| Act of Parliament | |
 | |
| Long title | An Act for Safety and Preservation of His Majesties Person and Government against Treasonable and Seditious practices and attempts.[2] |
|---|---|
| Citation | 13 Cha. 2 St. 1. c. 1 |
| Dates | |
| Royal assent | 30 July 1661 |
| Commencement | 8 May 1661 |
| Repealed | 21 July 1967 |
| Other legislation | |
| Amended by | |
| Repealed by | Criminal Law Act 1967 |
Status: Repealed | |
| Text of statute as originally enacted | |
TheSedition Act 1661 (13 Cha. 2 St. 1. c. 1) was anAct of theParliament of England, although it was extended toScotland in 1708.[3] Passed shortly afterthe Restoration ofCharles II, it is no longer in force, but some of its provisions continue to survive today in theTreason Act 1695 and theTreason Felony Act 1848. One clause which was included in the Treason Act 1695 was later adapted for theUnited States Constitution.
The most important feature of the Act was that it reintroduced a significant new rule of evidence inhigh treason trials, namely that nobody could be convicted of treason except by the evidence of "two lawful andcredible witnesses upon oath ... brought in person before him or them face to face", or if he confessed "willingly without violence". (This rule had previously been enacted in section 22 of theTreason Act 1547, and again in section XI of theTreason Act 1554, which however differed from the other versions by only requiring the witnesses "if [they were] living and within the realm".) This clause of the 1661 Act, section 5, was replaced by the Treason Act 1695, which added that the two witnesses had to have witnessed the same offence (although not necessarily the same "overt act" of the offence).[4] The rule was inherited by theUnited States and was incorporated into theUS Constitution in 1787, which added that both witnesses had to have witnessed the same overt act.[5] Section 5 of the 1661 Act was cited by US Supreme Court justiceAntonin Scalia in his judgement inCrawford v. Washington, a case about the "Confrontation Clause" of the Sixth Amendment in 2004.[6]
The 1661 version of this rule only applied to the new forms of treason (and other offences) which were created by the 1661 Act (see§ New offences below). The 1695 Act applied to all forms of high treason, exceptcounterfeiting coins.
The rule was abolished in theUnited Kingdom by theTreason Act 1945, which made the rules of evidence and procedure in treason cases the same as in a murder trial.[7] During the passage of the Treason Bill through Parliament theHome Secretary,Sir Donald Somervell, said:
It is, presumably, based on the idea that one witness may be unreliable, whereas, on the other hand, if you allege two overt acts, and if you have one witness of each, then the two unreliabilities are taken as adding up to a sufficient certainty. It was very much criticised from the moment it was enacted.[8]
Sir William Blackstone wrote in hisCommentaries on the Laws of England:
the principal reason, undoubtedly, is to secure the subject from being sacrificed to fictitious conspiracies, which have been the engines of profligate and crafty politicians in all ages.[9]
The Act created four new kinds ofhigh treason, in addition to those already existing. The Act made ittreason to:
within the realm, or without,compass, imagine, invent, devise or intend death or destruction or any bodily harm tending to death or destruction, maim or wounding, imprisonment or restraint of the person of ... the King
or, within the realm or without, compass, imagine, invent, devise or intend:
These provisions were expressed only to have effect during the lifetime of the King,Charles II. However they were temporarily re-enacted, with two modifications, by theTreason Act 1795,[10] and then made permanent by theTreason Act 1817, both underGeorge III. In the 1795 version, "the realm" meantGreat Britain (in 1848 the Act was extended to coverIreland[11]), and levying war against the King was only an offence under the Act if done in order to compel the King to change his policies or to "intimidate or overawe" Parliament. (However under theTreason Act 1351, which was not affected, levying war against the King was still treason, without these additional criteria.)
The difference between the Treason Act 1351 and the Acts of 1661 and 1795 was that while the 1351 Act required an actual levying of war, the later Acts also made it treason to "compass, imagine, invent, devise, or intend" a levying of war.[12]
Thepenalty for treason was death. However, the last three treasons on the above list were reduced tofelonies by theTreason Felony Act 1848, which made the maximum sentencelife imprisonment. The 1848 Act is still in force. Imprisoning or otherwise harming the Sovereign continued to be high treason, punishable by death, until the 1795 Act was repealed by theCrime and Disorder Act 1998. Assaulting the Sovereign is still an offence under theTreason Act 1842, which carries a maximum sentence of seven years.
In someCommonwealth of Nations countries, such asCanada,[13]Australia[14] andNew Zealand[15] it is stilltreason to imprison or harm the King.
Besides treason, the 1661 Act created other offences designed to protect the national security. These offences required the evidence of two witnesses or a confession, and had to be prosecuted within six months of the offence being committed. The king had to personally authorise a prosecution.
Anyone who in speech or writing called the King aheretic orpapist, or who incited "hatred or dislike of the Person of His Majestie or the established Government" was to be disqualified from holding any public, military or ecclesiastical office (but could keep hispeerage). This measure was expressed only to last during the King's lifetime.
A permanent offence (until it was repealed) was committed by any person who claimed (in writing or in speech) that theLong Parliament had not beendissolved, or that anyone had a duty to obey anoath to change the government, or that Parliament could legislate without theking's assent.
The Act declared that theSolemn League and Covenant was null and void. It also preservedParliament's privilege of free speech, and the right of a peer to be tried in the House of Lords.
A peer who was convicted of any offence under the Act was to be disqualified from sitting in the House of Lords, unlesspardoned (although he would keep his title).
Sections 1 and 2 were repealed on 28 January 1863 by section 1 of, and the Schedule to, theStatute Law Revision Act 1863.
There were some other repeals over the years, and then the whole Act, so far as unrepealed, was repealed by theCriminal Law Act 1967.