Hanging in Chains

Hanging in Chains (Gibbeting): Unravelling the Dark Legacy of Britain’s Spectacular Justice System

From 1751 to 1834, Britain employed one of the most macabre punishments in its history: hanging in chains, or gibbeting. However, only 144 individuals were subjected to this gruesome fate under the Murder Act (1751).

Gibbeting served as both a post-mortem punishment and a terrifying public spectacle, creating a lasting impact on the collective imagination of Britain and beyond.

What Was Gibbeting?

Gibbeting was a practice where the corpse of an executed criminal, usually a convicted murderer, was often covered in pitch to preserve it. It was then suspended in a purpose-built iron cage. These cages, mounted on tall wooden posts and prominently displayed in public places, were designed to horrify onlookers. The spectacle turned the criminal’s body into a grotesque deterrent, swinging in the wind for weeks, months, or even decades.

Unlike public dissection, which served scientific purposes, gibbeting was a purely symbolic punishment. The aim was to strip the criminal of dignity, deny him burial (it was a “him”; women were not usually gibbeted), and use his decaying body to enforce the authority of the state.

The Legal Foundation for Gibbeting: The Murder Act (1751)

The origins of gibbeting can be traced back to antiquity, with references in the historical accounts of public crucifixions. Notably, during the events of AD 60-61, Boudica’s army reportedly employed gibbeting as a method of execution and display during the massacre of Roman settlers in Camulodunum, Londinium, and Verulamium. In medieval times it was common to leave the executed body (or parts of the body) on display as a warning.

Over the centuries gibbeting become a recognised form of punishment in Britain. While early instances of gibbeting can be traced back to the 14th century (first recorded incident in 1381), the practice gained prominence during the 17th and 18th centuries, coinciding with a period marked by increased crime rates and public fear of lawlessness. Although the practice of gibbeting originated in medieval times, the Murder Act of 1751 was pivotal in formalising it. 

The Act included the provision “for better preventing the horrid crime of murder” so “that some further terror and peculiar mark of infamy be added to the punishment”. And “in no case whatsoever shall the body of any murderer be suffered to be buried” and it had to be either publicly dissected or hung in chains. While its primary purpose was to deter murder by intensifying post-mortem punishments, judges could choose between dissection and hanging in chains.

As has been previously argued, it should be remembered that punishing the criminal’s body after death was not a new concept. For example, when Charles II was restored to the throne in 1660 he ordered the body of the dead Oliver Cromwell to be dug up and then hung, drawn, and quartered and the parts to be displayed at various places.

Interestingly, the 1751 act reflected conflicting philosophies of punishment. On the one hand, it aimed to reform justice through deterrence. On the other, it upheld archaic practices of public humiliation, rooted in the principle of lex talionis—a form of retribution where punishment mirrored the crime (an eye for an eye; a tooth for a tooth). This act reflected a growing societal belief that visible punishments would deter crime, and the gibbeting of traitors, murderers, and highwaymen became a common spectacle at crossroads, public highways, waterways, and other high-traffic areas, serving both punitive and educational purposes.

The Mechanics of Gibbeting

Gibbeting was as much an engineering challenge as it was a judicial punishment. Each gibbet consisted of several key components:

• The Post and Crossbeam: Often 10 meters tall, these wooden structures were designed to support the cage and make it visible from afar.
• The Cage: Constructed from iron, these cages tightly encased the corpse, mimicking its shape. The design ensured visibility of the body and allowed nature to accelerate decay. Conversely, sometimes bodies were covered in pitch possibly as a further humiliation and as an attempt to prolong the decay (and hence the warning spectacle).
• The Hook and Chain: These connected the cage to the crossbeam, enabling it to swing freely, adding a haunting motion to the spectacle.
• The Site: Gibbets were placed at crime scenes, crossroads, or visible landmarks. Locations were chosen to ensure maximum exposure, while high ground amplified their visibility and sensory impact.

Although there is one known case of a woman being gibbeted in Quebec, Canada, women were not usually gibbeted. This may be for a variety of reasons. Prior to gibbeting the criminal was usually hanged, and hanging was deemed an unseemly means of execution for a woman. Similarly there was a resistance to having the possibility of naked female flesh on display – hence you could burn women alive, but you shouldn’t gibbet them, or hang, draw, and quarter them. However, the revulsion against burning people alive grew and after 1790 hanging was the preferred method of execution for both men and women.

The process also often required guards to protect the site from theft or vandalism and sheriffs to oversee logistics.

Despite its simplicity, the financial and logistical burden of gibbeting often exceeded that of public dissection.

The Most Common Crimes Punishable by Gibbeting in the UK

• Murder: Gibbeting was often used for particularly heinous or high-profile murder cases, especially after the Murder Act of 1751, which formalized this punishment as a deterrent for serious crimes,
• Piracy: Pirates were frequently gibbeted as a warning to others, with their bodies displayed in prominent locations such as along the River Thames.
• Smuggling: Although not as common as other crimes, smuggling was sometimes punished by gibbeting, particularly for notorious gangs. Fourteen members of the Hawkhurst Gang were sentenced to gibbeting during the mid-18th century for their involvement in violent smuggling activities.
• Highway Robbery: This crime was also subject to gibbeting, as it posed a significant threat to travellers and trade routes.
• Robbery of the Mail: Due to its impact on communication and commerce, mail robbery was another crime that could lead to gibbeting. These crimes were considered severe threats to public order and safety, warranting the extreme post-mortem punishment of gibbeting to serve as a public deterrent.

Famous Gibbeting Cases In King’s Lynn

Three notable King’s Lynn cases exemplify the gibbeting era:

• William Chaplain (1751): William Chaplain was hanged and then gibbeted on South Lynn Common for the murder of his wife (née Mary Gafferson).
• Eugene Aram (1758): Eugene Aram was a talented linguist who took up his post as a teacher at King’s Lynn Grammar School in early 1758. A few months later he was arrested, and then convicted in York of murdering his former friend in Knaresborough. He was gibbeted in Knaresborough forest and his skull now resides in the Stories of Lynn Exhibition.
• Joseph Beeton (1783): Joseph Beeton was a young highwayman convicted of robbing the mail coach on the outskirts of King’s Lynn. Despite having a lot of local sympathy he was executed and his body was covered in pitch and displayed near the scene of his crime.

The Cultural and Psychological Impact of Gibbeting

Gibbeting was designed to provoke horror, fear, and revulsion. The sight of a decaying body, the sounds of creaking metal, and the smell of decomposition all contributed to the punishment’s sensory impact. It symbolised state power and justice but often had unintended effects:

• Terror and Fascination: While some were deterred by the sight, others viewed gibbeting as macabre entertainment, even bringing children to see the bodies, or had picnics near the hanging corpses.
• Communal Memory: Gibbets became permanent landmarks, etching the criminal’s story into local folklore. Sites were named after criminals, and the physical presence of the gibbet fostered an enduring narrative.
• Resistance: Public discomfort with the practice grew in the 19th century, fuelled by changing attitudes towards corporal punishment and increased emphasis on privacy in death.

The Decline and Abolition of Gibbeting

By the early 19th century, gibbeting was increasingly seen as barbaric. Also reports from the time indicated that complaints regarding the sight and smell of decaying corpses were common, leading some to attempt to remove and bury the bodies. The Anatomy Act of 1832 provided an alternative by supplying medical schools with unclaimed bodies, and this reduced the need for punitive post-mortem punishments. 

The last known instances of gibbeting occurred in August 1832 when two men (William Jobling and James Cook) were ordered to be gibbeted for unrelated crimes. Both gibbets were quickly removed due to public outcry and chaos surrounding the events, indicating a shift in public sentiment towards this form of punishment.

Two interesting arguments, influenced by the growth of humanistic philosophy, were that punishment should not continue after death, and that the emphasis in the justice system should be about reformation rather than retribution.

The practice was abolished in 1834, marking the end of its grim chapter in British legal history. While proponents viewed it as an effective means of crime prevention, critics had always decried the barbarity of the practice, and argued that it violated human dignity and was ineffective in curbing criminal behaviour. Records show that crimes continued to occur, even in the vicinity of gibbets.

Concluding Thoughts

In reflecting on the grim legacy of gibbeting, we see a chilling intersection of justice, fear, and public spectacle. As public sentiment shifted towards a more humane approach to justice, gibbeting became an anachronism, discarded in favour of methods that show more respect for human dignity. 

© James Rye 2024

See also: 

• Listen to the Podcast on Gibbeting
• Executions in King’s Lynn

Book a Walk with a Trained and Qualified King’s Lynn Guide

Sources

• Tarlow, S. (2017) The Afterlife of the Gibbet. In: The Golden and Ghoulish Age of the Gibbet in Britain. Palgrave Historical Studies in the Criminal Corpse and its Afterlife. Palgrave Macmillan https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-60089-9_
• Tarlow, S., Battell Lowman, E. (2018). Hanging in Chains. In: Harnessing the Power of the Criminal Corpse. Palgrave Historical Studies in the Criminal Corpse and its Afterlife. Palgrave Macmillan https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77908-9_6
• http://www.capitalpunishmentuk.org/norfolk.html
• https://www.londonmuseum.org.uk/blog/londons-dark-public-execution-history-in-5-objects/
• https://www.mylearning.org/stories/crime-and-punishment-the-halifax-gibbet/1311
• https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4894083/
• https://porttowns.port.ac.uk/dead-men-telling-tales/
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibbetinghttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_Act_1751