three years after the offence committed; and further, that no person should be convicted by a petit
jury of either of the said crimes, unless by the oath of two lawful witnesses, to prove each separate
and distinct fact charged in the indictment, as treason, or misprison of treason, except the prisoner
should willingly and without force or violence, confess the same in open court.
    In the cases that have been mentioned in 1706 and 1707, the record in the first states, that the prisoner
(when brought to be tried,) had, before that time, had a copy of the indictment, and a copy of a
panel of jurors delivered to him, according to the form of the statute.  This was the statute 7 W. 3,
Ch. 3, and in the last case the prisoner declared, that he was ready; that he wanted no process for
witnesses, &c. that he released, or rather declared, that he had a copy of the indictment and panel,
and forewent any advantage for the trial before due time fixed by the statute 7 king William, for regulating
trials in high treason, and on misprison of treason.  That statute having been thus recognised,
furnishes strong evidence if it were necessary, that the one now under consideration was in
part adopted also, being essential to the safety of the inhabitants, as defining what offences only
should be treason.  It remains to be considered how far it is at present in force, and how far it ought
to be so continued, together with the acts of February and October session, and the act of 1809, Ch.
138.
    The 2d branch of treason under this statute, to wit:  Violating the king's companion, &c. cannot
be considered as having been adopted by the act of 1642, because it was nearly impossible that the
offences therein described should be committed within the province; and the same may be said of
the 7th branch, respecting the slaying the chancellor, treasurer, or the king's justices of the one
bench, or the other, &c.
    At present the 1st branch:  " When a man doth compass or imagine the death of our lord the king,
of our lady his queen, or of their eldest son and heir," cannot literally take place; and we have no
officers of government that could be taken by substitution for those kind of personages, as the state
has been, for the province.  The 2d and 7th not having extended to the province, cannot be in force
in the state.  The 3d:  " If a man do levy war against our lord the king in his realm," is nearly similar
to the first part of the section recited above, from February 1777, Ch. 20, and may consistently
stand with it, taking the state in place of the king.  The 4th branch:  " If a man be adherent to the
king's enemies in his realm, giving to them aid and comfort in the realm, or elsewhere," is in some
degree similar to the last part of the section aforesaid, of February 1777, Ch. 20; but the latter, appears
to have been confined to enemies then in the service of Great-Britain, and its operation having
ceased when peace was made; it seems to be not merely expedient, but necessary that this branch of
the statute should be continued and incorporated in our laws; more especially as it is not ascertained
that the provisions in the constitution respecting treason against the United States, are applicable to
treason against a state; which is recognised in the 4th article, S. 2, directing that a person charged in
any state with treason, &c. who shall flee from justice, and be found in another state, shall, on demand,
be delivered up, to be removed to the state having jurisdiction of the crime.  A similar provision
was contained in the articles of confederation.
    The 5th branch:  " If a man counterfeit the king's great or privy seal," although included in the act
of 1642, was probably not considered afterwards in force in the province, and certainly was not
practised under, and there were several acts respecting the counterfeiting the seals of the lord proprietary.
By the act of 1809, Ch. 138, S. 2, the offence of counterfeiting the great seal of this state
is made punishable by confinement in the penitentiary.  No act had before passed as to this offence.
The 6th branch as to counterfeiting the king's money, &c. does not appear, from any prosecution, to
have been in force in the province, although it may have been considered so, as the act of 1707, Ch.
4, related only to the counterfeiting foreign coins, expressly excluding the " proper coin of the kingdom