ATTAINDER, in English law, was the immediate and in separable consequence from the common law upon the sentence of death. When it was clear beyond all dispute that the criminal was no longer fit to live he was called attaint, and could not, before the Evidence Act 1843, be a witness in any court. This attainder took place after judgment of death, or upon such circumstances as were eqilivalent to judgment of death, such as judgment of outlawry on a capital crime, pronounced for absconding from jus tice. Conviction without judgment was not followed by attainder. The consequences of attainder were (I) forfeiture, (2) corrup tion of blood. On attainder for treason, the criminal forfeited to the Crown his lands, rights of entry on lands, and any interest he might have in lands for his own life or a term of years. For mur der, the offender forfeited to the Crown the profit of his freeholds during life, and in the case of lands held in fee-simple, the lands themselves for a year and a day; subject to this, the lands es cheated to the lord of the fee. These forfeitures related back to the time of the offence committed. Forfeitures of goods and chattels ensued not only on attainder, but on conviction for a felony of any kind, or on flight from justice, and had no relation backwards to the time of the offence committed. By corruption of blood, "both upwards and downwards," the attainted person could neither inherit nor transmit lands. The lands escheated to the lord of the fee, subject to the Crown's right of forfeiture. The doctrine of attainder has, however, ceased to be of much im portance. The Forfeiture Act 187o enacted that henceforth no confession, verdict, inquest, conviction or judgment of or for any treason or felony, or felo de se, should cause any attainder or corruption of blood, or any forfeiture or escheat.
Bills of Attainder, in English legal procedure, were formerly a parliamentary method of exercising judicial authority. They were ordinarily initiated in the House of Lords and the proceed ings were the same as on other bills, but the parties against whom they were brought might appear by counsel and produce witnesses in both Houses. In the case of an impeachment (q.v.), the House of Commons was prosecutor and the House of Lords judge; but such bills being legislative in form, the consent of Crown, lords, and commons was necessary to pass them. Bishops, who do not exercise but who claim the right to vote in cases of impeachment (q.v.), have a right to vote upon bills of attainder, but their vote is not conclusive in passing judgment upon the ac cused. First passed in 1459, such bills were employed, more par ticularly during the reigns of the Tudor kings, as a species of ex trajudicial procedure, for the direct punishment of political offences. Dispensing with the ordinary judicial forms and prece dents, they took away from the accused whatever advantages he might have gained in the courts of law; such evidence only was admitted as might be necessary to secure conviction; indeed, in many cases bills of attainder were passed without any evidence being produced at all. In the reign of Henry VIII. they were much used, through a subservient parliament, to punish those who had incurred the king's displeasure ; many distinguished victims who could not have been charged with any offence under the ex isting laws being by this means disposed of. In the century, during the disputes with Charles I., the Long Parliament made effective use of the same procedure, forcing the sovereign to give his consent. The most famous cases were those of Strafford and Laud. After the Restoration it became less frequent, though the Jacobite movement in Scotland produced several instances of at tainder, without, however, the infliction of the extreme penalty of death. The last bill of attainder passed in England was in the case of Lord Edward Fitzgerald, one of the Irish rebel leaders of A bill for reversing attainder takes a form contrary to the usual rule. It is first signed by the Sovereign and presented by a peer to the House of Lords by command of the Crown, or, in other words, it is entirely within the Crown's grace and favour. Such bills for reversal are not obsolete as they are the first step necessary by a claimant to a peerage which has fallen into abey ance (see PEERAGE) when the ancestor was attainted. The House of Lords has recently (1928) adopted a report recommending that such attainders be not reversed "where the attainder has been in existence for several centuries." The Constitution of the United States forbids Congress to pass any bill of attainder or ex post facto law. Most of the State constitutions contain similar prohibitions.