Talk:Halifax Gibbet

Coment
it should say how the replica was 'tested' cause they probably didn't decapitate anybody —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scientus (talk • contribs) 02:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Surviving History says they 'tested' dangerous devices using purpose - built dummies. 01 February 2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.38.66 (talk) 22:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Thomas of Reading
"In Thomas Deloney's ballad Thomas of Reading . . . " It's not really a ballad, is it? The part dealing with the gibbet ("gin") is not verse. See Thomas of Reading, Ch. VIII, pp. 91–98. The Introduction to that volume discusses Deloney as both a balladeer and novelist, and describes Thos. as a historical novel. 24.177.98.200 (talk) 12:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * That's a reasonable point, changed to "novel". Malleus Fatuorum 15:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

What does the 'd' mean?
I don't know what the 'd' means. "The jury had only two questions to decide on: were the stolen goods found in the possession of the accused, and were they worth at least 13½d." Acoma Magic (talk) 00:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * For origin of this useage see: here. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It appears to be this. I found that on the disambiguation page for the letter D, actually.  dalahäst (let's talk!) 00:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The d stands for the pre-decimalisation penny. Keith D (talk) 00:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. While replacing the 'd' will reduce confusion amongst those who are either not British or under 50, replacing it with 'pence' is, I think, wrong.  "Pence" means the post-decimalisation version, other than when compounded with a number - "tuppence", for example, meaning two pence, 'sixpence' meaning... OK, you get it.  It wouldn't have been "thirteenandahalfpence" - it might have been "thirteenpence ha'penny" perhaps, but probably "thirteen and a half pennies".  Can a Brit of slightly more years than my 44 comment? --AndyI 08:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aci20 (talk • contribs)
 * I think "thirteen and a half pennies" wouldn't have been used then, although possibly a couple of hundred years earlier. What about "a shilling penny-ha'p'ny"? haha. But I'd be very interested to know why such an odd amount was used. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * see £sd Pounds, Shillings and Pennies (from Germanic) from earlier Roman/Latin Librae, Solidi and Denari. 10 July — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.155.241 (talk) 11:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Though I can't comment on how it would have been expressed in the 16th century, I am old enough to have used pre-decimal currency. Today 13 1/2 old pence would be described as "one and three ha'p'nce" or possibly even "one and a penny ha'p'ny" (the "one and ..." implying one shilling plus ...).  To refer to it entirely in pennies would be "thirteen p'nce ha'p'ny".  As for why an apparently odd amount?  Older English laws are littered with values that are apparently odd.  For example: to establish a public right of way over land it is necessary to show that the public have had unfettered access to the route over the (private) land for two years and one day (Old law - has now been changed to 20 years). 86.157.170.163 (talk) 17:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The combination of "13½ pence" with "ancient custom" seems particularly odd, since inflation over the time period of the executions would decrease the value of that arbitrary amount. It might become worth six or eight times less, over 400 years. (See for instance this table: .) Card Zero  (talk) 17:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's very interesting, but I agree that "one and three ha'pence" or possibly "one and a penny ha'p'ny" would have been perfectly normal usage. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * In this case, it might be an idea to dust off the old turns of phrase — used at the time of decimalisation, 15th Feb. 1971 — as ‘old pence’  for ‘d.’  and ‘new pence’  for ‘p.’  as parenthetical qualifiers to avoid confusion.


 * Further to this, I very much agree with the comments of those of us who have first-hand experience in the use of £sd. 13½d even looks unusual when written that way.


 * I'm old enough to remember when we still used farthings, and a price, for instance, such as 2/11¾ or 2s.11¾d. was so written, and spoken aloud as ‘two (shillings) 11 (pence) three (farthings)’, but from the context with the price of the goods involved, one didn't have to include the units — thus one more often said ‘two eleven three’ — knowing that in the circumstances it could not possibly mean £2·11·3 (two pounds, eleven shillings and thru'pence).


 * In the same vein, 13½d so written seems somewhat odd, as it would have been normally expressed as 1/1½ or 1s.1½d. and spoken as ‘a shilling (and) three-ha'pence’ or ‘one and a penny ha'pny’. The exception was that something which cost, for instance, £1·13·0 (one pound (and) thirteen shillings) could be written as 33/- or 33s. (spoken as ‘thirty-three shillings’).


 * In all my years, however, I never saw an amount expressed as an aggregate of old pence greater than 11¾d., for at 12d. (twelve old pence) it became 1s. (one shilling) ... perhaps it was different in the 16th century; I'm not quite old enough to remember that.


 * For those not familiar with old money 13½d is worth 5.625 new pence.


 * I should be interested to know whether the amount were expressed as 13½d in the original document(s).


 * Christian Gregory (talk) 06:02, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * This 1757 source consistently gives "Thirteen Pence Half-Penny", for "Hangman's Wages". Martinevans123 (talk) 19:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I see that the source is Holt (1997) p.22. But I wonder from where he got his information. I suppose it is unlikely that original source document(s) would contain any explanation. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The source for 13½d isn't Holt (1997) but Carter (1986), and he's been quoted directly. Different authors refer differently to the amount; Holt says "thirteen and a halfpence" for instance. Malleus Fatuorum 08:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I see, thanks. So does Carter give his source(s) or provide any explanation for that amount at that time? Presumably it wasn't the same amount for 200 years? It could have begun as a lower or higher amount? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * So far as I can tell the amount did indeed stay the same from the 13th to the 17th century. Carter's source appears to be, at least indirectly, Midgeley and Bentleys Halifax and its Gibbet Law (1761), which actually says "thirteen-pence half-penny". I imagine that Carter used poetic licence to render that as a more comprehensible "13½d". I'm not terribly happy with "13½ pence", as that implies new, post-decimalisation, money. The only options that make sense to me are "13½d", Holt's "thirteen and a halfpence", or Midgeley's "thirteen-pence half-penny", but the latter would look oddly archaic outside of a direct quote in the body of the article. So far as an explanation for the amount is concerned nobody knows why 13½d was chosen, but Midgeley reports a suggestion made by another author that 13½d was the fee charged by an executioner, the so-called "hangman's wages", but he doesn't seem to place much credence on that explanation. It might be worth adding as a note though I guess. Malleus Fatuorum 13:30, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Seems to have even been part of a rhyme: But it's hard to tell which may have come first - the sum or the gibbet. Quite a good deal for the executioner - he didn't even have to tie a good knot! Martinevans123 (talk) 14:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * And that's part of the reason why it seems like an improbable explanation. The other reason is it wasn't even the executioner who pulled the pin to release the axe, so not much for him to do really. Malleus Fatuorum 14:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Citing Malleus Fatuorum from above, 13:30, 11 July 2012 (UTC):–


 * ‘So far as I can tell the amount did indeed stay the same from the 13th to the 17th century. Carter's source appears to be, at least indirectly, Midgeley and Bentleys Halifax and its Gibbet Law (1761), which actually says "thirteen-pence half-penny". I imagine that Carter used poetic licence to render that as a more comprehensible "13½d". I'm not terribly happy with "13½ pence", as that implies new, post-decimalisation, money. The only options that make sense to me are "13½d", Holt's "thirteen and a halfpence", or Midgeley's "thirteen-pence half-penny", but the latter would look oddly archaic outside of a direct quote in the body of the article. …
 * Malleus Fatuorum 13:30, 11 July 2012 (UTC)’


 * Actually, as I, and others, have said before, in the Days of £sd it would have been read as ‘One shilling (and) three-halfpence’, and pronounced as ‘a shilling three-HAY-pince’. As three-halfpence was not only a notional value (one-eighth of a shilling, i.e. half a thru'penny bit, but it had been a coin in its own right as well, issued as late as Victorian times.  The phrase or term, however, for the amount ‘1½d’ survived the coinage to the end of £sd. For instance, postage stamps worth ‘Three-Halfpence’ — and their value so written on them — were issued well within my own time, up to decimalisation. Being half the adult fare of 3d., ‘Three-halfpence’ was the common cost for a child's tram or trolley bus ticket too.


 * Yet again, there doesn't seem to be any way to read 13½d aloud that it sounds anything but odd to ears that grew up long before the advent of 100p to the Pound.


 * Christian Gregory (talk) 10:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


 * It was a "coin in its own right as well, issued as late as Victorian times." ?? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, please see the wiki article:-  Three halfpence (British coin). And here is an external link to a 'William IV 1½d bit:-  http://www.coins-of-the-uk.co.uk/pics/w4/ph/ph34.jpg as well as to a Victoria 1½d bit:- http://coinquest.com/cgi-data/cq_ro/response_380/great_britain_1_1_2_pence_1840.jpg.  Earlier 1½d had been an English coin, this at a time when there was a Three farthing coin as well, the both with a significance to accounting; (see the penultimate paragraph below).


 * [[Image:GB_British_Empire_Exhibition_Postage_Stamps.jpg|Stamps for the British Empire Exhibition.]]
 * As for the stamps, the first 1½d stamp was issued under Queen Victoria, under whom the first postage stamps were ever issued. The 1½d stamp above is from 1924, issued under her grandson, George V, (the one to the right being the stamp in question).  However, 1½d stamps were still issued to make up postal fees through the reign of George VI, and into the first two decades of the reign of Elizabeth II.  Here is an external link to an ER II 1½d stamp, (again, read as three-HAY-pince):-
 * http://static4.depositphotos.com/1007583/277/i/950/depositphotos_2770721-Vintage-England-Postage-Stamp.jpg.


 * Three halfpence was of significant notional value when Imperial Measure was still in use, as there were 16 avoirdupois ounces to 1 avdp pound, and 1½d was half of 3d, and twice ¾d (three farthings), with ¾d being exactly one-sixteenth of a shilling. (6d was half of a shilling, 3d. was a quarter of a shilling, 1½d was an eighth of a shilling, and ¾d a sixteenth of a shilling).  In bookkeeping, this gave a clerk the ability to figure the cost per oz. of something sold by the lb if sold by increments of whole shillings or by the Pound Sterling.  As an eighth of a shilling, 1½d had an application with ‘stones’ to the ‘hundredweight’ as well, for which there were 8 st. to every cwt., and 20 cwt. to the ton. (I was an accounting clerk in a Southampton shipping firm in the 1950s).


 * Returning to the topic in hand, I still don't know how to read it. One might say ‘I have thirteen pennies and one halfpenny in my hand’ for the individual coins themselves.  As for the sum (amount), however, the best I have yet to come up with is ‘one shilling and three-halfpence’ or possibly ‘a shilling and a penny-halfpenny’.


 * Christian Gregory (talk) 09:45, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

China (else where section)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bao_Zheng

This might be interesting to add to the elsewhere section. While the device did not use gravity, it did serve the function of making the removal of the head quick, less likely to require repeated attempts, and to be more humane. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.250.88.8 (talk) 02:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Value of cloth pieces
"The "piece of cloth" referred to may have easily represented the entire wealth of the weaver. The proceeds from its sale would have paid for the raw material for the following week's weaving as well as for food and other essentials." A new paragraph was added by User:Rxlx to explain why the theft of a "piece of cloth" should be a capital offence. Although the explanation makes good sense, this needs a source to support it. If a source could be found, should it be re-added as part of the text or as a footnote? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:50, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * As it's not true, the question is hypothetical. The cloth being stolen didn't belong to the weavers, it belonged to the tenters. Eric   Corbett  16:03, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess that's a legal technicality. The thief would be expected to be executed regardless of the owner? But that detail is far from clear in the article. Do we actually know the identity of the owners in these particular cases? Perhaps some kind of explanation of the comparative value of the pieces, in terms of the weaver's living, would be better than nothing. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:13, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it's an economic reality that the cloth didn't belong to the weavers. As the article already explains, it was sent to a fulling mill and then the tenters laid it out to dry, which is when it became prone to theft. The weaver's living has nothing at all to do with it, and I'm beginning to wonder whether you've ever actually taken the trouble to read this article on what is, after all, an instrument of execution. If you don't stop following me around then I might be tempted to do the same to you, and I guarantee you wouldn't enjoy that. Eric   Corbett  16:26, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm following articles, not editors, thanks. And, yes, I have actually "taken the trouble to read" this article. A week's worth of labour by a weaver gives a fair indication of the relative value of the pieces of cloth. I didn't realise that execution by gibbet was considered an appropriate means of resolving differences at wikipedia. Would you like a big crowd? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:34, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You are very competently proving yourself to be a complete arse. Eric   Corbett  16:43, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm giving a suggestion on how this article could be improved for the benefit of a reader who is not as much of an expert in the subject matter as you. Sorry I can't think of an appropriate anatomical insult just at the moment. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:57, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You've got absolutely no idea what you're talking about, so why do you persist in pretending that you do? When I was writing this article I was in touch with the museum currently holding the surviving axe head. Strangely the distinction between weavers and tenters didn't seem to be a significant issue for them in discussing the gibbet, but clearly they didn't have your deep level of expertise in the understanding of decapitating machines. Eric   Corbett  17:44, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's see what other editors think. What have axe heads do to with the value of cloth? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:53, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You've just got no idea, and why you persist in trying to demonstrate that will remain a mystery to me. What's the subject of this article, the decapitation device or the cloth trade in West Yorkshire? If the latter is a topic that interests you then why not write the article? Who knows, you might as a result actually learn something for once. Eric   Corbett  18:03, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I see. So I have never learned anything, as yet? From you, do you mean? I still think many readers, including those capable of learning, will be interested as to why the theft of a piece of cloth should be worthy of a death penalty. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:28, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Apparently not, nor have you read the article. If you had, you'd see that an ancient law allowed capital punishment for anyone stealing goods worth 13½d or more. Which wasn't really a great deal of money during the gibbet's period of use. Eric   Corbett  18:41, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I see. It seems I haven't learned how to issue death threats insults to editors I disagree with. You "know" that I haven't read the article? I remember editing the article when that value was being discussed. Maybe the footnote "In 1650, the year of the last executions, 13½d would have been the equivalent of about £5.40 in purchasing power as of 2008" is sufficient to make the value of cloth apparent. I'm not convinced. But evenso that note seems to be six years out of date. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:56, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * As Martinevans123 has asked what others think, I'll throw my tuppence worth in. I think the relative monetary value of the cloth is irrelevant. Readers have already been told the gibbet was "first erected purely, or at least principally, for such thieves as were apprehended stealing cloth" - so it is obvious the cloth is valuable and no further detail is required in an article about the gibbet. "It seems I haven't learned how to issue death threats to editors I disagree with." - Martinevans123, where on earth has that come from? Are you referring to Eric saying "If you don't stop following me around then I might be tempted to do the same to you, and I guarantee you wouldn't enjoy that."? If so, I really do think you need to read it again.  SagaciousPhil   -  Chat  19:26, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. I must have thought he was just being nasty to intimidate me. Perhaps decapitation would be preferable. But I'm not sure that simply discussing possible article changes, on two separate article Talk Pages, constitutes "following someone around?" I opened this thread at 15.50 this afternoon. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:34, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * One more comment from you that I've made death threats against you and you'll find your sorry arse at ANI. Eric   Corbett  19:43, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * So glad you're not threatening after all. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:55, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Martinevans123, please, let's just discuss content? I've added my thoughts about the relevance of the monetary value of the cloth, so is there anything further about that you want to add?  SagaciousPhil   -  Chat  20:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Haha. Yes, more than happy to discuss content, thanks. I appreciate your point. I still think there is a place for making clear the value of a piece of cloth, in a footnote. But it seems that a whole new article on the cloth trade in West Yorkshire is preferred. Surprised we've not heard from the OP. So how much was 16 yards of cloth worth? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:30, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Let's not let Martin's evident crusade against me detract from the fact that the article does indeed give the value for cloths stolen, where it's available, as in "Wilkinson had been found guilty of stealing 16 yards (15 m) of cloth, 9 yards of which were found in his possession". But don't let's the facts get in our way. Eric  Corbett  20:16, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I expect the OP hasn't responded because there isn't a source available? Even if there was, I honestly don't think it's essential for it to be included as the perspective of the cloth's value has been given in the quote I gave above.  SagaciousPhil   -  Chat  20:49, 6 April 2014 (UTC) PS: I can never work out how to do this indenting/response levels properly.


 * I removed the content, which had been added three times by someone who obviously can't reference it. It is unnecessary and I can't understand why so much energy has been expended trying to get it included. Too many articles wander off topic by editors introducing their favourite facts even if they aren't required. The art is in knowing what to leave out.J3Mrs (talk) 21:08, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I guess we know that in 1650, in Halifax, 16 yards of cloth was worth at least 13½d. The article gives the value of each of the two horses stolen, but not of the cloth. If I ever do manage to read this article, of course, I may even go to one of those places called museums, to try and find out what horse was. Yes, it's quite an art, to know what to leave out. But editors are priceless, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:44, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * In the very unlikely event that you can find a source for the value of the cloth then please feel free to add it if you feel it's relevant. But of course as a lazy ignorant bastard you won't. Eric   Corbett  00:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You could have made your first reply to my initial post. Would you like to withdraw your second, grossly offensive, remark and apologise, or would you like me to report it to AN/I? Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Since you ask, my preference would be that you just fucked off. Eric   Corbett  10:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Difficult to gauge exactly which of those two alternatives your response supports. But I think that maybe you're being a little hasty. I don’t need "your permission" to add anything here. Rather, as you know, it depends on establishing consensus. Since the content dispute now has the benefit of other editor's views, however, would it not simply be easier for you to apologise for your unhelpful outbursts? It seems your protective enthusiasm for the content of an article to which you have contributed has, once again, got the better of you. Or are these remarks your idea of a joke, perhaps?
 * I’m also unsure what you mean by saying "When I was writing this article". I see that the article was originally started by User: GBH in August 2006 and since then has been edited by a number of other editors, myself included. The editor with most edits is User: Malleus Fatuorum – does he still “own” this article?
 * Surely it would save time and effort for all if you just removed your later remarks here? It would benefit this article talk page and might also show you personally in a less unpleasant light. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Methinks you doth protest too much, this passive aggressive baiting is what usually happens when an editor doesn't get his own way. Everyone, including you, knows that Eric used to edit as MF. As he said, find a reference and then add it. J3Mrs (talk) 16:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your calm input and polite contributions. But I think Eric is wrong for being abusive. I am offering him an opportunity to apologise for before posting an AN/I. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * But in your own way you can be equally abusive, I know I've been on the end of it. J3Mrs (talk) 17:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * By all means take your complaint to AN/I if you feel I have been "equally abusive", to you or anyone else. I don't ever remember using these words at Wikipedia, but please show us all if I have. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC) ... and I'm not sure what you meant by "get his own way"?
 * I know that Eric has always prided himself on telling "the truth" as he sees it. Perhaps he can clarify what he intended in the edits he made at exactly 16:26 on 6 April 2014. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Have added more detail on the cloth, including its estimated value, from the same page of the same Midgley and Bentley (1761) source. No musuem required this time, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:30, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Things are looking up?
I'm surprised that the mention of History Channel's Surviving History episode, broadcast in 2008, been removed as "not very important". Have there been any other television appearances? A complete reconstruction seems notable. It is difficult to find any WP:RS sources. All nine episodes from the series were released as a DVD, so there are links at imbd, e.g: and at Amazon:. but I see that one of the reviewers at Amazon describes the device as "a forerunner to the guillotine, in which the victims faced upward toward their impending doom". Is this true? I can't see any mention in the article of how the victims lay in the device. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm surprised that you're surprised. Eric   Corbett  17:47, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


 * How surprising. I have no strong view on its notability. Just don't recall ever seeing any mention of the gibbet on UK television. I was more interested in that comment by the reviewer. I didn't look like the sort of thing someone would just invent. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:55, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


 * You do! ;-) Eric   Corbett  18:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


 * "I have no strong view on its notability." Martinevans123 (talk) 18:05, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


 * "I didn't look like the sort of thing someone would just invent was what you said. Eric   Corbett  18:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


 * "lol" Yes, I can believe that, as it's true. But I don't look like the sort of editor who mis-spells worms, either. So, regardless of my troublesome sticky keyboard, does anyone know if the victim was prostrate or supine when they had their head on the block? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:22, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Shibden Hall
There is an inscribed stone tablet detailing the gibbet at Shibden Hall, in the courtyard at the rear, near the Folk Museum. See the mention here. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:42, 5 October 2019 (UTC)