1. Discuss the trial of John Huntridge concisely and the implications of its outcome.

Early in the eighteenth century, Blacks, or groups of local men who had ‘blacked’ faces,
were appearing widely across southern England, attacking and killing deer or other animals,
and destroying property. They would poach in the lands of kings and other members of the
aristocracy. At this time, the Whig political party which represented new mercantile and
economic interests, and which was the organization behind the Glorious Revolution of 1688,
dominated the Parliament. When they acquired their power, they became tempted to use their
position to prey on the traditional rights of others. As the Whigs exploited their position and
as the pluralistic nature of society emerged from the Glorious Revolution to which even those
without formal representation had been empowered, the response of the common people was
blacking. It was a usual occurrence that in the lands ruled by members of the Whigs party,
the traditional rights of people who lived in and around the lands were encroached on; some
were even evicted. As a result, Blacks would attack such properties (Acemoglu & Robinson,
2012).
The Parliamentary under the Whig government then passed the Black Act in 1723 to
combat the Black raids. This “created extraordinary fifty new offenses that were punishable
by hanging” and the act “made it a crime not only to carry weapons but to have a blackened
face” (Acemoglu & Robinson, 2012). Eventually, blacking would be punishable by hanging.
On November 10, 1724, John Huntridge, a resident of Richmond Park, owned by Sir Robert
Walpole, the secretary of state and was also an encroacher on the rights of residents, was
accused of aiding deer stealers and abetting known Blacks. His prosecution came from the
Regency Council which Walpole was dominating. Walpole then went so far as to extract
evidence himself to make Huntridge's guilt apparent. Conviction should have been an
automatic conclusion due to Walpole’s position. However, it was not. The jury found
Huntridge innocent “partly on procedural grounds, since there were irregularities with the
way the evidence had been collected” (Acemoglu & Robinson, 2012). But, not all Blacks
were as lucky as Huntridge. Many were hanged or transported to North America, and only
some were acquitted or had their convictions commuted.
It would only be in 1824 that the Black Acts would be repealed, but “Huntridge’s victory
[was] remarkable” (Acemoglu & Robinson, 2012). The Whigs had to abide by the rule of law
or that which stipulates that nobody is above the law. Such events surrounding Huntridge’s
victory reflected that the “elites were far more constrained by it than they had imagined”
(Acemoglu & Robinson, 2012). The Black Acts violated the rights that the Glorious
Revolution and the changes in the political institutions that followed had already established.
It would be apparent therefore that as enshrined in the rule of law, institutions and laws
would also constrain the elites (Acemoglu & Robinson, 2012).

2. Why did the Whigs and parliamentarians abide by the rule of law? 

The Whigs and the parliamentarians were constrained and abided by the rule of law due
to the nature of the Glorious Revolution. The revolution “was not the overthrow of one elite
by another, but a revolution against absolutism by a broad coalition”; therefore, as a
consequence of this revolution, there emerged pluralist political institutions, and the rule of
law emerged as a by-product of this process (Acemoglu & Robinson, 2012). Since a broad
coalition of interests involved emerged, sharing power, it was natural to constrain and apply
laws to all of them to avoid a group of people or an individual to amass too much power and
ultimately undermine the foundations of pluralism. In the first place, the Whigs and the
parliamentarians who opposed the Stuart absolutism during the Glorious Revolution had
projected the notion that monarchs should not have divine rights, therefore the principle of
the rule of law was included in their key argument. Thus, the elites or the Whigs needed to
abide by the rules to not throw the whole game away, since “throwing the game away would
destabilize the system and open the way for absolutism by a subset of broad coalition or even
risk the return of the Stuarts” (Acemoglu & Robinson, 2012). Such a thought is what
prevented the Parliament from creating new absolutism.

3. What is the rule of law? What virtuous circle did the rule of law create? 

The rule of law is a principle that stipulates that laws should be applied equally to
everybody. It forges the idea that individuals should be treated fairly. And since, extractive
political institutions usually encroach on people’s rights and do not enable an environment
wherein laws are applied fairly and equally, the rule of law cannot be achieved in absolutist
political institutions. As stated by Acemoglu and Robinson (2012), “the notion of the rule of
law not only kept absolutism at but but also created a type of virtuous cycle: if the laws
applied equally to everybody, then no individual or group,...could rise above the law, and
common people accused of encroaching on private property still had the right to a fair trial.”
As is enshrined in the rule of law, when institutions are inclusive, they would be based on
constraints on the exercise of power and a pluralistic distribution of political power in
society. The logic of the virtuous circle stems from this fact. As was realized in the events
that surrounded the Black Acts, the ability of a group of people to impose their will on others
without any constraints would threaten the balance of the virtuous cycle. If the balance was
to be temporarily suspended, there would be no guarantee that it would be suspended again;
and, at a time that it would be suspended, absolutism may occur or pluralism may crumble.
Acemoglu and Robinson (2012) state that “the political system would not risk this,”
especially that which is inclusive: “once pluralism and the rule of law were established, there
would be demand for even greater pluralism and greater participation in the political
process.” The virtuous circle arises from the inherent logic of pluralism and the rule of law.

4. Discuss the two processes that keep virtuous circles going. 

Virtuous circles are kept going by pluralism and the rule of law as well as inclusive
economic institutions. The virtuous circle is a “powerful process of positive feedback” that
preserves inclusive institutions in the face of attempts that would undermine them and would
also set in motion forces that would lead to greater inclusiveness (Acemoglu & Robinson,
2012). Inclusive institutions, as was mentioned, are based on the pluralistic distribution of
political power and the constraints on the exercise of power. Pluralism and the rule of law are
needed to keep the cycle going as well as to expand it. The virtuous circle also arises because
inclusive political institutions tend to support inclusive economic institutions. Inclusive
economic institutions lead to greater equal distribution of income, which would also
empower a broad segment of society and make a more level playing field in the political
sphere. This makes it more difficult for elites to crush them. In addition, this leads to more
 limitations on what an individual can achieve when he usurps political power, as well as
reduced incentives that he or she can acquire in re-creating extractive political institutions In
addition, under inclusive political and economic institutions, controlling power becomes less
central. For instance, in the case of Austria-Hungary and Russia, the aristocracy and
monarchs had much to lose in industrialization and reform thus the need to cling to power. In
contrast, in Britain there was much less at stake since there were no serfs, there was little
coercion in the labor market, and there were few monopolies; these made clinging to
powerless valuable for the British elites (Acemoglu & Robinson, 2012).

References
Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. A. (2012). Why nations fail: The origins of power, prosperity,
and  poverty. Crown Publishers.