From the Murder Act of 1752 until the Anatomy Act of 1832 it was forbidden to bury the bodies of executed murderers unless they had first been anatomised or ‘hung in chains’ (gibbeted). This paper considers some of the observations of the Wellcome-funded project ‘Harnessing the Power of the Criminal Corpse’ as they relate to the practice of gibbeting. The nature of hanging in chains is briefly described before an extensive discussion of the criteria by which gibbets, which often remained standing for many decades, were selected. These are: proximity to the scene of crime, visibility, and practicality. Exceptions, in the forms of those sentenced by the Admiralty Courts, and those sentenced in and around London, are briefly considered. Hanging in chains was an infrequent punishment (anatomical dissection was far more frequently practised) but it was the subject of huge public interest and attracted thousands of people. There was no specified time for which a body should remain hanging, and the gibbet often became a known landmark and a significant place in the landscape. There is a remarkable contrast between anatomical dissection, which obliterates and anonymises the body of the individual malefactor, and hanging in chains, which leaves a highly personalised and enduring imprint on the actual and imaginative landscape.

No abstract

No abstract

This article analyses sources relating to the 1768 Northampton borough election to determine the ways in which women were involved in pre‐reform elections. Although there has been literature relating to the participation of women in pre‐reform elections, it has largely focused on elite women. Through a case study of the 1768 election this article will suggest that non‐elite women were involved in a variety of ways. In particular, it will show that these women acted as witnesses during the polling and provided evidence relating to men and their eligibility to vote, and suggest that female householders had an impact upon the election through their property ownership. Through their role as householders, women were able to participate in elections through the exchange of property and enabling men to vote. The activities in which Northampton women were involved had further implications concerning home and its use as a public space.

No abstract