Definition
Quartering traitors was a component of the historical English judgment of death for high treason — specifically, the act of dividing the body of the condemned into four parts after execution, as part of the full sentence of being hanged, drawn, and quartered. The phrase refers not to lodging (as in the Third Amendment sense of "quartering") but to the literal dismemberment of the traitor's corpse following hanging and beheading.
The complete traditional judgment for high treason in English law prescribed that the offender be drawn on a hurdle to the place of execution, hanged by the neck until dead, beheaded, and then have the body divided into four quarters — hence "quartered." The quartered remains were typically displayed publicly, often at city gates or prominent locations, as a warning and a mark of the state's ultimate condemnation of the crime.
By the time of Rapalje & Lawrence's dictionary (1883), this practice had been substantially modified by statute. Under 54 Geo. III c. 146, § 1 (1814), the mandatory sentence for high treason in England was reduced in practice: hanging remained, but the beheading and quartering could follow after death, and the more gruesome elements — including drawing to the place of execution — could be dispensed with by the court. The statute thus preserved the form of the judgment while permitting the court to omit its most brutal components.
---
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): "Quarter" as a verb means to divide into four parts, or to provide lodging to soldiers or persons. "Quartering" in military or housing contexts refers to billeting troops.
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): Webster defines "quarter" (verb) as "to divide into four equal parts" and also as "to furnish with quarters or shelter." Both senses were in active use in the nineteenth century.
The critical gap: in the legal phrase "quartering traitors," the word carries the first sense — bodily division — with none of the housing connotation. A researcher encountering this phrase in historical legal sources must not confuse it with Third Amendment "quartering" of soldiers, which involves billeting, not dismemberment. The two uses of the word are etymologically related but legally unconnected.
---
Common Confusion
Quartering traitors is entirely unrelated to the Third Amendment prohibition on the quartering of soldiers in private homes. Both concepts use the same English word, but they describe different acts in different legal contexts — one a punishment for treason, the other a constitutional protection against the compelled billeting of military personnel. Researchers scanning historical constitutional materials should be alert to this homographic overlap. Sources discussing "quartering" in a criminal or treason law context are never addressing Third Amendment doctrine, and vice versa.
---
Why It Matters in Research
This term appears almost exclusively in historical English criminal law sources and in American treatises that surveyed English common law background. It has no continuing operative legal significance in American law — the full common law judgment for treason was never adopted wholesale in the United States, and American constitutional and statutory law has long governed the punishment of treason independently.
Researchers face two practical traps. First, the homographic confusion with Third Amendment quartering (addressed above) can send a researcher down an entirely wrong analytical path. Second, the Rapalje & Lawrence entry is fragmentary — the source text as preserved breaks off mid-sentence, reflecting either a printing artifact or a transcription gap. Researchers relying on this entry should treat it as an incomplete record and verify against primary sources, particularly Blackstone's Commentaries (Book 4) and the English statute 54 Geo. III c. 146.
For American treason research, the relevant framework is constitutional (Article III, Section 3) and statutory (18 U.S.C. § 2381), neither of which authorizes drawing, beheading, or quartering. The historical English judgment is relevant only as background for understanding the Framers' deliberate departure from English treason law practice when drafting the Treason Clause and limiting its application.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Rapalje & Lawrence provide the core entry, tracking the English judgment for high treason as modified by 54 Geo. III c. 146, § 1, and citing Broom & Hadley's Commentaries (4 Br. & H. Com. 97) for the proposition that drawing to the place of execution may be dispensed with. The entry confirms the post-1814 English position: the full ceremonial brutality of the historical judgment survived on paper but was subject to judicial mitigation.
The entry as preserved is incomplete — it breaks off in the middle of a sentence referencing a right of action against an owner, which appears to be text from an adjoining entry that was incorrectly merged during typesetting or digitization. Researchers should not treat the trailing text as part of the quartering traitors definition.
What historical dictionaries generally omit: any treatment of American law on this point, and any analysis of the Eighth Amendment implications that would eventually make such punishments constitutionally foreclosed in the United States. The English statutory modification and American constitutional departure together render this a term of purely historical and comparative interest for modern researchers.
---
Jurisdictional Note
This term has no operative legal significance in any American jurisdiction. It belongs to English common law and English statutory history. American treason law is governed by the Constitution and federal statute; the punishment of drawing, beheading, and quartering was never part of American positive law.
---
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
The Third Amendment — Quartering of Soldiers (Historical and Modern Relevance), The Law Mind Constitutional Law Encyclopedia. Note: the connection is the shared vocabulary of "quartering," not substantive legal overlap. That entry addresses billeting of soldiers; the present term addresses a form of execution punishment. Consult together only to clarify the distinction.
---