Search

The law of treason has been criticised for being based on 'outdated' statutes which are inflexible and unsuitable for modern needs. However, a historical examination of the evolution of treason in Britain and its empire suggests that the law was often adaptable. In nineteenth century England, jurists wished to rein in older constructive treasons, to leave the 1351 Act as the appropriate law for wartime treasons, while the more lenient 1848 Act was to be used against 'political' conspiracies to subvert the state by force. However, the 'constructive' treasons remained part of the law, and were given new life in imperial contexts. In Ireland and Canada, the idea that plotting the king's 'political' death was treason remained central to understandings of the 1351 Act. In India, the interpretation of the provision of the penal code against 'waging war' against the government was influenced by old English ideas of 'constructive' treason and used against those who challenged British rule. Imperial understandings of treason were also shaped by cases arising out of the Boer war, where the underlying law was Roman‐Dutch law. Rather than being restrictive and unable to adapt to modern needs, the law of treason was flexible and malleable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article explores the law of treason in relation to the run up to and unfolding of the Rhodesian Unilateral Declaration of Independence crisis of 1965–80. It considers how contemporaries debated the applicability of the treason laws to the unique situation created by the actions of the Smith government, and shows how it was unclear exactly who was culpable, and under what laws they would be so. In doing this it demonstrates how accusations of treason came to be used as a political tool, and the extent to which treachery was still a concept within the national mindset in the late 1960s and 1970s. Finally, it suggests that the law was arguably in need of serious reform, but that the unusual circumstances of the Rhodesian rebellion served to obscure how far this was the case. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The question of Henry VIII Tudor's divorce soon became an international issue that changed the political relations of the world. Since Anglicanism necessitated a swift adaptation of the English society, the king and parliament as legislators had drawn initial legal margins which were utilised in the upcoming social changes in England. While this body of the English legislature is of the utmost historical, political and legal importance for the United Kingdom, three acts thereof are of particular interest: the 1532 Act for the Conditional Restraint of Annates, the 1533 Act in Restraint of Appeals and the 1534 Supremacy Act. Through the application of the legal approach to historical research, this paper examines direct social consequences regarding the structure of governance and legal norms provided for the protection of the regal authority, most notably the criminal prosecution of heresy, the mandatory requirement of the Oath of Supremacy and broadening the high treason as a crime. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author presents a literary criticism of the English play "The Jew of Malta" by Christopher Marlowe. She mentions the execution of Portuguese physician Rodrigo Lopez for treason, the Jewish character of Barabas in the play and the similarities between the two, and discusses the possibility that Marlowe had heard rumors about Lopez that he incorporated in his play.

Roderigo Lopez, former Physician-in-Chief to Queen Elizabeth I of England, was a controversial figure in his time and continues to be the subject of controversy. Much has been written about his religious practice, politics, and guilt, or lack thereof, with regard to charges of treason to the Crown. However, the fact remains that Lopez was the only physician to the Crown to be sentenced to death. All evidence points to an anti- Semitic mindset that played in the background. Yet Lopez so endeared himself to the Queen that although he was indeed sentenced to death, almost all of his property was restored to his family. This brief paper pays tribute to the Jewish physician, Roderigo Lopez, whose story was indeed a triumph over prejudice, despite his fate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discuses the impact of the 1777 British American High Treason Act on radicalizing American colonists during the U.S. Revolutionary War, including its impact on American Revolutionaries' treatment of British maritime prisoners of war. The influence of Great Britain's method of naval warfare on Revolutionaries' naval warfare practices is discussed.

The problems of arson, treason and national security became entangled in the politics of Britain and its Atlantic empire between 1770 and 1777. Fears of French military terrorism were compounded by the increasingly violent resistance of the American colonies. Two dockyard fires in Portsmouth, in 1770 and 1777, and the attack on, and burning of, the royal navy ship Gaspee off Rhode Island in 1772, provoked both legal and political difficulties for the British government. New laws on arson and treason were passed yet proved almost impossible to implement in full outside England. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This essay demonstrates how disputes over the cognitive processes that structure both manuscript and print helped establish and limit Jacobean state authority. It investigates the 1614 clash between James I, Francis Bacon, and Edward Coke that occurred in the aftermath of the arrest of Edmund Peacham, a Somerset minister, and the discovery of his undelivered sermon that attacked James. The ensuing debate over the nature of Peacham's offense and the textual evidence that revealed it is then juxtaposed with disputes over Coke's Reports. When read together, these debates demonstrate how early modern disputes over the processes of writing illumine a much larger struggle over how mechanisms of individual and corporate thought can constitute a nascent claim to a liberty of the mind, [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines three vernacular chronicles written from contrasting view-points: the Scalacronica of Sir Thomas Gray, whose father was linked with Edward II's court, and the 'Long' and 'Short' continuations of the prose Brut, both markedly sympathetic towards Thomas of Lancaster, leader of the opposition to the king. This is a period which saw a sea change in the crown's attitude towards rebellion, but the accounts of these chronicles suggest that a significant part of the political community did not accept the crown's new definition of treason. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article explores the Pentrich Rebellion in Derbyshire, England in 1817, highlighting its 200th anniversary in 2017. The Pentrich Rebellion was an armed uprising which started on June 9, 1817 by several men including Jeremiah Brandeth and Isaac Ludlam who marched from Pentrich and South Wingfield to Nottingham. Also discussed are the causes of the rebellion and the trials of the rebels for high treason.

The article reviews several exhibitions in 2016 memorialising the 1916 Easter Rising in Dublin, Ireland which include "High Treason: Roger Casement" curated by Jessica O'Donnell, "Rising" curated by Sara Smyth, and "GPO Witness History Visitor Centre."

The conviction and execution of William Joyce (‘Lord Haw-Haw’) for treason to the British crown remains controversial to the present day. He was not, however, the only wartime traitor in the Joyce family. His first cousin, the Irish-born Sergeant Michael Joyce, RAF, also volunteered his services to the Nazis while a prisoner of war in Germany, and arguably compromised himself even more seriously than his more notorious relative. In contrast to the avidity with which William Joyce was pursued, however, Michael Joyce’s crimes — which came to light as the trial of ‘Lord Haw-Haw’ opened at the Old Bailey — were efficiently concealed by prosecutors. The difference in the treatment of the cases of the two Joyce cousins not only sheds new light on the determination of the British authorities to secure a conviction against ‘Lord Haw-Haw’ at all costs, but also reveals the ambiguity and instability of ‘Britishness’ at a moment when, paradoxically, patriotism and national self-confidence were at their twentieth-century zenith. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses English constitutional history and the British Parliament's privileges of freedom of speech and debate, focusing on British royalty, Stuart-era monarchs, and the reported transformation of a power to hold outsiders in contempt of Parliament during the Tudor period of British history. Great Britain's King Henry VIII's reign and the British House of Commons are addressed, along with jurisdiction over disputed elections. Treason and the British Constitution are also examined.

A biography is presented of the British spy, poet and army Major John André. He was born on October 2, 1750 in England and attended the University of Geneva. After his involvement in military intelligence exchanges with the American General Benedict Arnold during the American Revolutionary War, he was convicted and hung for treason by the British.

Edmund of Woodstock, earl of Kent, was beheaded in March 1330 for treason against his nephew Edward III after he admitted plotting to release his deposed half-brother Edward II from captivity at Corfe Castle. Edward II's death at Berkeley Castle had been publicly announced two and a half years previously, and Kent himself attended the funeral in Gloucester in December 1327. A frequent explanation for the earl's subsequent belief that the former king was still alive assumes that he was stupid and gullible and had been tricked into trying to rescue a dead man to provide an excuse for Edward III's mother Queen Isabella and her paramour Roger Mortimer, ruling the country in the king's name, to execute him. This explanation either ignores altogether the men who supported Kent in his plot, or dismisses them as a few disaffected clerics and a handful of others with grievances against Isabella and Mortimer's rule who did not truly believe in Edward II's survival. This article demonstrates that around seventy men supported Kent in 1330 and provides detailed backgrounds and allegiances for them, showing that the majority had been close to Edward II and had shown great loyalty to him before, during and after the revolution of 1326/27 which swept him from his throne. This sheds new light on the plot and the motives of those who took part, and has profound implications for the very current debate of Edward II's survival after 1327. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This article examines the importance of material objects and their circulation, decor, cant and code as means of avoiding prosecution under sedition or treason legislation in the period from 1680 to 1760. It seeks to move the discussion of the use of such material in communicative and associative strategies beyond the realms of antiquarianism and connoisseurship to develop a theory of Jacobite material culture. The study concludes with an examination of the work of James Gibbs and a discussion of interior plasterwork in Scotland and England, notably at the House of Dun. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses radical British orator, writer, and publisher John Thelwall, focusing particularly on his involvement with the political reforming group London Corresponding Society and his treason trial of 1794. A caricature of Thelwall speaking at Copenhagen Fields, England by English caricaturist James Gillray is discussed. Thelwall spoke at two meetings of the London Corresponding Society in 1795 soon after his acquittal from his treason trial. The author explores the political situation in Great Britain during the time including the Treasonable Practices Bill and the Seditious Meetings Bill, legislation intended to stifle political criticisms the British government. Thelwall's political activities during the period are detailed.

Treason is an ancient crime, but it fell into disuse in most Western democratic states after World War II. Now it is making a comeback with prosecutions or threatened prosecutions against a new type of enemy--accused terrorists--in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Israel. In the postwar period, commentators wrongly argued that treason would no longer be prosecuted because it is antiliberal, too difficult to prove, unnecessary because modern democracies are stable and secure, and premised on an extinct sense of loyalty to the state. This Article begins by debunking these claims and explaining Treason's recent reappearance. First, democratic states have altered their treason laws, without explicit amendment, to make them akin to other criminal laws. Second, technology has made treason both easier to detect and easier to prove. Third, although the states discussed in this Article are generally stable and secure, states are likely to employ treason prosecutions when they perceive an existential threat (even if one does not actually exist). Finally, the betrayal inherent in treason retains both its power to injure and its power to offend, giving treason as much indignant punch as it has ever had. Treason's return is thus explainable, but is it a cause for concern? Treason prosecutions may have several potential benefits including reinforcing societal identity and unity, deterring future treasons, providing retribution against the traitor, and clarifying the procedural system under which terrorism should be addressed. But they may also pose dangers, including unduly aggrandizing the threat from terrorism, signaling weakness of the government that chooses to prosecute treason, biasing the criminal case against the defendant, and posing a difficult question about whether treason necessarily deserves the death penalty. Based on a weighing of these factors, this Article concludes by arguing that treason prosecutions are not cause for concern when they are confined to instances in which--like the U.S., British, and Israeli cases discussed in this Article--the threat posed by the terrorist group the traitor supports is akin to that posed by an enemy state. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Henry Bolingbroke allegedly swore not to usurp the throne in Yorkshire in 1399 before going on to do so. Whether he committed perjury has divided historians of the past fifty years. Understanding of some old sources has improved and a new source has been discovered. This article reviews the evidence. It itemises each source in its original language and a modern translation as a foundation for future study. It suggests that Henry swore several oaths in different parts of Yorkshire and that originally there were options other than replacement of Richard II by Henry IV. It finds that all nine sources are interrelated. All date from the Percy revolt of 1403 or later. Some definitely do re-use Percy propaganda and others may. They cannot therefore be regarded as independent accounts of Henry's perjuries, which may nevertheless be true. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: In this article, I will argue that the public execution of aristocratic traitors should be read in a wider socio-cultural context in conjunction with the more common interpretation of treason executions as state-controlled legalised violence. The latter approach tends to obscure the issues of honour and status which define identities created in a decidedly public sphere. This is in particular relevant for the limited number of elaborate executions of male aristocratic traitors in late thirteenth- and early fourteenth-century England. Concerning only a handful of men, these executions stand out in their emphasis on public humiliation and degradation, as well as in their insistence on destroying the integrity of the traitor''s body. This implies a shared cultural understanding of aristocratic masculinities, founded in notions of nobility of lineage, loyalty, military prowess and physical health. Treason, as breach of loyalty, undermined this image of nobility, and indeed created a contradiction in terms: conceptually, corrupted nobility could not exist. By examining these executions in the light of aristocratic masculine self-representations, it becomes clear that these events are as much about punishing crimes and the breach of loyalty as about re-aligning cultural notions of nobility and ignobility by means of the traitor''s body. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

The three British prisoners released in March 2004 from Guantanamo Bay brings to the limelight the question of how to deal, in an English setting, with such individuals when they return home, after allegedly fighting on the side of a party which is at war with the United Kingdom. The terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 and the action by the coalition forces in Afghanistan against the al-Qaeda organisation and the Taliban militia that harboured it has affected the thinking of most of those engaged in the study and practice of international law. Several areas of international law need to be revisited with a view to clarifying and developing the relevant applicable rules. This, however, is outside the ambit of the present study. The focus of this article will be an examination of the availability of possible charges which the Crown in the UK could bring against Shafiq Rasil, Ruhal Ahmed and Asif Iqbal, the so-called ‘Tipton Three’. Our attention will be primarily directed to the offence of treason. Thereafter, attention will turn to the treatment of mercenaries under international law. This will be followed by a brief assessment of the applicability of the Foreign Enlistment Act 1870.1 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Examines the methods used by Great Britain to acquire and deploy evidence in advancing the prosecution of the suspects in the Bye plot of 1603, a conspiracy to kidnap King James I. Punishment for treason; Comparison of the fate of the suspects; Political imperatives in a dynastic change; Interpretation of treason in the early 17th-century.

Describes the legal complexities of the crime of treason in the realm of domestic laws in early modern England and how these issues are reflected in Shakespeare's `The Tempest,' the anonymous `Arden of Faversham,' and the printed transcripts of the trial of the Earl of Castlehaven. Wife or slave murdering man of house guilty of treason; Man equated to king in hierarchical order.

The article looks at the aspect of terror, which is the prosecutions for sedition, during the 1790s in Great Britain. The political trials during the decade involved prosecutions due to publication of seditious libels or utterances of seditious words. Addresses issued by radical clubs were also considered seditious libels such as the "Address of the Society for Political Information in Derby, by the County Association Movement. The blunt criticisms by James Raith at the Durham Quarter Sessions were directed against the family of the King and Queen of France. The Libel Act of 1792 was later introduced to facilitate the prosecutions for sedition. The Seditious Meetings Act and the Treasonable Practices Act extended the powers of magistrates to address such cases.

The article focuses on Ebenezer Smith Platt, a young British colonial, confined in London's infamous Newgate prison during 1777. On February 17, John Wilkes, the controversial politician, pamphleteer, and propagandist, rose to address the British House of Commons to illustrate the oppressive, unwarrantable and alienating effects of the proposed act on Americans by citing the case of Platt. Platt, whom Wilkes identified as an American merchant from Georgia, accused of treason, had allegedly been denied his basic judicial right to habeas corpus, and Wilkes intimated that the notoriety of this case was influencing the American commissioners in Paris to seek a French alliance. Ebenezer Smith Platt was possessed of a prominent family lineage--one that reached back to New England's first Puritan settlements. The travels of Ebenezer began during his Long Island boyhood. By the late 17605 Jonas Platt had taken his family to New York City, leaving his elderly father and half-brother Jeremiah to administer the family's extensive Suffolk County landholdings.

The article reports on a historical source found in the archives of the Cecil Papers at Hatfield House in Herfordshire, England related to the February 8, 1601 uprising in London, England led by Robert Devereux, the second Earl of Essex, against the monarchy of British Queen Elizabeth I. The document details a conspiracy by supporters of the Earl of Essex to free the Earl from his imprisonment for treason in the Tower of London planned for February 15, 1601. It reports that the plan was reconsidered and abandoned, but not before crown authorities heard of it and arrested three leaders of the conspiracy.

The article offers information on the case of six Kurdish MPs charged with treason in Turkey. The Kurdistan Information Centre, an organization based in Great Britain, reported that British observers was called to monitor the case of six Kurdish MPs. The MPs, along with some journalists of Ozgur Gundem were apprehended for wearing clothes with Kurdish colors rather than those of the Turkish flag and using Kurdish language in a public meeting. The Kurdistan Information Centre defended that Kurds are distinct people with legitimate rights.