case the king against Rosewell a indictment for treason for say we have have  two wicked king innuendo Charles the first and Charles the second but if they  innuendo the people will stand to their principle we shall conquer our enemy  innuendo the king and his loyal subject be bad for a innuendo can determine  the sense of word SC show S c state trial SC state trial App roll cro car lev  comens Mod Mod hale hawk p c hawk p c ld ray Cowp term Rep the defendant be a  nonconformist minister and indict for high treason in preach of these word why  do the people innuendo the people of England it make a flock to the king  innuendo carolum secundum under pretence of cure the king evil which the king  can do but we be the priest and prophet to who they ought to flock who by our  prayer can heal they we have have two wicked king now together innuendo  carolum at first et carolum secundum who have suffer popery to be introduce  under their nose who I can liken to none but wicked jeroboam and if they  innuendo the people modern c will stand to their principle I make no doubt but  to conquer our enemy innuendo the king and all his loyal subject with ram horn  break pitcher and a stone in a sling as in the time of old upon this  indictment he be arraign and plead not guilty and be try at bar and find  guilty of high treason upon the evidence of two woman and the court have  assign Mr Wallop Mr pollexfen and Mr Bampfeild to be his counsel they move in  arrest of judgement first that the word discharge of the innuendo if take  separate or all together have no tendency to treason the first paragraph do  not import any crime and to say that we have have two wicked king may be a  misdemeanour but it be not treason either by intendment of the death of the  king or by levy war against he the crime seem to consist in the next word  which be if they will stand to their principle c this seem to stir up the  people to rebellion modern er p but as they be place in the indictment they  will not admit of such a construction neither as they have reference to the  word precedent or as they stand by themselves the word which go before be  videlicet we have have two wicked king together it be not express what king or  when they reign which be very uncertain et si Self ad fundamentalia svan to  stand which word Self be relative and must refer ad neighbor anteceden and  then it must be Self Reges which be the proper and natural sense of the word  but now if the innuendo must be insert it must be under some authority of law  either to design the person or the thing which be not certain before that the  intention of the party speak may be more easy collect and this be the most  proper office of a innuendo   a it will not change the meaning of the word for  that be to make they still more uncertain hob cro James b now most of the  innuendo in this indictment be nought because they do not ascertain the  subject matter first by the word people innuendo the people of England may be  as well intend any other people because there be no previous discourse of the  people of England then follow these word we have have two wicked king now  together innuendo king Charles the first and second which he as well intend of  king Ethelred and Alfred because the word denote a time pass and therefore can  possible intend the king of who there be no precedent modern discourse and the  rule be de doubt et general benignior opinion To take back be beside those  word be insensible and indeed impossible for we can have two wicked king  together it ought to be successive then to say we shall conquer our enemy can  be intend the enemy of the king because the word enemy be of a large sense for  man by reason of his sin and infirmity have many enemy and possible such may  be intend if therefore it be doubtful what enemy be mean if it shall not be in  the power of a clerk by a innuendo to make word of another sense than what  they will natural bear nor to help where they be insensible as in this case if  there be no precedent discourse either of king people or enemy which must be  prove by the evidence then be this indictment nought and therefore judgement  ought to be arrest Mr attorney and Mr solicitor contra it be say in this  indictment that the word be speak to stir up rebellion and to depose the king  and it be so find by the verdict of twelve man that which aggravate the  offence be that it be speak in a public assembly to the people which must be  intend the people of England for to such the defendant preach and to they be  declare the power give unto he by God to heal they by prayer then he tell they  that their king be wicked and have insinuate this doctrine into their mind he  then bid they stand to their principle in oppose and subdue wicked king it be  object that there ought to have be a precedent discourse of the king but the  precedent be otherwise in the reign of Henry the eight see yearbook Henry a  there be a indictment against the Lord grey for word speak against the king  without set forth any precedent discourse of he so be my Lord Cobham case in  James for that he proditory dixit et propalavit haec word videlicet it will  never be well for England until the king and his cub be kill without a  averment that the word be speak de ring and in William case report by Lord  roll roll Rep b who be indict for high treason for write two book in which be  many traitorous assertion but no averment of any previous discourse concern  the king all these indictment be thus videlicet dixit such word de lord ring  modern therefore the indictment be good in form if the word therein contain  amount to treason now do they import treason or riot if they do import it then  it be unnecessary to aver that they be speak de ring because it can be intend  to be treason against any other king if a man shall say that be will go to  Whitehall and kill the king it be not necessary to aver any precedent  discourse de ring in action on the case for word there must be a averment of  the person because many man be of the same name but in indictment the form  will govern the case several traitor have suffer death in such case as this at  bar and many modern er p learned man in all age have attend this court and  this objection be never make till now and therefore the precedent be without  this averment de ring where the overt act be by word judgement be pray against  the prisoner curian word may be a overt act but then they must be so certain  and positive as plain to denote the intention of the speaker if a man shall  tell another that he will drive the king out of England there needs no  averment that such word be speak de ring because they tend immediate to depose  the king but if he have say that he will go to Whitehall and destroy his enemy  that be not treason without a avermentThis doctrine be support by many  authority stand p c Yelv Kely Mod alcock case I lev hawk p c Owen case roll  Rep Lowicks case state trial sir Edward coke and sir Matthew hale insist  general that the bare speak of word can never be a overt act of compass or  imagine the king death Inst hale p c but Mr justice foster say that the rule  which have be lie down on more occasion than one since the revolution be that  lose word not relative to any act or design be not overt act of treason state  trial salk but that word of advice or persuasion and all consultation for the  traitorous purpose of compass the king death be certain so they be utter in  contemplation of some traitorous purpose actual on foot or intend and in  prosecution of it foster discontent it seem also to be the better opinion that  to make write a overt act of high treason in compass the king death it must  not only be publish but clear import a traitorous design upon the life of the  king hale foster hawk p c a c judgement be arrest hilary term the thirtysixth  of Charles the second in the king bench sir George jefferies Knt chief justice  sir Francis Wythens Knt sir Richard Holloway Knt sir Thomas Walcot Knt justice  sir Robert sawyer Knt attorneygeneral sir Heneage finch Knt solicitor general