_L._ On this place Sir Edward Coke says, that before the making of this act, _voluntas reputabatur pro facto_, the will was taken for the deed. And so saith Bracton; _spectatur voluntas, et non exitus; et nihil interest utrum quis occidat, aut causam præbeat_, that is to say, the cause of the killing. Now Sir Edward Coke says, this was the law before the statute; and that to be a cause of the killing, is to declare the same by some open deed tending to the execution of his intent, or which might be cause of death. _P._ Is there any Englishman can understand, that to cause the death of a man, and to declare the same, is all one thing? And if this were so, and that such was the common-law before the statute, by what words in the statute is it taken away? _L._ It is not taken away, but the manner how it must be proved is thus determined, that it must be proved by some open deed, as providing of weapons, powder, poison, assaying of armour, sending of letters, &c. _P._ But what is the crime itself, which this statute maketh treason? For as I understand the words, to compass or imagine the King’s death, &c. the compassing (as it is in the English) is the only thing which is made high-treason. So that not only the killing, but the design, is made high-treason; or, as it is in the French record, _fait compasser_, that is to say, the causing of others to compass or design the King’s death is high-treason; and the words _par overt fait_, are not added as a specification of any treason, or other crime, but only of the proof that is required by the law. Seeing then the crime is the design and purpose to kill the King, or cause him to be killed, and lieth hidden in the breast of him that is accused; what other proof can there be had of it than words spoken or written? And therefore, if there be sufficient witness that he by words declared that he had such a design, there can be no question, but that he is comprehended within the statute. Sir Edward Coke doth not deny, but, that if he confess this design, either by word or writing, he is within the statute. As for that common saying, that bare words may make a heretic but not a traitor, which Sir Edward Coke on this occasion maketh use of, they are to little purpose; seeing that this statute maketh not the words high-treason, but the intention, whereof the words are but a testimony: and that common saying is false as it is generally pronounced. For there were divers statutes made afterwards, though now expired, which made bare words to be treason without any other deed; as, 1 _Eliz. c. 6_, and 13 _Eliz. c. 1_, if a man should publicly preach that the King were an usurper, or that the right of the crown belonged to any other than the King that reigned, there is no doubt but it were treason, not only within this statute of Edward III, but also within the statute of 1 _Edw. VI, c. 12_, which are both still in force.