Talk:Hanged, drawn and quartered

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hanged, drawn and quartered article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Archive
Archives
1


It is worth mentioning that Guy Fawkes was not actually hung, drawn and quartered, he was hung, but jumped from the scaffold and died of the hanging before the drawing and quartering could be properly carried out... thus technically he was just hung and the picture of the wax sculpture of his hanging is sort of redundant. Amphetachronism 04:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems this article does not jive with the one on Henry Garnet, which suggests that the king ordered his sentence to be a typical execution instead of hanged, drawn... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.233.248.55 (talk) 03:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Boiling of quarters

The Cassell Dictionary of Slang has an entry for Jack Ketch's kitchen, saying that in the eighteenth century it meant "that room in Newgate prison where the hangman boiled the quarters of those dismembered for high treason". Are there any other references for this practice? William Avery (talk) 19:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I was a bit sceptical about the boiling, but the picture on the main page (of the Gunpowder Plot people being executed) does seem to show some boiling in progress.Bluewave (talk) 21:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Debate over drawn

See Archive 1: Hang Drawn and Quartering

I hate to bring up an old debate, but looking through the archived one only confused me. Encyclopedia Britannica apparently changed their article to agree with Cecil Adams's and his sources that drawn in this context means the act of drawing the person to be hanged. The 2002 section of the argument ended with what seemed to be consensus to agree with Cecil Adams and the revised EB, and the 2004 one seemed to have ignored this altogether, raising circumstantial evidence to support Blackstone as a lone source. What refutes Mr. Adams, his cited sources, and EB? Or is this a case of a single source being worth mentioning? Furthermore, on Mr. Adams' page, EB states that Oxford English Dictionary supports their view, and that it is The Oxford Companion to Law that holds the other. Can someone verify? ---PrescitedEntity (talk) 16:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Debate over hung or hanged

See Archive 1 this should read Hung not hanged

[edit] Dates

The article seems to contradict itself:

After 1814 the convict would be hanged until dead and the mutilation would be performed after death. Gibbeting was abolished in England in 1843. Drawing and quartering was abolished in 1870.

but

The penultimate use of the sentence in England was against the French spy François Henri de la Motte, who was convicted of treason on 23 July 1781. The last occasion was on 24 August 1782 against Scottish spy David Tyrie in Portsmouth for carrying on a treasonable correspondence with the French

This doesn't seem to be recent vandalism, so someone should check this out. --Slashme (talk) 10:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

A possible interpretation is:
  • The last HDQ was performed in 1782.
  • The next time the sentence was handed down by a judge (about 1814), the practice was established of performing the mutilation after death.
  • For a time, judges continued to sentence men to hdq but the sentence was carried out in this modified form by the executioner.
  • Gibbeting of the quarters was abolished in 1843.
  • The sentence itself was abolished in 1870.
I cannot vouch for all the dates (some refs would be good) but I think the sequence of events is correct, with a period in which the sentence was still used by courts but was not fully enacted by the executioner. Bluewave (talk) 18:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with that interpretation. If you hang someone to death and then do the drawing and quartering and gibbet the quarters, that's still hanging drawing and quartering. That definitely didn't happen any more by 1814, and to suggest that quarters were still being gibbeted in 1843 stretches my credulity somewhat.

By the way, who is the JFX O'Brien referred to here:

Google Books: Vacant Thrones P.199

He is referenced by a red link at William O'Brien. --Slashme (talk) 08:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

As I say, I don't vouch for the dates: I am merely saying that there is not necessarily an inconsistency in what is written in the article. But I agree we should get the facts straight! One example, from 1820, was the case of Arthur Thistlewood and others, who were convicted of treason. 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, by 1820, judges were still handing down the sentence, but it was not being fully enacted. Bluewave (talk) 09:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
The article Treason Act 1814 says that this act "modified the penalty for treason for male convicts. Originally the mandatory sentence for a man convicted of treason was hanging, drawing and quartering. The 1814 Act changed this punishment and replaced it with death by hanging, followed by posthumous quartering. In 1870 the Act was amended so that the penalty became simply hanging." I think the 1870 act referred to was the Forfeiture Act. Bluewave (talk) 09:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, OK. Thanks for the explanation! --Slashme (talk) 10:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I see at Gibbet that entire corpses (not quartered) were still gibbeted in 1832. Wow. Apparently the locals didn't much care for it. --Slashme (talk) 10:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)