Re: Thomas Beauchamp of Northants a criminal
-
In reply to:
Thomas Beauchamp of Northants a criminal
Osiris Johnson 9/20/00
Bravo Si, Gary and Ann,
Here is a bit of background on felonies in England before and during that time period.
Felony or Treason?
Bellamy [1970:vii] states that the further back in post-conquest English legal history one goes, the less distinct becomes the line between treason and felony. Originally, the idea of felony must have contained the concept of treason, because a felony was a breach of the contract owed to the lord to keep the peace [Lyon, 1960:190; Simpson, 1986:15]. Blackstone, writing in the late eighteenth century, argued that treason must have always been a felony, but not all felonies were treason [Bellamy, 1970:viii]. In reality, felony was the genus term, while treason represents one species of felony.
Even inferior felonies, those that did not require the death penalty, subjected the offender to fines that might include the forfeiture of goods and chattels [Eden, 1771:41]. Such statutory forfeitures were a major source of revenue for the Crown [Maxeiner, 1977:773]. For example, fines were frequently used as a penalty for assault [Beattie, 1986:456-457]. Increasing the number of offenses considered felonies gave the lords greater opportunity for gain. By the seventeenth century crimes that were considered felonies included murder, manslaughter, witchcraft, larceny, abduction of an heiress with intent to marry her, forgery of a deed or testimonial, transportation of a sheep, and malicious cutting of another man's tongue or his eyes [Veall, 1970:2].
Corruption of Blood
The use of escheats and forfeitures had even greater draconian consequences in that it resulted in corruption of blood. This practice was also the legacy of the feudal land system and was introduced after the Conquest. Corruption of blood meant that as a result of conviction the criminal's bloodline had been legally severed [Baker, 1979:412-413; Hughes and O'Connell, 1984:619]. Not only were his wife and heirs unable to inherit his land or goods, the family was unable to inherit from his parents as well [Tucker, 1969, Vol. 5:387]. The widow's "dower," which usually consisted of one-third of her husband's lands, was almost always lost [Simpson, 1986:68]. Only when a crime exempted by Parliamentary statute was committed could an attained felon avoid corruption of blood or losing his wife's dower rights to his estate [Hale, 1971, Vol. 1:241-253, 354].Corruption of blood also had a religious justification, stemming from the biblical concept that the sins of the fathers would be visited upon their sons. Even grandchildren were affected. A grandson could not inherit from his grandfather's estate if his father was convicted of treason, because the bloodline was considered severed [Story, 1970, Vol. 3:170].
Due Process and Peine Forte et Dure
Forfeiture and corruption of blood could only be enacted following both conviction by a jury and attainder. Attainder was a declaration of a person's civil death (extinction of all civil rights and capacities) and corruption of blood which occurred as a consequence of a sentence to death for high treason or felony [Bishop, 1882, Vol. 1:581; Weiner, 1981:230]. In addition, if an indicted defendant ran from justice rather than face a trial, he was branded an outlaw and could also be attained and his property forfeited. Even though he was still alive, he was civilly dead [Bishop, 1882, Vol. 1:582; Tucker, 1969, Vol. 5:387].One way that those who faced the court attempted to lessen their penalties was to sell or transfer their property to others. The courts blocked the practice by creating a "relation back" doctrine. Forfeiture of estate for treason was considered to relate backwards to the exact time of the treason committed and served to void all subsequent sales and encumbrances [Tucker, 1969, Vol. 5:382; Eden, 1771:40-41].However, there was a way an individual could avoid forfeiture by allowing himself to suffer peine forte et dure rather than stand trial [Baker, 1979:416]. This practice, which usually consisted of slowly pressing a person to death with giant stones, was first enacted in 1275, last used in 1741, and finally abolished in 1772 [Lyon, 1960:451]. Saving a person's family from forfeiture and corruption of blood was not the original purpose of peine forte et dure, but such usage emerged as a latent function.
One of the most important milestones in English law had already taken place. The "Habeas Corpus Act" of 1679 had obliged judges to issue upon request a writ of habeas corpus directing a gaoler (jailer) to produce the body of any prisoner and to show cause for his imprisonment.
For more interesting English Law reading : http://www.fsu.edu/~crimdo/forfeiture.htmlhttp://www.fsu.edu/~crimdo/forfeiture.html
Thomas Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick, imprisoned 1397-99 by Richard II. He was then sent to the Isle of Wight.I don’t remember where I read that, but I will check my notes.
James Paterson's British History Site
The Interregnum 1640-1660
1640-42: Period of intense conflict between King Charles I and Parliament. According to Tim Harris, writing in the Journal of Modern History(December 1997), conflict escalated from a 'conservative revolt' into a 'revolutionary challenge' when Parliament attempted 'to seize acknowledged royal powers in order to defend the public good and carry out godly reform.'
1642-48: The British Civil Wars
Conventionally, the beginning of the First English Civil War is dated from August 22nd 1642, when the King raised his standard at Nottingham in a bid to raise support. However the first real engagement of the Civil War was a skirmish between royalist and parliamentary forces at Worcester on September 23, 1642. Parliament's victory over the king was effectively won by the battle of Naseby in June 1645 and the mopping-up campaign that followed, but it was not formalized until Oxford, the royalist capital, surrendered on June 24, 1646. In October, the more radical Puritans achieved their principal religious goal when episcopacy was abolished. On April 30, 1648 Royalist forces captured Berwick and Carlisle, marking the outbreak of the so-called 'Second Civil War,' which ended with Cromwell's victory at Preston in August. Historians estimate that about 3.6% of the English population died in the Civil Wars. (The figure takes into account those who died as a result of epidemics associated with the movement of armies.) Probably about 85,000 people died in the actual fighting, although contemporaries' estimates were much higher - between 100,000 and 300,000.
1645: The Archbishop of Canterbury, William Laud, executed on January 10.
1642-60: The Puritan Cultural Revolution
Could be right Si.
More Replies:
-
Re: Thomas Beauchamp of Northants a criminal
Ivan Scroggins 10/09/00