In English law, an attainer was the extinction of one’s civil rights and political rights due to the sentence death from outlawry after a conviction of treason or felony.

“The most important consequences of attainder were forfeiture and corruption of blood. For treason, an offender’s lands were forfeited to the king. For felonies, lands were forfeited to the king for a year and a day and then, because felonies were considered a breach of the feudal bond, escheated (forfeited) to the lord from whom the offender held his tenure. Subsequently, in Magna Carta (1215), the crown renounced its claim to forfeiture in the case of felony. Even harsher than attainder was the doctrine of corruption of blood, by which the person attainted was disqualified from inheriting or transmitting property and his descendants were forever barred from any inheritance of his rights to title. All forms of attainder—except the forfeiture that followed indictment for treason—were abolished during the 19th century.” [Britannica]

The man had to be convicted. If he died before conviction, the penalty was not applied. The forfeiture for suicide was one year’s income, rather than everything, which is one reason the murderers were usually encouraged to end their own lives—at least in books. The penalty was modified throughout the19th century and if a charge of murder could be changed to manslaughter, the penalty did not apply after around 1814. There were also bills of attainder. As mentioned above the bills of attainer varied. For political purposes, Lord Edward Fitzgerald was the last one to have a bill of attainder drawn up against him for his part in the Irish uprising in 1798. This was done even though he died before being convicted. It was later modified to help his poor wife. The attainder imposed by a court of law came with conviction of being guilty of murder or treason. It was very hard for the families, though most of those executed had no property to be forfeit.

I used this penalty of murder and forfeiture as part of my plot for The Heartless Earl.

When the real Lord Ferrers was convicted and executed for murder, his property was taken. Fortunately his wife had been able to secure a legal separation with a legal charge against the estate, if I recall correctly. Also, they had no children so the brother succeeded to the earldom. The earldom was not forfeited to the Crown. The property of a murderer was forfeited when he was convicted. He was also attained with corruption of the blood.

Also, if I remember correctly, Writs of Attainder could make acts criminal retroactively. I think Henry VIII used this method to gain property for the Crown with some regularity. Generally, this was executed for treason or treasonous acts or what those in power called “treason.” There were some bills of attainder issued post facto. In addition to his marital problems, Henry was dealing with the Reformation and the break from Rome. It was easy enough to turn a difference of opinion into treason. Attainted means that the person losses all civil rights and becomes a non-person. He cannot sue or be sued. He cannot have a government position or money. Usually, those who are attainted because of a crime are executed. Bills of attainder were passed against some for treason and without a trial. If titled the man does not lose his title until he is executed, but he has no privileges or rights. Corruption of the blood means he cannot inherit from anyone and has no heirs. This is complicated subject and most sites discuss the political bills of attainder for political enemies and those in opposition to policies, like Catholics and supporters of the Starts.

WIKIPEDIA and other sources say that even after 1815 a conviction of murder leads to corruption of the blood, but that has to be premeditated, malice murder—the accused meant to kill someone and made plans to carry out the act. It does not include spontaneous murder, manslaughter, accidental, self-defense, or in the commission of another crime.

“Historically, a legislative act attainting a person without a judicial trial was known as a bill of attainder or—if punishment was less than death—as a bill of pains and penalties. The power of Parliament to declare guilt and impose punishment by such measures was well established by the 15th century. During the Wars of the Roses (1455–85), bills of attainder were used by rival factions to rid themselves of each other’s leaders, and later King Henry VIII (reigned 1509–47) induced both the House of Lords and the House of Commons to pass such bills against ministers whom he had ceased to trust. Unlike impeachment, which is a judicial proceeding in the House of Lords on charges made by the House of Commons, a bill of attainder was a legislative act adopted by both houses with the formal consent of the king. The offenses charged in such bills were usually characterized as treason but did not have to satisfy established legal definitions of that or any other crime. Thus, bills of attainder have generally been deplored not only because they deprived the accused of a fair trial but also because of their typically ex post facto quality. The dominant faction of the legislature could make any past conduct that it found offensive into a crime. In England, the last bill of attainder was against Lord Edward Fitzgerald, who was condemned to death by an act of Parliament for leading the 1798 rebellion in Ireland. The last bill of pains and penalties, introduced in 1820, led to a legislative trial of Queen Caroline, wife of King George IV, on charges of adultery, but the bill was not passed.”

**Before 1815:

Suicide: Forfeiture. Personal property likely lost.

Common-Law Felony or Treason: Death and corruption of the blood. The heir gets nothing–no lands, no title.

Statute enacted by parliament: Attainder, and possible death sentence (or transportation, or forfeiture). The heir inherits, BUT any pending suits–contracts, etc, and rights to money could potentially be lost.

**After 1815:

Suicide: Forfeiture. Personal property likely lost.

Treason: Death and corruption of the blood. The heir gets nothing–no lands, no title.

Felony: Attainder, and possible death sentence (or transportation, or forfeiture). The heir inherits, BUT any pending suits–contracts, etc, and rights to money could potentially be lost. So conviction of an actual crime has an effect on the legal status of the felon that would almost certainly be more detrimental than mere forfeiture, even if there was no corruption of the blood.

If it is known that a man of wealth and property kills a man, it is better that he commit suicide–if he could stage it like an accident so much the better–so the family is not completely ruined and poverty stricken. Earl Ferrers is one of the few peers to be executed for murder. 

Almost all the others who lost their lives did so because of politics and loyalties. A spate of men were executed after the 1715 and 1745 uprisings. Mrs. Drummond Burrell’s great-grandfather lost his life and his earldom, Her father reclaimed some of it. If a man was a peer, his son immediately became the son of none and could not inherit anything when he died. This was obviously very hard on a young man who was not trained for anything means of earning his own support. There was one case where a man whose father, a peer, was still alive murdered a man and escaped abroad where he died. When his father died, his son succeeded him–that is when the grandfather died, the grandson inherited the earldom. The boy’s father never inherited the peerage of his own father so his son was not barred from it. Crazy, I know.

Ironically, the U.S. constitutional provisions prohibits declaring people guilty of crimes by legislative act, and prohibits sentences for crimes that take property or rights from the family or heirs of the convicted person, even in cases of treason. At least that is how it has been interpreted. Fines may be levied, but may only fall on the actual property of the person convicted. [“What Does Corruption of Blood Mean?”]