bcin.' legally indicted in the county of K?nt, and con . idled , t :'itiff became in- titled to the forfeiture of five hundred pouuJs. To this the defendant pit.< I, hat the king by his letters patent had dit- penfed with ins taking the facrameot, or the oaih>, r.nd rhere- ibre demurred generally: the "i" j-inrd i:, demurrer, and judgement wjs given ip'f.he king's bench for ti'-c J.uad^nr. B b 2 Tnis
