Mr. Wickham agreed that in England there was a treason for compassing the death of the King where the mere agreement to do the act itself constitutes the crime. He thanked God that in this country there was no subject to whom such a law applied and that the United States Constitution strictly forbade that intention alone--which was so liable to be misunderstood and misrepresented--should in any case be construed into treason. He cited also the cases of Mrs. Elizabeth Gaunt, an Anabaptist who was burned alive, and Lady Lisle, widow of a regicide, as persons convicted as accessories merely for receiving traitors. But in both instances, he emphasized, sentence had been passed by the wicked Judge Jefferies. After Mr. Wickham had thus associated these possible precedents with such outrageous circumstances the prosecution would be daring indeed to use them. Having warmed to his task, Mr. Wickham proceeded to give his audience an impressive demonstration of his legal erudition. He referred to Foster’s _Crown Law_ and from that skipped to Hume’s _History of England_. He quoted passages from Tremaine’s _Pleas of the Crown_ and boldly plowed his way through Hale, Stanford, Brooke, and Hawkins. He alluded to the conduct of the Duke of Cumberland after the Battle of Culloden, and made mention of Flora Macdonald who had helped with the escape of the Pretender. Surely, asserted Mr. Wickham, she would have been charged with treason if the doctrine that persons absent and not in arms had prevailed in England! From citing the authorities in English, Mr. Wickham turned to Latin declaring that “_Dixit quod in hoc quod factume est proditio, non potest esse accessarius felonice et proditire non potest esse accessarius_.” Not content with Latin he lapsed into some strange tongue that must have confused Mr. Robertson, the reporter, in spite of his knowledge of five languages. But Mr. Robertson did his best and set it down thus: “_Nota P. Hussey C.I. que accessory ne poet este a treason; le recetment de traitor, ne poet este tantum felony, mes est treason_.” Mr. Wickham’s was a brilliant display of erudition. Perhaps the passage quoted was as familiar to his fellow lawyers as the golden bird of prey on the sign in front of the “Eagle Tavern.” One wonders what the jury made of the gentleman’s scholarship and in which direction they were swayed. Again Mr. Wickham repeated the strict definition of treason as set down in the Constitution--the levying of war against the United States, the overt act and the two witnesses. Its object, he said, was clear. It was to perpetuate the liberties of the people of this country. The framers of the instrument well knew the dreadful punishments inflicted and the grievous oppressions produced by constructive treason in other countries. That is why their language was plain, simple, and perspicuous.