Editing Bill of attainder (section)

====English law====
The word "[[attainder]]" is part of English [[common law]].{{efn|The word "attainder" does not, in fact, derive from a Latin expression meaning "tainted", but from a French expression meaning "to attain", in the sense of condemn.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/12725|title = Home : Oxford English Dictionary}}</ref>}} Under English law, a criminal condemned for a serious crime, whether [[treason]] or [[felony]] (but not [[misdemeanor|misdemeanour]], which referred to less serious crimes), could be declared "attainted", meaning that his civil rights were nullified: he could no longer own property or pass property to his family by will or testament. His property could consequently revert to [[the Crown]] or to the [[mesne lord]]. Any [[peerage]] titles would also revert to the Crown. The convicted person would normally be punished by [[execution (legal)|judicial execution]]{{snd}}when a person committed a capital crime and was put to death for it, the property left behind [[escheat]]ed to the Crown or lord rather than being inherited by family. Attainder functioned more or less as the revocation of the feudal chain of privilege and all rights and properties thus granted.

Due to [[mandatory sentencing]], the due process of the courts provided limited flexibility to deal with the various circumstances of offenders. The property of criminals caught alive and put to death because of a guilty plea or jury conviction on a not guilty plea could be forfeited, as could the property of those who escaped justice and were outlawed; but the property of offenders who died before trial, except those killed during the commission of crimes (who fell foul of the law relating to ''[[felo de se]]''), could not be forfeited, nor could the property of offenders who refused to plead and who were tortured to death through ''[[peine forte et dure]]''.

On the other hand, when a legal conviction did take place, confiscation and "corruption of blood" sometimes appeared unduly harsh for the surviving family. In some cases (at least regarding the peerage) the Crown would eventually re-grant the convicted peer's lands and titles to his heir. It was also possible, as political fortunes turned, for a bill of attainder to be reversed. This sometimes occurred long after the convicted person was executed.

Unlike the mandatory sentences of the courts, acts of Parliament provided considerable latitude in suiting the punishment to the particular conditions of the offender's family. Parliament could also impose non-capital punishments without involving courts; such bills are called '''bills of pains and penalties'''.

Bills of attainder were sometimes criticised as a convenient way for the [[British monarchy|king]] to convict subjects of crimes and confiscate their property without the bother of a trial – and without the need for a conviction or indeed any evidence at all. It was however relevant to the custom of the Middle Ages, where all lands and titles were granted by a king in his role as the "[[fount of honour]]". Anything granted by the king's wish could be taken away by him. This weakened over time as personal rights became legally established.

The first use of a bill of attainder was in 1321 against [[Hugh Despenser the Elder|Hugh le Despenser, 1st Earl of Winchester]] and his son [[Hugh Despenser the Younger|Hugh Despenser the Younger, Earl of Gloucester]]. They were both attainted for supporting [[Edward II of England|King Edward II]] during his struggle with the [[Isabella of France|queen]] and [[baron]]s.

In England, those executed subject to attainders include [[George Plantagenet, Duke of Clarence]] (1478); [[Thomas Cromwell]] (1540); [[Margaret Pole, Countess of Salisbury]] (1540); [[Catherine Howard]] (1542); [[Thomas Seymour, 1st Baron Seymour of Sudeley|Thomas, Lord Seymour]] (1549); [[Thomas Wentworth, 1st Earl of Strafford|Thomas Wentworth, Earl of Strafford]] (1641); Archbishop [[William Laud]] of [[Archbishop of Canterbury|Canterbury]] (1645); and [[James Scott, 1st Duke of Monmouth|James Scott, Duke of Monmouth]]. In the 1541 case of Catherine Howard, King [[Henry VIII]] was the first monarch to delegate [[royal assent]], to avoid having to assent personally to the execution of his wife.

After defeating [[Richard III of England|Richard III]] and replacing him on the throne of England following the [[Battle of Bosworth Field]], [[Henry VII of England|Henry VII]] had Parliament pass a bill of attainder against his predecessor.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/richard-iii-the-truth-may-yet-be-discovered-8142320.html|title=Richard III: The truth may yet be discovered|work=The Independent|access-date=2018-10-13|language=en-GB}}</ref> It is noteworthy that this bill made no mention of the [[Princes in the Tower]], although it does declare him guilty of "shedding of Infants blood".<ref name="Kendall, Richard IIIA">{{cite book |last=Kendall |first=Paul Murray |ref=Kendall|title=[[Richard III (biography)|Richard the Third]]|author-link=Paul Murray Kendall|publisher=[[W. W. Norton]]|year= 1956|isbn=0-393-00785-5}}</ref>

Although deceased by the time of the [[Restoration (England)|Restoration]], the [[List of regicides of Charles I|regicides]] [[John Bradshaw (judge)|John Bradshaw]], [[Oliver Cromwell]], [[Henry Ireton]], and [[Thomas Pride]] were served with a bill of attainder on 15 May 1660 backdated to 1 January 1649 ([[Old Style and New Style dates|NS]]). After the committee stages, the bill passed both the [[House of Lords|Houses of Lords]] and [[House of Commons of the United Kingdom|Commons]] and was engrossed on 4 December 1660. This was followed with a resolution that passed both Houses on the same day:<ref name="british-history">{{cite web|url=http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.asp?compid=26189 |title=House of Commons Journal Volume 8: 15 May 1660 |work=British History Online |access-date=28 July 2016}}</ref><ref name="british-history2">{{cite web|url=http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.asp?compid=26317 |title=House of Commons Journal Volume 8: 4 December 1660 |work=British History Online |access-date=28 July 2016}}</ref><ref name="british-history3">{{cite web|url=http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.asp?compid=26867 |title=Index: A–J |work=Journal of the House of Commons |at=Volume 8 |via=British History Online |access-date=28 July 2016}}</ref>

{{blockquote|That the Carcases of Oliver Cromwell, Henry Ireton, John Bradshaw, and Thomas Pride, whether buried in Westminster Abbey, or elsewhere, be, with all Expedition, taken up, and drawn upon a Hurdle to Tiburne, and there hanged up in their Coffins for some time; and after that buried under the said Gallows: And that James Norfolke Esquire, Serjeant at Arms attending the House of Commons, do take care that this Order be put in effectual Execution.}}

In 1685, when the [[James Scott, 1st Duke of Monmouth|Duke of Monmouth]] landed in [[West of England|West England]] and started [[Monmouth Rebellion|a rebellion]] in an effort to overthrow his uncle, the recently enthroned [[James II of England|James II]], Parliament passed a bill of attainder against him. After the [[Battle of Sedgemoor]], this made it possible for King James to have the captured Monmouth put summarily to death. Though legal, this was regarded by many as an arbitrary and ruthless act.

In 1753, the Jacobite leader [[Archibald Cameron of Lochiel]] was summarily put to death on the basis of a seven-year-old bill of attainder, rather than being put on trial for his recent subversive activities in Scotland. This aroused some protests in British public opinion at the time, including from people with no Jacobite sympathies.

The last use of attainder was in 1798 against [[Lord Edward FitzGerald]] for leading the [[Irish Rebellion of 1798]].