Category: Old Bailey

Old Bailey and Zotero

This should be of interest to many users of the Old Bailey Proceedings, especially teachers and researchers: you can now use the ‘one-click’ function in Zotero to bookmark documents on the site – when browsing, you’ll see the Zotero icons appear in the browser address bar.

It definitely works for single trials, full sessions and Ordinary’s Accounts, saving the key metadata for the page; it may also work in non-trial sections of sessions (adverts, supplementary material, etc), but I haven’t checked this. It also works from search results (but not stats and map searches); it’ll bring up a list of all the results on the page with checkboxes to save as many or few as you want.

(I believe that Adam Crymble should get the credit for writing the translator, but will happily correct this if I’m wrong!)


Old Bailey Online keeps on digging

The Digging into Data challenge is an international grant competition (UK, US, Canada), which announced its first eight winners yesterday.

What is the “challenge” we speak of? The idea behind the Digging into Data Challenge is to answer the question “what do you do with a million books?” Or a million pages of newspaper? Or a million photographs of artwork? That is, how does the notion of scale affect humanities and social science research? Now that scholars have access to huge repositories of digitized data — far more than they could read in a lifetime — what does that mean for research?

The most exciting bit for historians of crime and fans of the Old Bailey Proceedings Online, and of Zotero and TAPoR, is that the Old Bailey Online is one of the eight:

Using Zotero and TAPoR on the Old Bailey Proceedings: Data Mining with Criminal Intent

Awardees: Dan Cohen, George Mason University, NEH; Tim Hitchcock, University of Hertfordshire, JISC; Geoffrey Rockwell, University of Alberta, SSHRC.

Additional Key Participants: The National Archives (United Kingdom), McMaster University, the Open University, Amherst College, University of Sheffield, Trent University, and the University of Western Ontario.

Description: This project will create an intellectual exemplar for the role of data mining in an important historical discipline – the history of crime – and illustrate how the tools of digital humanities can be used to wrest new knowledge from one of the largest humanities data sets currently available: the Old Bailey Online.


Irony. Or something.

I just discovered a post dated yesterday at the Society of Professional Journalists’ blog, entitled “History/Fact-Checking“. This consisted of a listing of online history-related resources, including this entry:

Old Bailey Online: History Site
From the famous British courthouse, this online database covers more than 22,000 trials dating between 1714 and 1759. Read the actual transcripts from historic proceedings, view the original documents, etc.

Only about, ooh, 5 years out of date there then. If I were a nice person I’d email them and quietly point it out, wouldn’t I? But I’m not, so I’m just going to point and laugh on my blog.


Old Bailey Proceedings 2.0

Well, it’s been up for a few weeks now (I meant to post about it over Christmas. Strangely, that didn’t happen…) – we’ve launched a new community wiki for users of the Old Bailey Proceedings.

The wiki is intended as a supplement to the main site itself: both a resource for researchers, teachers and students and a community space for sharing information related to the history of the Old Bailey and the people who appeared there between the 17th and 20th centuries.

There are several main areas for contributions:

1. Biographical material about individuals (and families) who are documented in the Old Bailey Proceedings and Ordinary’s Accounts, drawing on source materials beyond the Proceedings themselves.

For example, perhaps you’ve researched your family history and found some of your ancestors in the trial reports at the Old Bailey Proceedings Online. The wiki may help you to find people who have uncovered different parts of the same puzzles as yourself, whilst also offering additional information to readers of the Proceedings that we could never provide. Here’s a nice example someone’s already posted, about a Thomas Dobyns who appeared as prosecutor in this trial.

2. Information supplementing the Historical Background sections of the main site. There are many unfamiliar things mentioned in the Proceedings – eg, forgotten places, objects, clothing, food and drink, London’s local histories and communities, the development of criminal justice and policing. We’d also welcome information about other primary sources of relevance to the Proceedings – newspapers, criminal biographies, archival sources, etc.

3. OBP-related teaching resources. We’ve already placed copies of the old Schools pages at the wiki for teachers to use, either to update those pages or simply to give some ideas for entirely new pages. We hope that the wiki can become a major resource for teachers and students at all levels of the education system.

4. A new version of the OBP Bibliography (to which users can also add items, although this is a slightly more complex procedure than the rest of the wiki).

5. Last but not least, you can let us know about errors in the OBP transcriptions and data.

Moreover, we plan to create extensive links between the information at the wiki and the main site so that contributions to the wiki, large or small, can enrich the experience of OBP visitors. I’ll try to keep you all updated on progress.

It’s going to be interesting!


Fun was had by all

It was a splendid conference, although I think I’m too brainfried to do any serious reporting. Good to meet up with several bloggers and commenters for the first time: Bill Turkel, John Wood and Gill Spraggs, and Lou. If I’ve forgotten anyone, oops and sorry. I really am a bit knackered.


Interactive digital history

Well, I’m off to a conference today, in case you’d all forgotten. (I appear not to have plugged it much lately. Very remiss of me.) Below is the abstract for my paper and a few (!) links I’ve put together, some of which may be used to string together my “ideas”, and some of which are just things I happened upon while reading. Comments welcome, especially if they prove the thesis that interactivity is the coolest thing on the planet.

Abstract

Digital History 2.0? Collaboration, community and interactivity in the digitisation of history

One of the loudest buzzwords of the last few years has been “Web 2.0″. There’s much debate over exactly what this means, but at the core of the concept is the ideal of dynamic content, interactivity and participation by web audiences. Wikipedia is perhaps the most (in)famous example so far, while newspapers are falling over themselves to allow readers of their websites to have their say. But does all this offer anything useful for historians? It has been suggested that ‘interactive’ digital history might transform historical practice, creating ‘new forms of collaboration, new modes of debate, and new modes of collecting evidence about the past’. The National Archives has set up a community wiki to draw on the experience of researchers in order to extend and expand on its online catalogue and digital content; there are growing numbers of online archives, such as the new Great War Archive, built entirely or substantially on public contributions of written texts, images, oral histories, and so on. The Old Bailey Proceedings Online has attracted a wide range of researchers – academics and non-academics alike – since its inception, many of whom have accumulated specialised knowledge that could enrich the site as a resource. This paper explores the potential benefits – and possible pitfalls – of opening up digital history resources to user-generated content and metadata.

Web 2.0

What is Web 2.0? (Tim O’Reilly)

Blogger
WordPress.com
Facebook
MySpace
Del.icio.us
Flickr
Wikipedia

Examples

Diary of Samuel Pepys

eComma

Your Archives
*Crime and Punishment category
*Transportation of Mary Wade aged 10

Library of Congress Photos on Flickr

Also Picture Australia

The Great War Archive
*Blog

The September 11 Archive

Hurrican Digital Memory Bank

Moving Here

Rosie the Riveter/WWII Home Front

CiteULike

Library Thing

reCaptcha

AHA Archives Wiki

Links

Digital History (Dan Cohen and Roy Rosenzweig)

The Pirate Problem (Dan Cohen)

Digitisation and its discontents (Antony Grafton)

Everyone’s a Historian Now

The changing role of intellectual authority (Peter Nicholson)

The bottom is not enough

Semantic Networks and Historical Knowledge Management

The rise of crowdsourcing

Digital Research Tools (DiRT)

Using Wiki in Education

Ontology is overrated (Clay Shirky)

Broad and narrow folksonomies (Thomas Vander Wal)

Folksonomy explanations

Folksonomy (Shirky)

Folksonomy: social classification (Gene Smith)

Folksonomies/metadata ecologies (Louis Rosenfeld)

Folksonomic solution to record linkage

Tags Help Make Libraries Del.icio.us

Metadata for the masses

Taxonomies and Trees

Overview of Social Bookmarking Tools

Social tools, components for success

Why some social networks work and others don’t

The Cornucopia of the Commons

Visualisation

Wordle

Prefuse

Graphviz

Timeline

Collaborative Transcription and Annotation

Archival transcriptions: for the public, by the public

Crowdsourced Transcription and Collaborative Annotation

Crowdsourcing transcriptions

Collaborative Manuscript Transcription


We have something in common with Firefox!

Remember OBP’s server overload blues?

It can happen to the best of ‘em.


Old Bailey update: in the blogosphere

The trickle of new posts appearing in my feeds seems to have pretty much dried up now, so this is probably the final final update of links. (But if you’ve seen anything interesting by bloggers that I’ve missed, leave a comment.)

Blogs (* indicates personal favourites):

*African history in the Old Bailey? (History of Africa)

*Suffragettes and Postboxes (Transpontine)

Lags and legacies (JISC digitisation blog)

Friday hoydens: suffragettes in court (Hoyden About Town)

Old Bailey Online (geoffreyrockwell.com)

What happened at the Old Bailey? (Research Buzz)

Old Bailey records online (Slaw.ca)

Just as well they didn’t have t’internet back then (Banditry)

Tales from the Hanging Court (Metafilter)

Sarah Ellen Procter, Charged with the Murder of Charlotte Whale, 5/28/1888 (True Crime Weblog)

*Old Bailey 1674-1913 (Lawyers, Guns and Money) They like the Ordinary’s Accounts too

New Online Old Bailey (The Corridor) Cricket in the Proceedings

Old Bailey Online (The Cat’s Meat Shop)

*Old Bailey online (Vince Smith) A comparison with the Biodiversity Heritage Library

Light absorbing ovines (Ben’s Blog) People just can’t resist looking for those black sheep in the family…

Old-fashioned trademark infringements (IPblog)

Getting big publicity (Available Online)

*In the Dock (The Bioscope) Early cinemas in the proceedings

with a modest generosity (Catholic World News) When it was high treason to be a Catholic priest

XML in the service of crime (Blockhead Blog)

Not related to the launch – the research was completed using the original version of the site – but of interest anyway: ‘Deaf by God’ tried in Old Bailey records. This reports a recent article in Sign Language Studies on the appearances of deaf interpreters in the 18th-century proceedings. Abstract/Muse access.

And some picks from news sites:

Old Bailey opens its unseen files (Observer)

Rush to search Old Bailey records of criminal trials (Times Online)

Global witness: Grim classics of Old Bailey go on internet (Yorkshire Post)

When hanging was too good for some (BBC magazine)

Booze, betrayal and death: tales from NZ’s past (NZ Herald)

Criminal historians crash London web site archive (Bloomberg)

In praise of… The Old Bailey (Guardian editorial)

London’s Old Bailey criminal court puts archive online (AP)

In the dock, and on the web (The Economist)

The dead shouldn’t have the last word (Independent)


It was all going so well

And then the BBC went and did a piece on their website with the title ‘Great-Granddad was a killer’. Oh, and there was a rave review on Radio 4 at the weekend (on Saturday Review; it’s on Listen Again).*

clunk… grind… thud…

Tuesday update

It turns out that yesterday we got over 3 million hits, and as far as we can tell, nearly all of that was the direct result of just the one BBC piece; nothing else was coming up in Google News (though there was some extra traffic on Sunday after the radio feature). It was genuinely popular, judging by its appearance in ‘top viewed’ and ‘top emailed’ lists on the BBC site.

By way of comparison, last week when we’d hit the publicity machine really hard and got pieces into all sorts of newspapers and media sites, we got a little over 2 million hits on our busiest day.

Last week’s publicity was largely an ‘official’ line: we supplied a press release, a few interesting cases and quotes from people who’d used the site, and journalists used that information to compile mostly pretty generic reports, often focussed on the famous cases – Wilde, Crippen, the Pankhursts. The message: here is a historical website with lots of stuff about notorious criminals and horrible punishments in the past. (Oh, and your ancestors might be mentioned in it.)

Yesterday’s piece was framed very differently. It tapped straight into the huge popularity of family history (which the BBC has done a lot for in recent years, after all): the personal and family angle, the potential for notoriety and scandal, or simply pathos and tragedy, much closer to home. The ‘Who Do You Think You Are?’ approach. Publicity gold.

Result for us, unfortunately: website falling over again. But the simple lesson is that just one story that presses the right buttons with readers, that they can respond to personally and emotionally, can do more (for good or bad) than a massive publicity machine churning out stories-by-numbers and formulaic soundbites.

***

*I’ve finally got around to listening to it. Rave is an understatement. It gave me a nice warm fuzzy glow anyway.


Recently noted around the web

What I’ve been reading online lately…

Charles Tilly, May 20, 1929 – April 29, 2008
  personal memories of Charles Tilly

Old Bailey opens its unseen files
  nice feature on the project in The Observer

Observer Food Monthly April 2008
  a special anniversary edtion: loadsa Nigel Slater recipes

the moment cat lost…
  uh-oh

Hitler diaries scandal: ‘We’d printed the scoop of the century, then it turned to dust’
  on the 25th anniversary of the Hitler Diaries, the inside story

The Pirate Problem
  dan cohen on historians' reactions to digital history


Oscar Wilde and the publicity machine

Yes, we have the Oscar Wilde trials. Exciting, huh?

Yes, that’s all we’ve got. No, we didn’t censor anything. The “details of the case are unfit for publication” bit? That was the original publishers. They did that all the time with sex cases. Bloody Victorians, spoiling our fun.

Should I blame our publicity people for including the case in the press release? I’d have left it out altogether, myself. It’s not like we don’t have plenty of sexy alternatives, what with Crippen and suffragettes and Irish terrorists (all of which were also in the press release). Or perhaps blame the journalists for bigging it up? (But it’s a notorious sex scandal! And it’s Oscar Wilde! What else are they going to do?)

What we said, buried in the middle of the press release, was:

Some of the most sensational cases ever to be tried at the Old Bailey are also now available for people to view, including the trials in which Oscar Wilde was convicted of indecency and the infamous Dr Hawley Harvey Crippen, who killed his wife, was bought to justice.

And somehow you end up with Reuters (and hence newspapers round the entire fucking globe) heading up their report with:

The transcript from Oscar Wilde’s trial for gross indecency at London’s Old Bailey Court went online for the first time on Monday alongside a raft of murder, robbery and abduction cases.

(And what that means is that I get a bunch of emails asking where’s the transcript and have we censored the material?)

Bah. I blame everybody.


An Old Bailey evening update

Of today’s server-grinding-to-a-halt issues, the question has been asked – couldn’t this be anticipated?

To which the answer is: it was.

We knew that the publicity and the appeal of the subject would bring the site temporarily to its knees. But anticipation is one thing; being able to do something to stop it happening is another. Regardless of what you do to tweak the software, the database, and so on for more efficient performance – and the new site is much better than the old one – any site is ultimately limited by the capacities of the hardware on which it’s hosted. (In fact, the site coped pretty well on Sunday, and we had about four times the normal traffic. Update – Monday’s stats are in! We had about twenty times the normal volume of traffic [memorably described by one journalist as 'crammed with digital tourists']. Freakin’ ‘ell.)

But hardware is expensive (even though it has been getting cheaper in recent years); don’t forget this is a small-scale academic institution reliant on public funding. We can’t justify buying what would have been needed for today, even if we could have predicted how much that would actually be, and then have it sitting around doing bugger all for the next five years. That would simply be a waste of limited resources.

And speaking of which, there is one new addition to the site that I haven’t talked about so far, because I hate it like poison: advertising. Unfortunately, it’s the only real way for us to ensure long-term income to maintain (and develop) the site properly. (The structuring of academic funding for this kind of digital project doesn’t really take ongoing maintenance costs into account, beyond basic hosting costs.) It’s text ads only – and if you use Firefox and Adblock Plus (like me), you probably haven’t even seen them, so count yourself lucky. To everyone else: I’m really sorry. Please don’t hate us.


Old Bailey Online: now from 1674 to 1913 (check it out before it collapses)

Well, I was a little cryptic the other week, but tomorrow it all goes public (and we kind of expect it to crash at some point – I’ll be almost disappointed if it doesn’t…),* and today there is a pretty nice feature in the Observer.

[Monday update... creak... groan... thud... Sorry, folks. It should get back to normal in a day or two...]

So here it is: the Proceedings of the Old Bailey Online 1674-1834 is now the Proceedings of the Old Bailey and Central Criminal Court 1674-1913.

This doesn’t only mean that you can now search for 200,000 trials held at the Old Bailey over a period of 2 and a half centuries. The other new set of goodies is the full text of (almost) every Ordinary of Newgate’s Account between 1690 and 1772 (in the next few months this should expand to a full archive of every known surviving Account from c.1674 onwards).

I’ve written here before about these grimly fascinating pamphlets. They’ve been used by a number of historians, including Andrea Mackenzie and Peter Linebaugh, but the surviving pamphlets have been scattered across a number of different libraries and archives. From now on they’ll be together in one fully searchable digital archive. Plus, I’m in the process of completing a database that links every convict mentioned in the Accounts to their trial, providing it has a surviving report (perhaps 3/4 of the links have already been made).

This should make for some interesting research possibilities. For example, historians often argue that women who successfully ‘pleaded their bellies’, ie had their death sentence postponed on grounds of being pregnant, usually escaped hanging. In fact, we say that in our own background section. But I’m not so sure. Through the process of cross-referencing trials and Ordinary’s Accounts, I’ve already discovered several women whose sentences were respited for pregnancy but subsequently carried out (eg in September 1695. So what I’ll be asking (once I’ve finished making the damned links) is: how many were executed and how many were permanently reprieved? Have we historians been getting it wrong? Answering those questions wasn’t impossible before now, but it would have been extremely difficult. And there will, no doubt, be many more possibilities like this.

***

The other news, because I haven’t been plugging it enough and you’ve probably all forgotten, is that we’re holding a conference in July to celebrate the relaunch: The Metropolis on Trial, in the throbbing metropolis of… Milton Keynes. If you’d like to attend, registration is open and you can download a booking form at the website. If you want to book the accommodation we’ve arranged at discount rates, you need to send the form in by the end of May at the latest and preferably as soon as possible. There is a 2 person room sharing option which is really good value (if you’re skint and looking for someone to share with maybe we can put people in touch here – leave a note in comments).

***

Linkage…

(Note that old links will continue to work for a few months, and we may well set up proper redirection at some point.)

Old stuff on OBP at this blog: Old Bailey category and the Old Bailey Symposium.

Old Bailey Files at The Head Heeb.

*Already this morning some searches have been very slow, which is not a good sign.


Momentous Changes

And so I’ve been in my job for long enough (it doesn’t feel like it) for Something Very Major to be happening. You may find out for yourself tomorrow, if you happen to be visiting the right corner of the internet (I shan’t be more explicit since the ‘real’ launch, with press releases and all that stuff, doesn’t happen for a couple of weeks yet).

People don’t like change. Or, certainly, they don’t like badly managed change. Or change that seems to be purely change for change’s sake; ‘rebranding’, when everyone liked the old brand perfectly well. And they really don’t like change that takes away their favourite stuff and fills up the screen with stuff they don’t recognise in its place.

Fingers crossed that we haven’t committed too many of these sins.

Oh well. The next few weeks should be interesting, at any rate.


Don’t assume that digital history is 24/7

Here is a cautionary tale for students using online sources to do important assignments.

Last Thursday afternoon the Old Bailey Proceedings Online (along with other resources hosted in the building) broke in a fairly major way. Our tech staff couldn’t fix it and had to pass the problem up the line to the university computing services; it took all day Friday to get it working again. In fact, at about 4.30 on Friday afternoon, emergency notices were being prepared for the weekend.

By then, I’d already had a number of panicky emails from students who were trying to use OBP to write essays. (Monday deadlines?)

The OBP has gone down at night or, worse, over a weekend before. It’s database driven, and one downside of databases compared to static web pages is that there’s more to go wrong, especially with a big database. We’re not in a position to provide technical support outside office hours, and I’m sure this is true of many free online resources provided by academic institutions: if it falls over at 6 o’clock on a Friday evening, it won’t be getting back up before Monday.

Just because those online sources seem to be open all hours, students shouldn’t assume that they will always just be there.


George’s choice: an 18th-century convict and a medical experiment

Last November, I dashed off a quick post about someone I’d encountered in an Ordinary’s Account: It’s Your Neck or Your Arm

On the evening before execution, a respite of 14 days was brought for George Chippendale, and to be continued, if within that time he shall submit to suffer the amputation of a limb, in order to try the efficacy of a new-invented styptic for stopping the blood-vessels, instead of the present more painful practice in such cases. For this indulgence, he, together with his brother and his uncle, had joined in a petition to his Majesty, and thankfully accepted it, appearing in good health and spirits, ready and chearful to undergo the experiment. (Ordinary’s Account, May 1763.)

Well, I got at least one important thing wrong, anyway. It wasn’t George’s arm that was, er, on the block. It was his leg.

How do I know this? Well, by sheer chance, a few weeks after I posted that, I got an email query at work, from a family historian who was searching for a George Clippingdale in the Old Bailey Proceedings. The problem was that the OBP reporters (unlike most other sources the researcher had consulted) spelt his surname Chippendale. (Spelling variations are not an uncommon problem in 18th-century sources, as I’ve mentioned here before.)

So, we got that sorted out, and that would normally have been the end of it. But then the researcher happened to mention that his George was reprieved from a death sentence because a surgeon wanted to use him in an experiment.

At which point, I thought ‘Hang on a minute… that sounds familiar’, and came over here and checked my earlier post. And it’s the same man!

Naturally, of course, I had to write back with a barrage of questions. And the researcher was kind and generous enough to send me his write-up of everything he’d found out about George – and to agree to let me tell you lot about it.

(But I warn you, there’s a sad ending.)

(more…)


Community wikis?

Dear readers, there will be some slightly more substantial posts here again one day in the not too distant future. In the meantime, I’m thinking about wikis again (and using this as an excuse to blog at work, heh).

We hope to set up some kind of community site, most probably a wiki, to accompany the relaunched Old Bailey Proceedings. It’s intended to be a space for researchers to share notes, linkages, etc. User-generated content, social networking, all very Web2.0, I know.

So do you know of sites that I could be looking at for ideas? One model we already have is The National Archives’ Your Archives, which seems to be coming along quite nicely. There is also Footnote, “a place where original historical documents are combined with social networking in order to create a truly unique experience involving the stories of our past”, but this requires a subscription to access most of the material. Bah to that.

Suggestions gratefully received!


Tyburn’s Martyrs

The criminals went to the place of execution in the following order, Morgan, Webb, and Wolf, in the first cart; Moore in a mourning coach; Wareham and Burk in the second cart; Tilley, Green, and Howell in the third; Lloyd on a sledge; on their arrival at Tyburn they were all put into one cart. They all behaved with seriousness and decency. Mary Green professed her innocence to the last moment of the fact for which she died, cleared Ann Basket, and accused the woman who lodged in the room where the fact was committed. As Judith Tilley appeared under terrible agonies, Mary Green applied herself to her, and said, do not be concerned at this death because it is shameful, for I hope God will have mercy upon our souls; Catharine Howell likewise appeared much dejected, trembled and was under very fearful apprehensions; all the rest seemed to observe an equal conduct, except Moore, who, when near dying, shed a flood of tears. In this manner they took their leave of this transitory life, and are gone to be disposed of as shall seem best pleasing to that all-wise Being who first gave them existence.*

In my research sources before I came to Sheffield, capital punishment appeared fairly infrequently, briefly and usually in the future tense: typically, the marginal note ‘suspendatur’ (abbreviated to sur’ or sr’), ‘to be hanged’. Even those terse notes of an event 300 years old, which quite possibly didn’t happen anyway (as many of those sentenced were reprieved), always disturbed me slightly.

I read the records of homicides and coroners’ inquests – murders, gruesome accidents, negligence and cruelty – and they are distressing and disturbing, yet they don’t evoke quite the same sense of culture shock as do the accounts of executions and ‘Last Dying Speeches’. We aren’t simply talking about the execution of murderers here: in the 18th century burglars, robbers, pickpockets, horse thieves, sheep- and cattle-rustlers, forgers and counterfeiters could all face slow, horrible deaths, in most cases public strangulation, and this was regarded by most people as perfectly normal and civilised. (Indeed, there were those who thought that hanging was not punishment enough.)

In my new job, I’ve spent some time reading Ordinary’s Accounts, which are one of the many sources we’re digitising. These are rich and fascinating sources, full of stories of the lives of common people. But they are also stories of death, and they give me the willies – not least because ordinary, decent, intelligent people in the 18th century had no problem with the idea of pickpockets, shoplifters, burglars, sheep rustlers, forgers and counterfeiters, receiving exactly the same punishment as murderers.

So, I wasn’t quite sure what to make of Andrea McKenzie, since she has written an entire, densely detailed book about the subject and the source: Tyburn’s Martyrs: Execution in England 1675-1775. She must be a tougher soul than me.

In fact, at the very beginning of the book she mentions some of the bemused reactions she received from people learning what her research topic was, including the gentleman who suggested that she should study “something pleasant, like great battles”. (more…)


Story for the day

There was a man who married a beautiful woman; but he was ugly; so his wife had an affair; so he killed her; so he was hanged; and the Ordinary lived happily ever after.


It’s your neck or your arm

I’ve encountered 18th-century convicts getting a reprieve from hanging in return for agreeing to join the army or navy, but this is a new one on me:

On the evening before execution, a respite of 14 days was brought for George Chippendale, and to be continued, if within that time he shall submit to suffer the amputation of a limb, in order to try the efficacy of a new-invented styptic for stopping the blood-vessels, instead of the present more painful practice in such cases. For this indulgence, he, together with his brother and his uncle, had joined in a petition to his Majesty, and thankfully accepted it, appearing in good health and spirits, ready and chearful to undergo the experiment.

(Ordinary’s Account, May 1763.)

I don’t know if any of the medical historians know anything more about the ‘new-invented styptic’, or whether it was successful?