Talk:Hanging, drawing, and quartering
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] History Section
Why does the text read, "It is interesting to note that more people were hanged, drawn, and quartered for ::quote:: 'treason' ::end quote:: during Elizabeth's reign than those burned at the stake by Mary I?"
This is biased, the quote marks cast into doubt the validity of the sentence of "treason" issued by Elizabeth, without similarly doubting the validity of the sentence of "Heresy" issued by Mary. Without sources explaining why we can a priori trust Mary but not Elizabeth, either both charges or neither should be listed.
- I agree. There are several things that could be improved about this section. Firstly, it says "One of the most savage uses of this method of execution was carried out....": is there any evidence that this particular administration of HD&Q was more "savage" than usual and, if so, in what way? Secondly, it speaks of "the first seven conspirators....being butchered on the scaffold": again, "butchered" implies some particular cruelty. Thirdly it speaks the "rather disturbing fact" that more were executed by Elizabeth than Mary: I don't see why this should be "disturbing". Also, can anyone quantify the facts. I always understood that Mary and d Elizabeth had executed roughly equal numbers for political/religious reasons (about 300 in each case), but that Elizabeth's reign had lasted about 9 times the length of Mary's. Anyone care to give some definitive evidence? Bluewave 08:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] this should read Hung not hanged
I have always believed that the correct term was "hung" which meant "strangulation" so that the unfortunate victem would be semi-conscious when he was then "drawn" I have always thought that "drawn" was used to describe the removal on the guts. One used to speak of "drawing" a carcass such as a sheep or a cow. So, to me, the term is "hung, drawn and quartered" to use the terms that would have descibed managing a carcass in the era when this punishment was used. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.214.12.240 (talk • contribs) 11:19, January 31, 2006 (UTC)
- (To the anonymous person who suggested "hung", rather than "hanged".) The OED says (regarding suspension by the neck) "In this sense, hanged is now the specific form of the past tense and past participle; though hung is used by some, especially in the south of England". So it sounds like "hanged" is the better word (except for some people in the south of England). Bluewave 11:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
- "Hanged" is used when referencing execution. "Hung" is used when referencing wardrobes. 66.109.99.18 18:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- Clearly, "hanged" is the correct form to use when referring to somebody being "Put to death by hanging by the neck" (OED, my italics). I have seen it argued, though, that in the case of hanging, drawing and quartering the hanging is not in itself the means of capital punishment and so the correct form should be "hung" ([1]). This seems wrong to me, on balance, as no doubt the use is derived from the previous punishment of simply being hanged by the neck until dead, but I though I'd throw this into the mix! --Casper Gutman 08:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I definitely agree with the first poster. The proper use of the word hanged is something of a bugbear of mine. Hanged means to be killed directly by suspension by the neck. As this is not the cause of death in this case, hung should be used.
- If you look at the online Old Bailey transcripts, cited in the article, the usage is always "hanged". A keyword search on "hung" doesn't show up any instances, that I can find, amongst the sentences. I think the rationale is that a hanging, for hdq, was exactly the same as any other hanging, except the victim was cut down before death. Hence, the same word used. Bluewave 12:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
"Hanged" is the correct past participle of the verb "to hang" when referring to the punishment of hanging. "Hung" is the correct version when referring to hanging in other terms e.g.hanging a picture.
- Hanging articles states that it should be "hung", citinghttp://trackerpress.com/pdf/Page_60.pdf as reference. Bluewave, could you possibly give reference to Old Bailey? Maybe fix the [[hanging] article too. -- Heptor talk 20:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- The Old Bailey transcripts are available at http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/ (see external links section of main article). It is a fascinating source with various search facilities. There are about 17 HDQs and, as noted above, I could only find "hanged" (or "hang'd"), not hung. I referred to the OED as well, above. At that time I had an online account: now, unfortunately, I don't, so I can't re-check what it says. However, I believe that what I wrote, above, was accurate: that, regarding suspension by the neck, hanged is now the specific form of the past tense and past participle. In other words, the distinction is whether it refers to suspension by the neck rather than actually causing death. Next time I'm in a library, I will re-check the full OED wording. I think I'll arm myself with that before going into battle on the hanging article! Bluewave 17:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Hang Drawn and Quartering
Black's Law Dictionary says "drawing" was dragging them to the place of execution, and that originally they were dragged thru the street -- the hurdle came later. -- isis 11 Sep 2002
The original 1911 article called the act of disembowelment "drawing", but I'm quite willing to believe that it was mistaken or just poor scholarship on their part (though one would expect them to be more accurate, being closer to the time of their actual use). The page to which your external link points suggests that the ambiguity of "drawing" was used to soften historical accounts of the deed, and that seems quite plausible to me. Also, the fact that the punishment is often described as "hanged, drawn, and quartered" suggests that specific order of events, and therefore that the drawing was the disembowelment, not the being drawn to the site of execution. --LDC
They were Victorians -- they probably wanted a euphemism for "disemboweling". Thanks for doing the external link: Do I assume correctly that you're not one of the folks who thinks its better to have the URL showing so it'll print, or will it print the way you have it, please? -- isis 11 Sep 2002
Eventually, I'll get around to making sure that the code prints the URLs of external links in the "printable version" of a page regardless of how they are rendered, so yes, I prefer nice text descriptions in hypertext.
- [I've just added this. I didn't bother to have numbered footnote-URLs be listed separately as footnotes; so far both they and external links with text names simply list the URL in parentheses directly after the link. --Brion 06:28 Sep 12, 2002 (UTC)]
Also, I note that Cecil Adams treats the subject in his "Straight Dope" column, and not only supports your view, but specifically doubts the Encyclopedia Britannica reference, citing sentencing documents of the time. I can doubt such pretenders to authority as EB or Black's Law Dictionary, but Cecil has spoken. :-)
- EB wrote in, thanked him for the corrections, and advised him that it would be revised in future updates of the encyclopaedia. So I guess that settles that. user:Montrealais
I had actually seen that column when I looked this up on the Internet a couple of weeks back ( http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a4_239.html for anyone else who's interested), and formed my opinion based partly on it, but I foolishly thought you'd think Black's a more reputable source. Silly me. -- isis 11 Sep 2002
Blackstone says in the Commentaries (at vol. 4, p. 370 of the 1769 facsimile ed.):
"But the humanity of the English nation has authorized, by a tacit consent, an almost general mitigation of such part of these judgments as savour of torture or cruelty: a sledge or hurdle being usually allowed to such traitors as are condemned to be drawn; and there being few instances (and those accidental or by negligence) of any person's being disembowelled or burnt, till previously deprived of sensation by strangling."
Which brings up another subject I've been meaning to broach with you, since you can do anything with software: I have several volumes of facsimiles of legal works from the 1760s, and they need to be scanned in, but they have the fraktur "s"s, and I haven't run across the software to OCR those. Does it exist yet? Is it free? If not, will you please make some that is? -- isis 12 Sep 2002
Does disembowelment involve removing only the intestines or emasculation too as the external link in the article suggests ? Jay 13:55, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I think that "drawn" means "disemboewlment". otherwise it would have been called "Drawn Hang and Quatering!" The Victorians did not need any euphemism for violence only sex. Emasculation most probably. However William Blackstone (1765-1769) Commentaries on the Laws of England suggest that there are six steps. However as it is popularly known as "Hang, Drawn and Quatered", (victorian prudery?) or for whatever other reason, it is simpler to refer to the Drawn step as the "is entrails be taken out, and burned, while he is yet alive".
[http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/blackstone/bk4ch6.htm Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England Book the Fourth - Chapter the Sixth : Of High Treason: Page 92 PUBLIC WRONGS] second source see:
- THE punifhment of high treafon in general is very folemn and terrible. 1. That the offender be drawn to the gallows, and not be carried or walk; though ufually a fledge or hurdle is allowed, to preferve the offender from the extreme torment of being dragged on the ground or pavement e. 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 difpofal f.
Also the reference already mentioned but on line in the original with S as Fs. Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England Book the Fourth - Chapter the Twenty-Ninth : Of Judgment, And its Consequences: Page 370 PUBLIC WRONGS.
- But the humanity of the Englifh nation has authorized, by a tacit confent, an almoft general mitigation of fuch part of thefe judgments as favour of torture or cruelty: a fledge or hurdle being ufually allowed to fuch traitors as are condemned to be drawn; and there being very few inftances (and thofe accidental or by negligence) of any perfon's being emboweled or burned, till previoufly deprived of fenfation by ftrangling.
Philip Baird Shearer 17:44, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Someone has added text to the effect that "the four parts of the body would be sent to the four corners of the victim's country and thrown over the border". Is there any source to support this? In the case where the victim's country was England, I'm not too sure where the four corners would be, but I think at least 2 bits of the body would end up in the sea! Also, there would be 5 bits, incuding the head! With regard to another recent edit, is "convict" really an improvement on "victim"? Bluewave 10:35, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
I personally think it is, even though I find the practice revolting (obviously) the word 'victim' is ambiguous and the term 'convict' is not. This is not a POV issue as far as I`m concerned. The edit made by me was solely made for reasons of textual clarity. --Isolani 20:55, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Sorry if my comment was a bit flippant. I just find 'convict' a bit odd when describing someone like William 'Braveheart' Wallace or even Major Harrison. Maybe it is because people convicted of treason are usually, at least partly, political prisoners, and 'convict' doesn't quite fit the bill. However, I agree that 'victim' is not quite right either! Likewise, I'm only keen on accuracy and clarity. I certainly have no axe to grind on this subject! Bluewave 21:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
"They were Victorians" has me puzzled, as 'Victorian' refers to the people, moral standards, aesthics, etc. in prominence during the reign of Queen Victoria (1837-1901); Get your history right...rjb
[edit] Abolishment date of 1870 disputed
The Encyclopaedi Britannica claims 1867. Other sources (via Google) claim 1821, 1843, 1848, and 1870, to name a few. If anyone here is an expert historian specializ[s]ing in English law, care to clarify? --Benc 08:23, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)
(Questioning last date it was carried out, rather than when abolished.) The article states that the last time it was carried out was in 1820. Is this a reference to the case of Arthur Thistlewood and others, who were convicted of treason in that year? If so, the court record states that "The execution of Thistlewood and the others took place on the Monday following (that part of the sentence with respect to their being drawn on a hurdle to the place of execution and the division of their bodies, being omitted.)" So, at least in this example, the authorities were taking a more lenient approach to carrying out the sentence. The latest example that I can find of the full sentence being carried out was that of Francis Henry De la Motte, who was conviced on 11th July, 1781. Is there a later one that can be cited? Bluewave 11:29, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Dafydd ap Gruffydd and William Wallace (Braveheart)
It was good to see the article distinguish the two first casualties of Edward I's gruesome punishment as freedom fighters. To describe them as traitors is to imply that they saw their primary allegiance with England and the Anglo-Norman crown. But both were born free in Wales and Scotland respectively.
William Wallace is well known through the movie Braveheart, but Dafydd is not well known at all. The 3rd tallest peak in England and Wales is named after him: Carnedd Dafydd. The second, Carnedd Llywelyn, is named after his brother. The tallest is of course Snowdon, or Yr Wyddfa ("the burial place" - from neolithic chieftains' practice of high burials) in Welsh
Dafydd was a very interesting character and is portrayed as such in books by Sharon Penman "Falls the Shadow" and "The Reckoning" as well as Edith Pargeter's book "The Brothers of Gwynedd" - all highly worth reading. Because he'd been a a hostage from the Welsh Principality in the English court for much of his childhood, growing up with Edward, Edward would have seen him as a traitor. But Dafydd made his peace with his brother, Llywelyn Prince of Wales, in his final years, fighting alongside Llywelyn. Dafydd signed his last official document as "Prince of Wales and Lord of Snowdon" .
The cruelty of Edward was evident not just in the punishment but in having Dafydd's two sons aged 7 and 9 put in prison in Bristol castle for life. One died in adolescence, the other was kept in a cage within the castle, and still known to be there in his 40s. Dafydd's 7 daughters as well as Gwenllian, the baby of Llywelyn and Eleanor, daughter of Simon de Montfort (Eleanor died during the childbirth in the midst of Llywelyn and Dafydd's war with Edward) were all consigned to convents for life. Thus Edward I extinguished the house of Gwynedd, a dynasty that had lasted over 800 years. The one surviving cousin, Owain Lawgoch ("Red Hand") tried to raise an army in France to win back Wales, but was killed by an assasin.
I always thought that the second tallest mountain in England and Wales was Crib y Ddysgl at 1065m??
[edit] American war of independence
Two thoughts on this:
- As Franklin said "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately" if the British had won the war then once they had recovered their prisoners of war, they might well have HDQ the most prominent rebels.
- I am not sure what they would have done with ordinary rebels, as they could not be the not sent colonies as a punishment, perhaps they could have been shipped to Britain instead ;-)
--Philip Baird Shearer 13:31, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
"During the American war of independence (1775–1783) notable captured colonists such as signers of the Declaration of Independence were subject to being hanged, drawn and quartered as traitors to the King." Any evidence of this happening????
[edit] Guy Fawkes death
It was, according to various sources, Fawkes' co-conspiritor Robert Keyes who leapt from the scaffold ladder in order to procure a swift death. Unfortunately the rope broke and so Keyes was still concious when disembowelled. He was executed on 31 January 1606 in the Old Palace Yard in Westminster along with Ambrose Rookwood, Thomas Wintour and Guy Fawkes. Keyes was the third of the men despatched, and Fawkes was last. Weakened by torture, Fawkes had to be helped up the ladder by his executioner and, according to the Gunpowder Plot society, the drop did indeed break his neck.
- I don't know what to make of the document, but a supposedly contemporary account in the Weekely News for 31 January 1606 details all the deaths as above and seems to speaks of "drawing" the convicts to where they were to be killed as well as "drawing" or "withdrawing" the intestines of some. Myron 28 June 2005 20:04 (UTC)
[edit] Why is the victim punished?
It says Until 1870, the full punishment for the crime was to be "hanged, drawn and quartered" in that the victim would be [dragged, haned, disembowelled and beheaded]. Shouldn't it read criminal instead of victim? Or is this article also questioning this method of justice? NPOV? Ewlyahoocom 10:12, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
I changed the term ' victim' to 'convict' , imo this wording is more precise. --Isolani 16:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] complete list?
About how many people were HD&Q'd in england? Is there a reasonably complete list anywhere? [WMC, un-logged in]
[edit] Details of the punishment
"the heart was the last to be removed and was then shown to the victim" ...wouldn't removing the heart kill the victim, and thus preclude any possibility of showing it to the victim? Some guy 22:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, removing the heart would have resulted in immediate death. Also, removal of the internal organs from a living victim would have resulted in such massive loss of blood that I doubt anyone was conscious to see his entrails burned.
[edit] History
This says "Many spectators thought that his sentence was too severe. Antonia Fraser writes:....". Am I alone in finding this misleading? Antonia Fraser is a novelist so I don't see that her quotation supports the suggestion that the spectators though the sentence too severe. Bluewave 14:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Antonia Fraser was a Historian first, and only laterly a novelist.
NB see her entry on Wikipedia--Bilbo B 14:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Last Catholic?
Sez the article:
- Oliver Plunkett, archbishop of Armagh and the Catholic primate of Ireland, was arrested in 1681 and transported to Newgate Prison, London, where he was convicted of treason. He was hanged, drawn and quartered at Tyburn, the last Catholic to die for his faith.
Surely there have been Catholics killed for their faith since 1681. Is this sentence supposed to mean that Plunkett was the last person executed by the British government for the crime of being Catholic? In fact, the sentence immediately preceeding says that his crime was treason, not Catholicism per se, so I'm tempted just to strike the clause all together. --Jfruh 02:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
The 'treason' charge was for "promoting the Catholic faith" and trumped up charges of rebellion actually http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Plunkett "Lord Shaftesbury knew that Oliver would never be convicted in Ireland, and had him moved to Newgate prison, London. The first grand jury found no true bill, but he was not released. The second trial was a kangaroo court; Lord Campbell, writing of the judge, Sir Francis Pemberton, called it a disgrace to himself and his country. Plunkett was found guilty of high treason on June, 1681 "for promoting the Catholic faith," and was condemned to a gruesome death."
Also found this here: http://www.louthonline.com/html/oliver_plunkett.html " On the 6th of December 1679 on his way to a friends house in Dublin he was arrested and detained for six weeks in Dublin Castle under false charges that he had 70,000 Irish Catholics prepared to rise up and murder Protestants in a plot to restore the Romish rule to Ireland. The trial was first set up to be held in Dundalk, where he was held in a gaonoocpied by P.J. Carrolls premises on the main street. No Protestant juror would convict Plunkett on the evidence of the two renegade priests, John McMoyer and Edmund Murphy. Indeed, Murphy fled during the trial sessions in fear of his life and the proceedings were adjourned. Plunkett was then sent to London where he was jailed for six months pending a new trial. At this trial there were three Chief Prosecution witnesses: the Franciscans Hugh Duffy and John McMoyer, and edmund Murphy of Oliver's own diocese. Murphy was imprisoned for contempt of court during the trial. Lord Pemberton, the Lord Chief Justice, pronounced sentence: "Well, however, the judgement which we must give you is that which the law says and speaks. And therefore you must go from hence to the place from whence you came, that is Newgate. And from thence you shall be drawn ( two miles by sledge) through the City of London to Tyburn; there you shall be hanged by the neck but cut down before you are dead, your bowels taken out and burnt bore ur fe, your head shall be cut off, and your body divided into four quarters to be disposed of as his majesty pleases. And I pray God to have mercy on your soul." As to whether Plunkett survived to witness his own disembowellment, the general view is that he died shortly after the procedure started.....The whole incident was recognised as such a travesty of justice that many English Protestants had a change of heart. The Earl of Essex, the former Viceroy of Ireland, petitioned King Charles to pardon Plunkett before the execution, assuring him of Plunketts innocence. The King is said to lost his temper and replied "Why did you not attest this at the trial? It would have done him some good then. I dare not pardon anyone. His blood be upon your head not mine." It was Essex who had Plunkett arrested on the 6th of December. " mango2005
[edit] William Wallace Documents
The article currently reads:
- There is confusion among modern historians about whether "drawing" referred to the dragging to the place of execution or the disembowelling, but since two different words are used in the official documents detailing the trial of William Wallace ("detrahatur" for drawing as a method of transport, and "devaletur" for disembowelment), there is no doubt that the victims of this extraordinarily cruel form of punishment were in fact disembowelled.
I have added a {{template:Citation needed}} to this, not only because it could really use such a citation, but because I would like to see this document myself. It could be useful for the Latin wikipedia. However, I'm pretty sure there's a mistake on the second word: devaletur would mean something like "he is devalued" or perhaps "he is unhealthied" (but the verb devalere is, to my knowledge, not attested anyway). Surely this is a mistake for devellatur "let him be torn up." --Iustinus 17:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Biology
The heart is removed and then shown to the victim? The executioner/surgeon would have to accomplish this in about 20 milliseconds, as removal of the heart tends to negatively affect one's ability to see anything. Or is this "showing" metaphorical? Please re-evaluate this section. Osiris thanks you.
-
- Yeah, I don't get that either. How could someone be "disemboweled" and made to watch their organs being "burned before their eyes"? Please...That may have been the idea or intention, but in reality if they didn't die immediately they would've surely gone into shock and passed out (for many reasons, not least of which being the rapid loss of blood.) Drawing and quartering was most likely more for the public spectacle and "deterrence" factor than anything. (It also demonstrates how horribly uncivilized the English nation was.)24.84.21.25 00:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Did the Americans hang, draw and quarter?
The following entry appears in The Freeman's Journal, or North American Intelligencer (published in Philadelphia) for Wed July 18th, 1781. "A knot of tories near Frederick town" were arraigned, tried and found guilty of High Treason. They had been found guilty of enlisting men for service of the King of Great Britain and administering an oath to them, to bear allegiance to the said king. Seven named individuals were sentenced to be hanged, drawn and quartered. But were they? Pablo39 21:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- In future, please sign and date your edits (using four tilde characters). DFH 12:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Henry V
The article refers to Shakespeare's mention of HDQ. I was looking up the exact reference to the warrant on Thomas Grey in Henry V and I can't find any mention of HDQ. Have I just missed it; or is it referred to in some eliptical Shakespearean phrase that I have skipped over? ...and, by the way, I think this article is looking pretty good - maybe approaching the quality for a "Good article" Bluewave 12:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Robert Emmett
After a ludicrous attempt at rebellion in arms, Robert Emmett (forgive me if I've spelt his name incorrectly), the Irish (Protestant) rebel, made famous by the songs of his friend, Thomas Moore, was hanged, drawn and quartered near Saint Catherine's Church, in the Liberties of Dublin in 1803.--PeadarMaguidhir 20:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Treason Act 1814 - amendment of punishment
G'day from Australia, the Treason Act of 1814, (formal reference being: 54 Geo III, cap. 146) was enacted on 27 July 1814. Its long title is: “An Act to alter the Punishment in certain Cases of High Treason.” This Act mandated that the prisoner was to be hanged until dead; and abolished disembowelling.
I have read a few transcripts of sentences passed for high treason, and it seems clear to me that "drawing" was the process of drawing the prisoner from the place of imprisonment to the place of execution. As an example of a pre-1814 sentence, I cite:
Francis Henry De la Motte, treason, 11th July, 1781. The Proceedings of the Old Bailey Ref: t17810711-1
"... the State requires that you should be made an example of, to deter others from meriting that fate which awaits you. The sentence of the Law in your case is, and this Court doth adjudge, That you be drawn upon a hurdle to the place of execution; that you be there hanged by the neck, but not until you are dead; but that, being alive, you be cut down, and your bowels taken out and burnt before your face; that your head be severed from your body, and your body divided into four parts; and that your head and quarters be disposed of as the King shall think fit: and may the Lord have mercy on your soul! " reference: http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/html_units/1780s/t17810711-1.html
I have read one sentence from the post-1814 era (Rex v. COMSTIVE & others, York, 1820), and it was identical to the 1781 example already cited, EXCEPT that the two changes legislated in 1814 were given effect.
It seems to me that "hanged, drawn, and quartered" is just a popular error that has gained currency by mere repetition. If anyone can cite an authoritative and contemporary source for "HDQ", as opposed to "DHBQ", I'd be very interested to know of it.
Pmthomas 15:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)Pmthomas [end]
[edit] Last Beheadings in Britain
G'day from Australia, it is often asserted that the last beheadings for High Treason (as it then was) were five of the Cato Street Conspirators (THISTLEWOOD and others), in London on 01 May 1820. To the best of my knowledge, these were indeed the last beheadings in England. However, three more followed in Scotland: 1. James “Perlie” or “Perley” WILSON (1760-1820), executed 30 August 1820; 2. Andrew HARDIE of Glasgow; and 3. John BAIRD of Condorrat; both executed at Stirling, on 08 September 1820.
I can't give a source for this, but I have read that the heads of the Cato Street Five remained on public display until the 1850s.
Pmthomas 15:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)Pmthomas [end]
- G'day mate! The Old Bailey online (well worth a visit) has a full transcript.[2] This states:
- LORD CHIEF JUSTICE ABBOTT, after a most solemn address to them, passed the following sentence: -
-
- " That they be taken to the place from whence they came, and afterwards be drawn upon a hurdle to the place of execution, where they should be severally hanged by the neck until they were dead; that their heads should then be severed from their bodies, and that their bodies be divided into four quarters, to be at the disposal of His Majesty ."
-
- On Saturday, the learned COMMON SERGEANT (in consequence of the indisposition of the learned RECORDER.) reported their several cases to His Majesty in Council, who ordered Arthur Thistlewood , John Thomas Brunt , James Ings , Richard Tidd , and William Davidson to be executed ; the remaining prisoners His Majesty was most graciously pleased to respite , all of whom, except Gilchrist, are Transported for Life . The execution of Thistlewood and the others took place on the Monday following (that part of the sentence with respect to their being drawn on a hurdle to the place of execution and the division of their bodies, being omittted.)
- I take that last sentence to mean that they weren't beheaded. Bluewave 15:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
G'day, if you look at this article: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/PRthistlewood.htm you will see a contemporary sketch of the execution. You will note that the executioner is holding the severed head aloft, and reciting the traditional words "this is the head of a traitor". My interpretation of the last sentence to which Bluewave refers, above, to mean that the quartering of the deceased traitors was not carried out. Pmthomas 15:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] William Maurice
Several websites and at least one book name William Maurice as the first victim of HDQ. I have added a mention of this and a citation of the book in question. However, I am not totally convinced by the sources and, apart from anything else, 1241 is quite early for a hereditary surname like Maurice. Can anyone quote a better source or a refutation? Bluewave 15:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Was William Maurice the first victim of drawing/quartering??
I think not. This is an EXTREMELY anglo-centric article that pretends that drawing and quartering is a uniquely English invention that was first used in 1241.
In Hungary, it is common knowledge that the pagan rebel leader Koppany (on whom Wikipedia has an article) was drawn and quartered (or at least quartered and gibbeted, if not drawn, but that's the least interesting and memorable part of the process anyway) as early as the first half of the 11th century. Not only that, I'm sure that OTHER PEOPLE BESIDES THE ENGLISH have thought of this method thousands of years before. The English didn't do everything, people, and sadly, I'm noticing that many MANY wiki-articles are written from an extremely anglo-centric POV and discuss things only from an English perspective, or will have things like "The largest widget in the world is in Bangladesh, weighing in at 1000000 pounds. The largest widget in England/Great Briatin is...", but no mention of widgets in any other countries (this is only an example, of course). WHO GIVES A RATS ASS?? This is English-LANGUAGE wikipedia, not English wikipedia as in we only care about England. I love England, but other places exist too, and Wikipedia owes it to itself and the rest of the world to have neutral, unbiased articles. Don't make the same mistake the Guiness book of "world" records makes... !
acsady
[edit] Confusion about drawing
The article has now got into some confusion about whether there is confusion about drawing! It says there is "confusion among modern historians about whether "drawing" referred to the dragging to the place of execution or the disembowelling" but also states that the dragging on a hurdle is the drawing and that disembowelling is "often mistaken for drawing". I think the drawing can refer to either the dragging or the disembowelling, but I'm happy to be proved wrong, if there is a good source. Can anyone help resolve the confusion please? Bluewave 17:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Foucault - Discipline and Punish
...opens with a description of the french style quatering method of execution and does not feature any hanging. I propose that it be limited to its mention in the subsequent paragraph on french quatering and be removed from 'mentions in fiction.' Not only is it misleading as it is not an example of hanging, drawing and quatering: Foucault's Discipline and Punish is NOT a work of fiction.
[edit] Last Use
The article says that the last use was in 1782. I have visited St. Michans' in Dublin where in the vaults (the vaults are famous for preserving the bodies buried there) the Sheare brothers are buried. The Sheare's joined the triumverate governing the United Irishmen in Ireland which was set up when Wolfe Tone went to France. With the failure of the rebellion the Sheare's were arrested, tried for high treason and condemned to be 'Hanged, Drawn and Quartered'. When the vault was restored the bodies were re-coffined and it was observed that the punishment had all been carried out. The execution warrant is on display in the vault, the date 1801. Whilst well after 1782 I cannot attest that his was the last case - any suggestions on how I should edit the article? --Rain Again 21:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
