-
x

Meet New Friends!

Recommended friends are based on your interests. Make sure they are up to date.

Friends
Kidzworld Logo

History - The Halifax Gibbet

What is the Halifax Gibbet?

The Halifax Gibbet was a guillotine used for public execution from the 13th to the 17th century. The Halifax Gibbet is in Yorkshire, England (not Halifax, Canada). The earliest recorded execution was in 1286. It is suggested that the Gibbet was built to punish thieves who stole cloth, especially from tenters (a wooden frame that cloth was stretched and dried on).

Escaping the Halifax Gibbet

Convicted criminals did have one thing going for them. For hundreds of years the law stated that if a condemned person could withdraw his or her head before the blade was released and hit the bottom, all they had to do was hustle it to the next town - Hebble Brook - and he or she was free. The one condition: that person could never return. The only lucky and quick guy to do this was John Lacy. On January 29, 1623, John managed to escape and run to freedom. But after seven years, Running Man, as he was nicknamed, foolishly believed that because he had done the impossible he would be allowed back. He was as wrong as he was dumb. As soon as he came back he was immediately put back under the blade again and this time he didn't stand a chance.

Finding the Halifax Gibbet

Almost 60 people, both men and woman, were executed by the Halifax Gibbet. The town finally stopped using it in 1650. The Gibbet originally stood at Cow Green but it was later moved to a marked site on Gibbet Street. The actual site of the Gibbet was lost after the 17th century until it was rediscovered in 1839 when workmen discovered the skeletons and skulls of two bodies. Possibly the last two men executed. The original blade (the head of an axe) was returned to Halifax in 1970. It can be seen at the Calderdale Industrial Museum. A replica of the Gibbet was reconstructed in 1974.

Related Stories:

  • Ancient Torture Devices
  • The Lost City of Atlantis
  • Women in History Who Suck
  • More Weird, Scary and Strange Places
  • 5 Comments

    Related Stories

    F992546869625

    Would You Have Tried to Escape?

    • No. As a criminal I should accept my punishment.
    • Yes. I would definately try.
    • This poll sucks more than having your head cut off!

    Random In The Forums

    Black_Rose_19
    Black_Rose_19 posted in Debating:
    I originally got this story from a source that most people wouldn't exactly call credible , a comedy/politics TV show, but after checking their sources, I believe I have a strong case with decently strong sources. You are incorrect when you said you'd only have to pay for labor and materials, as several other factors come into play. Also, where I said 1000 feet, I very much apologize, more like 1000 miles. It should cost about 10 billion for the concrete panels, and although concrete is cheap, it's not dirt cheap, and 1000 miles of concrete will add up to a pretty good amount. Next it should cost 5-6 billion dollars for steel columns to hold the panels, including labor.  Add another billion for concrete footing and foundations, and that's sixteen billion dollars. But, transport is required to inaccessible areas. It will cost about another 2 billion dollars to build roads that will allow 20 ton trucks to carry materials to the wall. We also need engineering, design, and management, which brings us up to the magic number of 25 billion dollars, on average considering all factors. The Congressional Budget office also says that wall management costs will exceed the original cost to build the wall in as little as seven years. With the Mexico paying for it part, as John Oliver, the host of this show, says, "People don't exactly love it when you make them pay for [expletive] they don't want." The current Mexican treasury secretary states, "Mexico, under no circumstance, is going to pay for the wall that Mr. Trump is proposing." 2 former Mexican presidents that only recently left office also say, in a nutshell, that Mexico will never pay for the wall. 
    reply 9 minutes
    Black_Rose_19
    Black_Rose_19 posted in Debating:
    I'll have to dig into that a little more, I only had about 2 sources to go off of, one of them being a private party. I am aware that scientific or economic articles aren't always correct, so I'll have to fact check this myself before I can properly reply to you.
    reply 39 minutes
    AlphaT
    AlphaT posted in Debating:
    I'd say it's a good idea, but I don't think the economist is correct. Firstly, even if he were correct, the price of the wall only comes to about half the annual trade deficit that we have with Mexico. If Mexico is making 58 billion off of us every year, then they have 25 billion to spare to pay for the wall.  But more to the point, I don't think it'll cost that much. What you'll need is money to pay for two things:  1. Materials 2. Labor You need 1.5 billion pounds worth of pre-made concrete slabs installed to create the entire wall. Concrete is ridiculously cheap, and you'd only be out three billion on concrete. Then you need steel connections between each slab, so let's add another five billion for that. Let's also add a billion dollar safe fund, in case some parts of the wall need a little something extra.  That leaves you with eleven billion dollars worth of labor before you get anywhere near the price that this economist came up with. Which is why I think he's very mistaken. 
    reply about 1 hour
    Black_Rose_19
    Black_Rose_19 posted in Debating:
    Before we start this, I have two requests. 1. Be civil to each other, rebuttal other people's statements with facts, not just random insults. I have seen debates where people are just mindlessly bullying each other, and I would hate for this to turn up like that. 2. Don't go against Donald Trump on this topic just because you think he's a racist or something. Focus on the topic at hand, please. So, we've all heard about the infamous wall. However, I have one reason that the wall might not be such a wonderful idea. Donald Trump has said that the wall will be at mimimum 35 feet tall, and again, at minimum,  1000 feet long.  Now, an economist estimated that this will cost 25 billion dollars, including costs to transport supplies, the materials, and labor, along with several other costs. This exceeds what Donald Trump says the wall would cost by 13 to 21 billion dollars. Do you still think the wall is a good idea, and remember the two requests, or no, I'd rather call them rules, I listed about a paragraph ago. 
    reply about 1 hour
    AlphaT
    AlphaT posted in Debating:
    "donteatcarrots" wrote: in the end though, a gun shoots someone. and they could die from it. usa need better laws though smh A knife stabs someone. An arrow shoots through someone. A piece of rope strangles someone. A large bite of steak chokes someone. A grocery bag suffocates someone. Just because someone can die from something, is that a reason to restrict it? 
    reply about 2 hours