Tyburn Tree. Alfred Marks
of …
2. He is there to be hanged by the neck, and let down alive.
3. His bowels are to be taken out,
4. And, he being alive, to be burnt.
5. His head is to be cut off.
6. His body is to be divided into four parts,
7. And his head and quarters are to be placed where our lord the king shall direct.”
There is no doubt that, originally, the prisoner was drawn to the gallows immediately after trial, but later, the first clause was made to run that the prisoner should be taken from the court to the place whence he came (the prison), and from thence to the place of execution. The sentence is given in this later form by Sir William Stanford in his work, “Les Plees del Coron.” 1560, fols. 182, 182b.
It is difficult to say when the sentence, as given above, was first carried out. In relating the execution in 1283 of David, Prince of Wales, the chroniclers give the several punishments in this order: drawing, hanging, beheading, disembowelling, quartering.[46] This is not quite conclusive, as will be seen by the next instance.
In 1305 we come to the condemnation and execution of Sir William Wallace. The sentence, in a highly rhetorical form, states the punishments in the order in which they are given in the case of Prince David, making beheading precede disembowelling. But accounts of the execution given by chroniclers leave no doubt that the punishments followed in what became the usual order, namely, that Wallace, being let down alive, was first disembowelled, beheading following, not preceding this.[47] It may well be, therefore, that in the execution of David the order of punishments, as carried out, differed from their order in the sentence. But we have no evidence of this. Going on the evidence, we may say that in the case of Wallace we have the first recorded instance in which what became the usual punishment for treason was carried out.
It will be observed that the execution of Wallace (see footnote), included ementulation (abscisis genitalibus) which was not prescribed by the sentence. There is a mystery about this clause. It does not appear in the form of sentence as given by Coke in his “Institutes,” yet in passing sentence in 1615 on John Owen, alias Collins, he expressly includes ementulation, and gives elaborate reasons why this should form part of the sentence. Again, taking a group of sentences passed in connection with the Popish Plot, we find that ementulation forms part of the sentence in the cases of Ireland, Pickering, and Grove, the “Five Jesuits” and Langhorn, Lord Stafford, Lionel Anderson and others tried with him. It is not found in the sentences passed on Stayley, Coleman, Fitzharris, and Plunket. The law books throw no light on the point; one only mentions the difference without attempting to explain it.[48]
It would seem that a Scot was the first on whom this horrible series of punishments is recorded to have been inflicted. Scots were the last to suffer the penalties of high treason, inflicted in their greatest rigour: these were the men condemned for the Rebellion of 1745.
In July, 1746, seventeen were sentenced according to the usual form: of these, eight were reprieved, the other nine being executed on Kennington Common on July 30th. One of these was Townley:—
“After he had hung six minutes, he was cut down, and, having life in him, as he lay upon the block to be quartered, the executioner gave him several blows on his breast, which not having the effect designed, he immediately cut his throat: after which he took his head off: then ripped him open, and took out his bowels and heart, and threw them into a fire which consumed them: then he slashed his four quarters, and put them with the head into a coffin, and they were carried to the new gaol in Southwark, where they were deposited till Saturday, August 2, when his head was put on Temple Bar, and his body and limbs suffered to be buried.”[49]
The last exhibition of this kind was in 1820, when Thistlewood and four others, some of them victims of a plot fostered by the Government, were hanged outside Newgate, their heads being afterwards publicly cut off by a masked man suspected to be a surgeon. The bodies were not quartered. The thing had by this time degenerated into a brutal and bloody farce.
TORTURE AND PEINE FORTE ET DURE.
Sir Thomas Smith (1513–77), Secretary of State to Elizabeth, wrote a book, “De Republica Anglorum,” not published till 1583. In it the author says: “Torment or question, which is vsed by the order of the ciuill lawe and custome of other countries, to put a malefactor to excessiue paine, to make him confesse of him selfe, or of his fellowes or complices, is not vsed in England, it is taken for seruile. … The nature of our nation is free, stout, haulte, prodigall of life and bloud: but contumelie, beatings, seruitude, and seruile torment and punishment it will not abide.”
The statement that torture was not used in England is amazing, as it is beyond doubt that Smith himself racked prisoners in 1571.[50] It is, however, true that he expressed extreme reluctance to be put on such work. Hallam is undoubtedly correct in saying that “the rack seldom stood idle in the Tower for all the latter part of Elizabeth’s reign.”[51] Indeed, there is a tract, attributed to Lord Burghley, defending the manner in which torture had been applied to prisoners.[52] It was published about the same time as Sir Thomas Smith’s book. But torture, frequently as it was practised, never had the sanction of the law of England. Coke, in the Third Part of his “Institutes,” written in 1628 (first published in 1644), declares: “There is no one opinion in our books, or judiciall Record (that we have seen or remember) for the maintenance of tortures or torments.” “So as there is no law to warrant tortures in this land, nor can they be justified by any prescription, being so lately brought in.”
It would be idle to speculate as to the amount of alleviation the reflection that torture was illegal may have brought to Southwell, for instance, who was racked ten several times.
A kind of torture, not however applied for the purpose of extracting confessions, was recognised by the law. This was the Peine Forte et Dure, “one of the most singular circumstances,” writes Sir James Fitzjames Stephen, “in the whole of the criminal law.” It certainly is this: it is moreover, a practice as to which even writers on our criminal law have gone astray, not excepting Sir James himself.
It is a most remarkable example of judge-made law; the successive stages of its growth can in some measure be traced. Its very name betrays the change made in the punishment, as it is agreed that peine forte et dure was originally “prison forte et dure.” The statutory basis of the punishment is found in an Act, 3 Edward I. (1275), c. 12:—
“It is provided also, That notorious Felons, which openly be of evil name, and will not put themselves in Enquests of Felonies that Men shall charge them with before the Justices at the King’s suit, shall have strong and hard Imprisonment (prison forte et dure), as they which refuse to stand to the common Law of the Land: But this is not to be understood of such prisoners as be taken of light suspicion.”
Britton, supposed to have written about sixteen years later than the statute, in 1291 or 1292, thus states the punishment:—
“And if they will not put themselves upon their acquittal, let them be put to their penance until they pray to do it: and let their penance be this, that they be barefooted, ungirt and bareheaded, in the worst place in the prison, upon the bare ground continually, night and day; that they eat only bread made of barley or bran, and that they drink not the day they eat, nor eat the day they drink, nor drink anything but water, and that they be put in irons.”[53]
“Fleta,” written about the same time, contains similar details, expressly stating that the punishment is to continue till those who refuse the law “seek what they before contemned.”[54]
An actual case, not mentioned in the law books, is recorded in the Chronicle of Bartholomew Cotton. In 1293, for the murder of some Dutch sailors at Sniterleye, thirteen persons were hanged, and the bailiff of the hundred, because he would not put himself upon the inquest (se supponere inquisitioni), was sentenced