[Germany, by the famous golden bull (p), copied almost verbatim from Justinian's code (7), the lives of the sons of such as conspire to kill an elector are spared, as it is expressed, by the emperor's particular bounty. But they are therein deprived of all their effects and rights of succession, and are rendered incapable of any honour, ecclesiastical or civil, "to the end that, being always poor and necessitous, they may for ever be accompanied by the infamy "of their father; may languish in continual indigence; "and may find," says this merciless edict, "their punish"ment in living, and their relief in dying."] The law of this country as to attainder for murder, was somewhat different from attainder in the case of high treason. In murder, the offender forfeited only to the Crown the profits of his freehold estates during life, and also (in the case of lands held by him in fee simple, though not with regard to those held in tail) the lands themselves, for a year and a day, with power to the Crown of committing upon them what waste it pleased: and subject to this temporary forfeiture, the lands escheated to the lord of the fee. This antient doctrine as to the right of the Crown for a year and a day requires, however, some further explanation (). [Formerly, then, the sovereign had a liberty of committing waste on the lands of all felons by pulling down their houses, extirpating their gardens, ploughing their meadows, and cutting down their woods (s). But this tending greatly to the prejudice of the public, it was agreed in the reign of Henry the first, that the king should have the profits of the land for one year and a day, in lieu of the destruction he was otherwise at liberty to commit (†). And, therefore, Magna Charta provided that (p) Cap. 24. (2) L. 9, t. 8, 1. 5. (r) 2 Inst. 37. (s) A punishment of a similar spirit (adds Blackstone, vol. iv. p. 385) appears to have obtained in the oriental countries, from the decrees of Nebuchadnezzar and Cy rus in the books of Daniel and c. 28. [the king should only hold such lands for a year and a day, and then restore them to the lord of the fee, without any mention made of waste (u). But the statute 17 Edw. II., De prærogativa regis, seemed to suppose that the king should have his year, day and waste, and not the year and day instead of waste; which Sir Edward Coke, and the author of the Mirrour before him, very justly looked upon as an encroachment, though a very antient one, of the royal prerogative (x).] Such continued to be the state of the law on this subject in respect of felonies, generally, until the passing of the 54 Geo. III. c. 145, though it became the practice to compound for the year, day and waste, in order to prevent the Crown from exercising its right of entry. But by the statute just mentioned it was enacted, that no future attainder for felony (except in cases of treason or murder) should extend to the disinheritance of any heir, or to the prejudice of the right or title of any person other than the right or title of the offender during his life only; and that it should be lawful for every person to whom the right or interest of any lands, tenements or hereditaments after the death of such offender should or might have appertained if no such attainder had been, to enter into the same, the attainder notwithstanding; and such remained the law until the 33 & 34 Vict. c. 23 (The Felony Act, 1870) took away altogether from a judgment for treason or any felony the effect of causing an attainder. The forfeitures above mentioned all arose, it will be observed, only as consequences of attainder (y); and therefore a felo de se forfeited no lands of inheritance or freehold, for he could never be attainted though found to be a felon (z). But, on the other hand, they related back to the time of the offence committed, so as to avoid all intermediate charges and conveyances. (u) 25 Edw. 1, c. 22. (x) Mirr. c. 5, s. 2; 2 Inst. 37. 145. (z) 3 Inst. 55. See Norris v. Chambers, 30 L. J., Ch. 290. Another consequence of attainder in treason and murder. was corruption of blood, both upwards and downwards (a); so that an attainted person could neither inherit lands or other hereditaments from his ancestors, nor transmit them by descent to any heir; but the same escheated to the lord of the fee, subject to the Crown's superior right of forfeiture. But having had occasion to enlarge on this matter in a former volume, where the subject of escheat was in question, it is not necessary to detain the reader longer upon it in this place (b),-further than to remind him that by the Felony Act just mentioned, it was also provided that no judgment for any treason or felony shall henceforth cause any corruption of blood (c). In addition to the forfeitures peculiar to attainder, it is to be understood that forfeiture of goods and chattels (both real and personal) ensued not only on attainder, but on conviction for a felony of any kind, whether capital or otherwise (d). [For flight also, on an accusation of treason or felony, whether the party were found guilty or acquitted, if the jury found the flight, the party forfeited his goods and chattels; for the very flight was held an offence carrying with it a strong presumption of guilt, and at least an endeavour to elude and stifle the course of justice prescribed by the law. But in modern times it became unusual for the jury to find the flight; forfeiture being looked upon, since the vast increase of personal property of late years, as too large a penalty for an offence to which a man is prompted by the natural love of liberty (e).] And by statute 7 & 8 Geo. IV. c. 28, s. 5, it was expressly enacted, that the jury impanelled to try a person indicted for treason or felony should no longer (a) See Kynnaird v. Leslie, Law Rep., 1 C. P. 389. (b) Vide sup. vol. I. pp. 435 et seq. (c) Vide sup. vol. 1. p. 446. (d) Forfeiture of goods and chattels accrued, consequently, on a verdict of self-murder (vide sup. p. 62). (e) Staundf. P. C. 183 b; 4 Bl. Com. 387. be charged to inquire whether he fled for such treason or felony. To revert to the forfeitures which formerly took place on attainder, and those which accrued on conviction merely, some remarkable differences will be noticed between the two. 1. Lands were forfeited upon attainder, but goods and chattels by conviction merely (f): and this, because, as in many convictions for felony, there never was any attainder; therefore, in those cases, the forfeiture must have been upon conviction, or not at all; and, being necessarily upon conviction in those, it was so ordered in all other cases; the law loving uniformity. 2. In outlawries for treason or felony, lands were not forfeited till the judgment of outlawry; but his goods and chattels were forfeited as soon as a man was first put into the exigent, without waiting till he was quinto exactus, or finally outlawed; for the secreting himself so long from justice was construed a flight in law (g). 3. [The forfeiture of lands had relation to the time of the fact committed, so as to avoid all subsequent sales and incumbrances; but the forfeiture of goods and chattels had no relation backwards; so that those only which a man actually had at the time of conviction were forfeited. Therefore a traitor or felon might bonâ fide sell any of his chattels (real or personal), for the sustenance of himself and family between the fact and conviction (); for personal property is of so fluctuating a nature, that it passes through many hands in a short time; and no buyer could have been safe if he had been held liable to return the goods which he had fairly bought, provided any of the prior vendors had committed a treason or felony. Yet if they were collusively and not bonâ fide parted with, but merely to defraud the Crown, the law, and particularly (f) See Roberts v. Walker, 1 Russ. & Myl. 756. (g) 3 Inst. 232. (h) Hawk. P. C. b. 2, c. 49, s. 33. [the statute 13 Eliz. c. 5, was strong enough to reach them; for, under such circumstances, they were all the while truly and substantially the goods of the offender.] The doctrines relating to forfeiture for crime, of which some account has been thus presented, are still deserving of attention from the student; but their practical importance is now greatly lessened, by the sweeping change which was introduced in the year 1870, by the 33 & 34 Vict. c. 23, to which we have already found occasion to make frequent reference. It will be remembered that by that Act it is provided that thenceforth no confession, verdict, inquest, conviction or judgment of or for any treason or felony or felo de se shall cause any attainder or corruption of blood, or any forfeiture or escheat (i). But, instead of these consequences, the Act proceeds to provide that a conviction for treason or felony, followed by a sentence of death or penal servitude or any term of imprisonment with hard labour exceeding twelve months, shall disqualify the person convicted, to hold or retain any military, naval or civil office under the Crown, or other public employment; or any ecclesiastical benefice, or any place, office or emolument in any university or other corporation; or to retain any pension or superannuation allowance;-unless in the case of his receiving a free pardon from her Majesty within two months after conviction (). And the same statute further provides that the property of the convict may be committed to the custody and management of administrators, to be appointed by the Crown: or (in default of such appointment) to the management of interim curators; who may be appointed by the justices of the peace, on an application made in the interest of the convict or his family. And that such administrators or curators are to pay his (i) 33 & 34 Vict. c. 23, s. 1. (k) Sect. 2. The convicted felon is also made incapable of being elected or sitting or voting as a VOL. IV. member of either House of Par- |