In fact, this is part of the Duke of Bedford's argument: we want the nobility to feel that they can revolt if they feel that it's necessary (such as, from his POV, in 1688)
Yes, I read his speech last night and was going to say today that this is fascinating! It was way more interesting than Chesterfield's speech.
His argument, for those of you who haven't read it, is that the current bill to strip traitors of titles and estates before killing them, meaning their descendants won't inherit either, means that you're giving the landed nobility more to lose when they revolt. This means brave men who are willing to risk their own lives to fight an unjust gov't will think twice before risking their children's inheritance, and stay home. This means we're more likely to end up with tyrannical gov'ts. "Look at my grandfather!" he says.
Looking at his grandfather, Grandpa Russell was executed for treason for participation in the Rye House Plot, a conspiracy to assassinate Charles II and future James II.
This is why Bedford's able to open his speech by saying, "Look, I think I can safely say that you all know that I'm not a Jacobite sympathizer despite the fact that I'm opposing the bill for added penalties for supporting the Stuarts. My personal record and my family's record speaks for itself."
The single most fascinating line in the speech to me:
We should rather run the risk of frequent civil wars, than continue those punishments, which are much more severe upon men of family and fortune, than upon the lowest class of people.
It's a speech rife with classism, as luzula pointed out, but it's a speech for weakening the government so that it can be successfully kept in line, with violence if necessary. Reading that just 30 years before the American Revolution is *really* interesting. The AR did not happen in a vacuum!
(Though I'm generally bored to death by American history, possibly out of resistance to having it shoved down my throat year after year, the one thing that I do intend to do one day is study the intellectual background to the *ideas* of the AR: Polybius and the Achaean League, Machiavelli, federalism in the Holy Roman Empire, Blackstone, all the philosophers, etc.)
Oh, interesting. But that was a time when the British government was really worried about treason.
Yeah, and there was a new treason act in 1800! Triggered by an assassination attempt on G3, apparently. But an isolated crazy guy, not a movement, so, yeah, I think you're onto something about the threat coming from a different level of society.
For cahn, Blackstone's summary of the penalties for high treason:
The punishment of high treason in general is very solemn and terrible. 1. That the offender be drawn to the gallows, and not be carried or walk; though usually a fledge or hurdle is allowed, to preserve the offender from the extreme torment of being dragged on the ground or pavement 2. That he be hanged by the neck, and then cut down alive. 3. That his entrails be taken out, and burned, while he is yet alive. 4. That his head be cut off. 5. That his body be divided into four parts. 6. That his head and quarters be at the king’s disposal.
The king may, and often does, discharge all the punishment, except beheading, especially where any of noble blood are attainted. For, beheading being part of the judgment, that may be executed, though all the rest be omitted by the king’s command.
Which is why I think BPC would have been left hoping for a competent executioner. (Katte, who's having the 291st anniversary of his execution today, got lucky with his single stroke.)
Incidentally, so far I haven't seen a single argument against attainting the Stuarts, and I doubt I will. The debate so far is solely about the other two clauses, and mostly the forfeiture of titles and estates by the innocent children.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Jacobites and treason
Date: 2021-11-06 03:19 pm (UTC)Yes, I read his speech last night and was going to say today that this is fascinating! It was way more interesting than Chesterfield's speech.
His argument, for those of you who haven't read it, is that the current bill to strip traitors of titles and estates before killing them, meaning their descendants won't inherit either, means that you're giving the landed nobility more to lose when they revolt. This means brave men who are willing to risk their own lives to fight an unjust gov't will think twice before risking their children's inheritance, and stay home. This means we're more likely to end up with tyrannical gov'ts. "Look at my grandfather!" he says.
Looking at his grandfather, Grandpa Russell was executed for treason for participation in the Rye House Plot, a conspiracy to assassinate Charles II and future James II.
This is why Bedford's able to open his speech by saying, "Look, I think I can safely say that you all know that I'm not a Jacobite sympathizer despite the fact that I'm opposing the bill for added penalties for supporting the Stuarts. My personal record and my family's record speaks for itself."
The single most fascinating line in the speech to me:
We should rather run the risk of frequent civil wars, than continue those punishments, which are much more severe upon men of family and fortune, than upon the lowest class of people.
It's a speech rife with classism, as
(Though I'm generally bored to death by American history, possibly out of resistance to having it shoved down my throat year after year, the one thing that I do intend to do one day is study the intellectual background to the *ideas* of the AR: Polybius and the Achaean League, Machiavelli, federalism in the Holy Roman Empire, Blackstone, all the philosophers, etc.)
Oh, interesting. But that was a time when the British government was really worried about treason.
Yeah, and there was a new treason act in 1800! Triggered by an assassination attempt on G3, apparently. But an isolated crazy guy, not a movement, so, yeah, I think you're onto something about the threat coming from a different level of society.
For
The punishment of high treason in general is very solemn and terrible. 1. That the offender be drawn to the gallows, and not be carried or walk; though usually a fledge or hurdle is allowed, to preserve the offender from the extreme torment of being dragged on the ground or pavement 2. That he be hanged by the neck, and then cut down alive. 3. That his entrails be taken out, and burned, while he is yet alive. 4. That his head be cut off. 5. That his body be divided into four parts. 6. That his head and quarters be at the king’s disposal.
The king may, and often does, discharge all the punishment, except beheading, especially where any of noble blood are attainted. For, beheading being part of the judgment, that may be executed, though all the rest be omitted by the king’s command.
Which is why I think BPC would have been left hoping for a competent executioner. (Katte, who's having the 291st anniversary of his execution today, got lucky with his single stroke.)
Incidentally, so far I haven't seen a single argument against attainting the Stuarts, and I doubt I will. The debate so far is solely about the other two clauses, and mostly the forfeiture of titles and estates by the innocent children.