the act of concealment, may be destroyed by proof positive or circumstantial to the contrary, why should the legislature preclude that contrary proof? Objection. The crime is difficult to prove, being usually committed in secret. Answer. But circumstantial proof will do; for example, marks of violence, the behavior, countenance, &c. of the prisoner, &c. And if conclusive proof be difficult to be obtained, shall we therefore fasten irremovably upon equivocal proof? Can we change the nature of what is contestable, and make it incontestable? Can we make that conclusive which God and nature have made inconclusive? Solon made no law against, parricide, supposing it impossible any one could be guilty of it; and the Persians, from the same opinion, adjudged all who killed their reputed parents to be bastards: and although parental, be yet stronger than filial affection, we admit saticide proved on the most equivocal testimony, whilst they rejected all proof of an act, certainly not more repugnant to nature, as of a thing impossible, improvable. See Beccaria, § 31. Whosoever committeth murder by poisoning, shall suffer death by poison. Whosoever committeth murder by way of duel, shall suffer death by hanging; and if he were the challenger, his body, after death, shall be gibbeted.* He who removeth it from the gibbet, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor; and the officer shall see that it be replaced. * 25 G. 2. c. 37. Whosoever shall commit murder in any other way, shall suffer death by hanging. And in all cases of petty treason and murder, one half of the lands and goods of the offender shall be forfeited to the next of kin to the person killed, and the other half descend and go to his own representatives. Save only, where one shall slay the challenger in a duel,* in which case, no part of his lands or goods shall be forfeited to the kindred of the party slain, but, instead thereof, a moiety shall go to the Commonwealth. * Quære, if the estates of both parties in a duel should not be forfeited? The deceased is equally guilty with a suicide. The same evidence* shall suffice, and order and course** of trial be observed in cases of petty treason, as in those of other*** murders. * Quære, if these words may not be omitted? By the Common law, one witness in treason was sufficient. Foster, 233. Plowd. 8. a. Mirror, c. 3. § 34. Waterhouse on Fortesc de Laud. 252. Carth. 144 per Holt. But Lord Coke, contra, 3 Inst 26. The stat. 1 E. 6. c 12. &5E.6. c. 11. first required two witnesses in treason. The clause against high treason supra, does the same as to high treason; but it seems if 1st and 5th E. 6. are dropped, petty treason will be tried and proved, as at Common law, by one witness. But quære, Lord Coke being contra, whose opinion it is ever dangerous to neglect.