Chapter 17

BUNGAY: CLAY AND TAYLOR, PRINTERS.S. & H.

FOOTNOTES:[1]Report of the Committee of the House of Commons on the police of the metropolis, 1816.[2]Sir James Mackintosh on the state of the criminal law.[3]Wade, p. 1056.[4]Evidence of Alderman Harmer before Committee on Capital Punishment, 1819.[5]A remarkable diminution of forgeries at once followed the abolition of the £1 notes.[6]See post. chap. vii.[7]“If Dr. Dodd does not suffer the sentence of the law,” said Lord Mansfield to the King in Council, “then the Perreaus have been murdered.” The Lord Chief Justice held an opinion in common with most reflecting men of that age, that death for forgery was indispensable to protect commercial credit. Lord Campbell, in his ‘Lives of the Lords Chief Justice,’ states that he heard a Judge say, after passing the death sentence for forgery, “May you find the mercy above which a due regard to the credit of the paper currency of this country forbids you to hope for here.”[8]See vol. i. p. 380.[9]Knapp and Baldwin’s ‘Newgate Calendar,’ i. 160.[10]See chap. viii. vol. i.[11]By an act of William and Mary, £40 was offered for the apprehension and conviction of a highwayman; the same sum, by 6 and 7 William III. cap. 17, for conviction of a coiner or clipper; also, by 5 Anne, cap. 31, for conviction of a burglar or housebreaker. Ten pounds was the reward for the conviction of a sheep-stealer, or of a person uttering or paving away counterfeit money, or fabricating spurious copper coins.[12]Evidence of John Vickery, a Bow Street runner, before committee on the police of the metropolis, 1816.[13]The sobriquet of Gentleman Harry was also enjoyed by Henry Simms, a highwayman who frequented the Lewisham and Blackheath roads. On one occasion, when travelling into Northamptonshire on a rather fresh horse, a gentleman who was in a post-chaise remarked to him, “Don’t ride so hard, sir, or you’ll soon ride away all your estate.” “Indeed I shall not,” replied Simms, “for it lies in several counties,” and dismounting, he challenged the gentleman to stand, and robbed him of a hundred and two guineas.[14]Seeante, vol. i. p. 187.[15]Seeante, p. 29.[16]See chapter iii., ‘Philanthropy in Newgate.’[17]Seeante, vol. i. p. 238, where there is an account of how Williams, Wilkes’ publisher, was put in the pillory.[18]Grant’s ‘Newspaper Press,’ vol. i. 172.[19]Ibid.i. 220.[20]Ibid.i. 220.[21]In March 1805 the sheriffs of London had been committed to Newgate by the House of Commons for gross partiality in favour of Sir Francis Burdett at the election for Middlesex.[22]‘State of Prisons in England, Scotland, and Wales,’ 1812.[23]These cabins were partitioned off by a wooden hoarding which went up three parts of the way to the ceiling, and they received all light and air from the top.[24]Seeante, vol. i. p. 250.[25]‘Neild,’ p. 425.[26]Ibid.[27]Ibid.[28]Debtors are still sent to prison (1883) for a fixed term, but only under a warrant of contempt of court. It is in the power of the County Court judge thus to punish all whom he believes can pay, but will not. Nevertheless, numerous cases of hardship still occur. As when a working-man’s wife pledges his credit in his absence, makes away with the writs served by the creditor, and ignores judgment obtained. The husband hears first of the affair when arrested for contempt.[29]The large discretionary powers of these courts created a petty tyranny in a set of standing commissioners.—Blackstone.[30]‘Neild.’[31]Besides these and other fees paid in prison, there were the charges of the “secondary,” who received a shilling per pound for every pound under £100, and sixpence for every pound above that sum. This was called the sheriff’s poundage, and often amounted to large sums—as much as £97 odd in one case which is cited by Mr. Neild.[32]‘Neild,’ p. 312.[33]Neild says in 1803 there were 229 males, 148 females, and 391 children in the gaol.[34]1814.[35]It was so condemned in 1808 on account of its ruinous condition. The debtors were but indifferently lodged, but the common side felons occupied a horrible den styled the Rat Hole, and the women another called the Mouse Hole.[36]Seeante, p. 69.[37]Mr. John Kirby.[38]Even the felons were better off for food. See p.104.[39]Seeante, p. 68,et seq.[40]Seeante, p. 57.[41]Evidence before Committee of House of Commons, 1814.[42]Seeante, p. 72.[43]One lunatic was kept in the state side upwards of six years. He was described as “sometimes a little dangerous,” and generally occupied in a room by himself. There were at this time three or four other lunatics (two of them “dangerous”) who went at large in the wards on the common side.[44]Seeante, vol. i. cap. v.[45]Cashman was the only one of the Spafields rioters (1816) who was capitally convicted and executed. Four others who were arraigned with him were acquitted by the jury, to the astonishment of the court. Cashman, who had been a seaman in the Royal Navy, pleaded that he had been to the Admiralty to claim prize-money to the value of £200 on the day of the riot. On his way home, half drunk, he had been persuaded to join the rioters. Cashman’s unconcern lasted to the end. As he appeared on the gallows the mob groaned and hissed the Government, and Cashman joined in the outcry until the drop fell.[46]As to ironing females, seepost, p. 136.[47]Visitors were searched at the lodge—the males by a turnkey, the females by a woman retained for the purpose. These officials had orders to strip those they searched if they thought necessary. The examination was seldom of any avail; but on one occasion a wife, who had hopes of compassing her husband’s escape, was detected in trying to pass a long rope into the prison. The woman was arrested and committed to Newgate for trial, where her husband already lay cast for highway robbery.[48]Petworth Prison, built in 1785, and Gloucester Penitentiary, erected in 1791, were the two first gaols established which provided a separate sleeping cell for every prisoner.[49]Some interesting details are published by the French Prison Society on this head.[50]How perfunctory was the performance of his duties by the ordinary may be gathered from the following chapter.[51]Seepost, p. 491.[52]‘Dr. Forde’s Evidence,’ p. 56.[53]‘Memoirs of Mrs. Fry,’ i. 312.[54]The Philanthropic Society is identical with the Farm School at Redhill, one of our most prosperous and best-managed reformatory schools at the present date. Mr. William Crawfurd, afterwards one of the first inspectors of prisons, was long an active member of the committee during the early days of the Society.[55]Seeante, cap. ii.[56]‘Buxton on Prison Discipline,’ 1818.[57]This was the germ of the Ladies’ Committee, which existed down to 1878.[58]‘Buxton on Prison Discipline,’ p. 125.[59]‘Buxton,’ p. 271.[60]Still in existence, and still deserving of praise.[61]Stated at length the title is, ‘An Inquiry whether crime and misery are produced or prevented by our present system of prison discipline, illustrated by descriptions of various prisons.’[62]‘Wm. Smith on State of Jails,’ 1776, already referred to, vol. i. cap. x.[63]19 Charles II. c. 4.[64]‘Buxton,’ p. 23.[65]In 1823 the society reported that “prisoners for assize at one county gaol are double ironed on first reception, and thus fettered, are at night chained down in bed, the chain being fixed to the floor of the cell, and fastened to the leg fetters of the prisoners. This chain is of sufficient length to enable the prisoners to raise themselves in bed. The cell is then locked, and he continues thus chained down from seven o’clock in the evening till six o’clock next morning. There were but two gaol deliveries in the county for the year, so a prisoner may continue to be thus treated for from six to eight months, and be then acquitted as innocent.” The double irons for the untried varied in weight from ten to fourteen pounds.[66]Mr. Buxton, while most loudly inveighing against the foul state of most British gaols, fully exonerates the governors. “None of the grievances represented,” he says in his preface, “are occasioned by the gaolers; that class of men are often subjected to undistinguished abuse; my experience would furnish me with very different language. Without any exception, I have had reason to approve, and sometimes to applaud, their conduct; and I can truly say that of all the persons with whom I have conversed, they are the most sensible of the evils of our present system of prison discipline.”[67]Seepost, chap. v. The privilege of getting in extra and more luxurious articles of food long survived.[68]Seeante, p. 106.[69]Prisons. ‘Edinburgh Review,’ Feb. 1822.[70]Seeante, p. 139.[71]The greatest variety existed as to the amount of ascension. In one prison a prisoner had to ascend as much as 17,000 feet daily, in others between 6000 and 7000. Women were put on the tread-wheel in those times.[72]Dance’s Newgate was commenced before Howard’s ‘State of Prisons’ was published, and was very properly condemned as defective by him and others. In the volume from which I am quoting its defects are fully detailed. Everything was sacrificed to the one idea of safe custody. To secure this, the “airing courts were enclosed by lofty impenetrable buildings, by which the general salubrity and ventilation of the interior became materially diminished.” By the arrangement of the courts it was impracticable to preserve a judicious system of separation. No sleeping cells were provided, and, as we know, the prisoners passed the night associated together in crowded rooms. No inspection was possible. On these accounts the Prison Discipline Society were of opinion that Newgate was “particularly objectionable as a model for imitation, ... a remark not deserving the less attention because the exterior of the prison presents a massive and imposing elevation which is calculated to excite impressions in favour of its security and seclusion.”[73]Seeante, p. 155.[74]There were still some notorious exceptions. The most extraordinary neglect prevailed in the county prison at Exeter, which was left year after year in its old disgraceful state, overcrowded, filthy, without chaplain, hospital, dietaries, or proper clothing for prisoners.[75]Just before sessions the total was generally much higher, and reached at times to nearly 500.[76]See last chapter of this volume.[77]This is the French and Belgian practice still. In both those countries a portion of thepécule, or prisoner’s earnings, can be spent in the prison canteen in various luxuries of diet.[78]The Gaol Acts of 1823-4.[79]‘Report of P. D. Society, 1827,’ p. 37.[80]It was the Duke of Richmond, himself the chairman of that committee, who had introduced the bill for the purpose.[81]Seeante, p. 131.[82]Mr. Wakefield’s abduction of Miss Turner will be found treated at length in chapter viii. His work on the punishment of death, which deals with Newgate at this time, I shall draw upon largely in the next chapter.[83]These words were the foundation of the great libel cause of StockdaleversusHansard, which will be remembered as threatening a serious collision between the House of Commons and the administration of the law. Mr. Stockdale, feeling aggrieved at the remarks of the Inspectors of Prisons, brought an action for libel against Messrs. Hansard, who published them. Hansard pleaded justification, and that the report was privileged, being printed by the authority of the House of Commons. Lord Denman, on the bench, dissented, and charged the jury that no such authority could justify a libel, but Hansard obtained a verdict of not guilty. Stockdale then brought a fresh action, and Hansard appealed to the House for protection. A Committee of the House was appointed to inquire into the matter, and it upheld the view that official blue books could not be open to action for libel. This formed the basis of Hansard’s defence; but the court would not admit the plea, and cast them in damages. Hansard did not pay, and went on with the publication. A third action was then commenced, on the grounds that the sale of the report was a reiterance of the libel. To this action Hansard would not plead. A fresh declaration was filed by Stockdale, with the damages laid at £50,000; and as Hansard still, under the advice of the House, would not appear, the case again went against him.Stockdale now sued for his damages in the Sheriffs’ Court. The sheriffs, well aware that Messrs. Hansard were backed up by the House of Commons, tried to escape giving a judgment, at least until the House met, but they were ordered by the superior courts to proceed. They accordingly assessed Stockdale’s damages at £600, and in liquidation thereof entered into possession of Hansard’s premises. The printers once more appealed to the House, which on the first day of the session went into the whole case. On the motion of Lord John Russell, the sheriffs were summoned to the bar of the House for infringing its privileges, and committed to the custody of the sergeant-at-arms. Stockdale was also summoned, cross-examined, and committed, but to Newgate. He, notwithstanding his imprisonment, continued to bring action after action; then his attorneys, through whom they were commenced, were summoned to the bar of the House, and also sent to Newgate. Meanwhile the sergeant-at-arms, under a writ of Habeas Corpus, had to produce the sheriffs at the court of Queen’s Bench; but the judges would not release them, holding that they were legally detained. Much dissatisfaction now began to show itself throughout the country, but the House of Commons would not yield an inch on the question of privilege. The subject was debated night after night, and at last, to settle the matter once for all, Lord John Russell introduced a bill specially intended to protect all parliamentary publications, issued by either House, from any proceedings in any court of law. This was passed in due course, and the privileges of Parliament were upheld.The sheriffs had already been released from custody on grounds of ill-health. An application was made for the enlargement of Stockdale and his attorneys from Newgate on the passing of the bill, but it was at first rejected. Two months later the application was renewed, and being unopposed, the prisoners were set free.[84]Prisoners’ evidence.[85]In 1833 a sentence of death was passed on a child of nine, who had poked a stick through a patched-up pane of glass in a shop-front, and thrusting his hand through the aperture, had stolen fifteen pieces of paint, worth twopence. This was construed into house-breaking, the principal witness being another child of nine, who “told” because he had not his share of the paint. The boy was not executed.[86]These Newgate tokens were circular thin pieces of metal of various sizes. The initials or the names of a loving pair were punched upon them, together with a heart or some symbol of affection; sometimes with a motto, such as ‘True for ever,’ ‘Love for life.’ The greatest value was attached to these tokens by the criminal classes. Those at large constantly wore them round their necks, and treated them as amulets to preserve them from danger and detection.[87]Lord John Russell, at that time Home Secretary.[88]Seeante, vol. i. cap. vi.[89]Newgate Calendar.[90]Catnach’s ‘Street Literature.’[91]‘A Book for a Rainy Day,’ p. 167.[92]Ibid.p. 171.[93]Seeante, p. 127.[94]Governor Wall had held the rank of colonel in the army when serving at Goree.[95]‘Picturesque Sketches of London,’ by Thomas Miller, 1851.[96]Seeante, p. 214.[97]‘The Punishment of Death in the Metropolis.’ E. Gibbon Wakefield, p. 139.[98]It was the Rev. Peter Fenn.[99]By 32 Henry VIII. cap. 42 (1540), surgeons were granted four bodies of executed malefactors for “anathomyes,” which privilege was extended in the following reign.—Haydn, ‘Dict. of Dates,’ p. 32.[100]Sir Baptist Hicks also built Campden House, Kensington. In 1628 he was created Baron Hicks and Viscount Campden, with remainder to his daughter’s children. She was the wife of Lord Noel, ancestor of the present Earl of Gainsborough.[101]‘New Monthly Magazine,’ 1855, p. 376.[102]This murder inspired De Quincey’s ‘Murder as one of the Fine Arts.’[103]Dymond, ‘The Law on its Trial,’ p. 57.[104]Dymond, ‘The Law on its Trial,’ p. 194.[105]That of Roderick Maclean, 1882.[106]See cap. i. p. 7.[107]It was said that the dinners he gave were of the most sumptuous andrecherchédescription. The story goes, that one of his most chosen friends, who attended him to the scaffold, entreated him, as on the brink of the grave, and unable to take anything out of the world with him, to reveal the secret of where some wonderful curaçoa was obtained, for which Fauntleroy’s cellar was famous.[108]Seeante, p. 102.[109]The reader will have perceived from the Inspectors of Prisons first report that this hope was still unfulfilled in 1836, twelve years later.[110]See chap. ii. p. 129.[111]For abduction. Seepost, p. 302.[112]At Liverpool, in 1842, there was a case of abduction, and the well-known case of Mr. Carden and Miss Arbuthnot in Ireland occurred as late as 1854.[113]See vol. i. p. 178.[114]But not quite. The Warwick Mail was stopped in 1827, and robbed of £20,000 in bank-notes.[115]That sound and illustrious lawyer, Sir James Stephen, is of opinion that the receiver of stolen goods is one of the greatest of criminals; and in his recently-published history of the Criminal Law he seriously recommends capital punishment for those who have been repeatedly convicted of the offence.[116]Seeante, p. 317.[117]Seeante, p. 344.[118]Seeante, p. 18.[119]Erected for night watchman.[120]i. e.sentence.[121]‘Times,’ Nov. 15, 1864.[122]Seepost, p. 441.[123]Seeante, p. 369.[124]Seeante, p. 271.[125]That of Cook, for which he was tried and sentenced to death.[126]They have since been repeated, but accompanied by more premeditation, in the case of Lefroy, who murdered Mr. Gould in a first-class carriage on the Brighton line in 1881.[127]Evidence of Lieutenant-Colonel Jebb, Commons’ Committee, 1850, ii. 50.[128]None, however, equalled the enormous expenditure incurred at York, where a prison had been built some years previously, under the auspices of Sydney Smith, at a cost of about £1000 per cell.[129]Prisoners at first greatly dreaded the mask. Mr. Field, in his book on prison discipline, mentions a prisoner on his way to Reading Gaol, soon after the separate system was introduced, who jumped out of the cart at the gaol door and tried to drown himself, handcuffed as he was. His plea when rescued was that he wished to avoid the mask.

FOOTNOTES:

[1]Report of the Committee of the House of Commons on the police of the metropolis, 1816.

[2]Sir James Mackintosh on the state of the criminal law.

[3]Wade, p. 1056.

[4]Evidence of Alderman Harmer before Committee on Capital Punishment, 1819.

[5]A remarkable diminution of forgeries at once followed the abolition of the £1 notes.

[6]See post. chap. vii.

[7]“If Dr. Dodd does not suffer the sentence of the law,” said Lord Mansfield to the King in Council, “then the Perreaus have been murdered.” The Lord Chief Justice held an opinion in common with most reflecting men of that age, that death for forgery was indispensable to protect commercial credit. Lord Campbell, in his ‘Lives of the Lords Chief Justice,’ states that he heard a Judge say, after passing the death sentence for forgery, “May you find the mercy above which a due regard to the credit of the paper currency of this country forbids you to hope for here.”

[8]See vol. i. p. 380.

[9]Knapp and Baldwin’s ‘Newgate Calendar,’ i. 160.

[10]See chap. viii. vol. i.

[11]By an act of William and Mary, £40 was offered for the apprehension and conviction of a highwayman; the same sum, by 6 and 7 William III. cap. 17, for conviction of a coiner or clipper; also, by 5 Anne, cap. 31, for conviction of a burglar or housebreaker. Ten pounds was the reward for the conviction of a sheep-stealer, or of a person uttering or paving away counterfeit money, or fabricating spurious copper coins.

[12]Evidence of John Vickery, a Bow Street runner, before committee on the police of the metropolis, 1816.

[13]The sobriquet of Gentleman Harry was also enjoyed by Henry Simms, a highwayman who frequented the Lewisham and Blackheath roads. On one occasion, when travelling into Northamptonshire on a rather fresh horse, a gentleman who was in a post-chaise remarked to him, “Don’t ride so hard, sir, or you’ll soon ride away all your estate.” “Indeed I shall not,” replied Simms, “for it lies in several counties,” and dismounting, he challenged the gentleman to stand, and robbed him of a hundred and two guineas.

[14]Seeante, vol. i. p. 187.

[15]Seeante, p. 29.

[16]See chapter iii., ‘Philanthropy in Newgate.’

[17]Seeante, vol. i. p. 238, where there is an account of how Williams, Wilkes’ publisher, was put in the pillory.

[18]Grant’s ‘Newspaper Press,’ vol. i. 172.

[19]Ibid.i. 220.

[20]Ibid.i. 220.

[21]In March 1805 the sheriffs of London had been committed to Newgate by the House of Commons for gross partiality in favour of Sir Francis Burdett at the election for Middlesex.

[22]‘State of Prisons in England, Scotland, and Wales,’ 1812.

[23]These cabins were partitioned off by a wooden hoarding which went up three parts of the way to the ceiling, and they received all light and air from the top.

[24]Seeante, vol. i. p. 250.

[25]‘Neild,’ p. 425.

[26]Ibid.

[27]Ibid.

[28]Debtors are still sent to prison (1883) for a fixed term, but only under a warrant of contempt of court. It is in the power of the County Court judge thus to punish all whom he believes can pay, but will not. Nevertheless, numerous cases of hardship still occur. As when a working-man’s wife pledges his credit in his absence, makes away with the writs served by the creditor, and ignores judgment obtained. The husband hears first of the affair when arrested for contempt.

[29]The large discretionary powers of these courts created a petty tyranny in a set of standing commissioners.—Blackstone.

[30]‘Neild.’

[31]Besides these and other fees paid in prison, there were the charges of the “secondary,” who received a shilling per pound for every pound under £100, and sixpence for every pound above that sum. This was called the sheriff’s poundage, and often amounted to large sums—as much as £97 odd in one case which is cited by Mr. Neild.

[32]‘Neild,’ p. 312.

[33]Neild says in 1803 there were 229 males, 148 females, and 391 children in the gaol.

[34]1814.

[35]It was so condemned in 1808 on account of its ruinous condition. The debtors were but indifferently lodged, but the common side felons occupied a horrible den styled the Rat Hole, and the women another called the Mouse Hole.

[36]Seeante, p. 69.

[37]Mr. John Kirby.

[38]Even the felons were better off for food. See p.104.

[39]Seeante, p. 68,et seq.

[40]Seeante, p. 57.

[41]Evidence before Committee of House of Commons, 1814.

[42]Seeante, p. 72.

[43]One lunatic was kept in the state side upwards of six years. He was described as “sometimes a little dangerous,” and generally occupied in a room by himself. There were at this time three or four other lunatics (two of them “dangerous”) who went at large in the wards on the common side.

[44]Seeante, vol. i. cap. v.

[45]Cashman was the only one of the Spafields rioters (1816) who was capitally convicted and executed. Four others who were arraigned with him were acquitted by the jury, to the astonishment of the court. Cashman, who had been a seaman in the Royal Navy, pleaded that he had been to the Admiralty to claim prize-money to the value of £200 on the day of the riot. On his way home, half drunk, he had been persuaded to join the rioters. Cashman’s unconcern lasted to the end. As he appeared on the gallows the mob groaned and hissed the Government, and Cashman joined in the outcry until the drop fell.

[46]As to ironing females, seepost, p. 136.

[47]Visitors were searched at the lodge—the males by a turnkey, the females by a woman retained for the purpose. These officials had orders to strip those they searched if they thought necessary. The examination was seldom of any avail; but on one occasion a wife, who had hopes of compassing her husband’s escape, was detected in trying to pass a long rope into the prison. The woman was arrested and committed to Newgate for trial, where her husband already lay cast for highway robbery.

[48]Petworth Prison, built in 1785, and Gloucester Penitentiary, erected in 1791, were the two first gaols established which provided a separate sleeping cell for every prisoner.

[49]Some interesting details are published by the French Prison Society on this head.

[50]How perfunctory was the performance of his duties by the ordinary may be gathered from the following chapter.

[51]Seepost, p. 491.

[52]‘Dr. Forde’s Evidence,’ p. 56.

[53]‘Memoirs of Mrs. Fry,’ i. 312.

[54]The Philanthropic Society is identical with the Farm School at Redhill, one of our most prosperous and best-managed reformatory schools at the present date. Mr. William Crawfurd, afterwards one of the first inspectors of prisons, was long an active member of the committee during the early days of the Society.

[55]Seeante, cap. ii.

[56]‘Buxton on Prison Discipline,’ 1818.

[57]This was the germ of the Ladies’ Committee, which existed down to 1878.

[58]‘Buxton on Prison Discipline,’ p. 125.

[59]‘Buxton,’ p. 271.

[60]Still in existence, and still deserving of praise.

[61]Stated at length the title is, ‘An Inquiry whether crime and misery are produced or prevented by our present system of prison discipline, illustrated by descriptions of various prisons.’

[62]‘Wm. Smith on State of Jails,’ 1776, already referred to, vol. i. cap. x.

[63]19 Charles II. c. 4.

[64]‘Buxton,’ p. 23.

[65]In 1823 the society reported that “prisoners for assize at one county gaol are double ironed on first reception, and thus fettered, are at night chained down in bed, the chain being fixed to the floor of the cell, and fastened to the leg fetters of the prisoners. This chain is of sufficient length to enable the prisoners to raise themselves in bed. The cell is then locked, and he continues thus chained down from seven o’clock in the evening till six o’clock next morning. There were but two gaol deliveries in the county for the year, so a prisoner may continue to be thus treated for from six to eight months, and be then acquitted as innocent.” The double irons for the untried varied in weight from ten to fourteen pounds.

[66]Mr. Buxton, while most loudly inveighing against the foul state of most British gaols, fully exonerates the governors. “None of the grievances represented,” he says in his preface, “are occasioned by the gaolers; that class of men are often subjected to undistinguished abuse; my experience would furnish me with very different language. Without any exception, I have had reason to approve, and sometimes to applaud, their conduct; and I can truly say that of all the persons with whom I have conversed, they are the most sensible of the evils of our present system of prison discipline.”

[67]Seepost, chap. v. The privilege of getting in extra and more luxurious articles of food long survived.

[68]Seeante, p. 106.

[69]Prisons. ‘Edinburgh Review,’ Feb. 1822.

[70]Seeante, p. 139.

[71]The greatest variety existed as to the amount of ascension. In one prison a prisoner had to ascend as much as 17,000 feet daily, in others between 6000 and 7000. Women were put on the tread-wheel in those times.

[72]Dance’s Newgate was commenced before Howard’s ‘State of Prisons’ was published, and was very properly condemned as defective by him and others. In the volume from which I am quoting its defects are fully detailed. Everything was sacrificed to the one idea of safe custody. To secure this, the “airing courts were enclosed by lofty impenetrable buildings, by which the general salubrity and ventilation of the interior became materially diminished.” By the arrangement of the courts it was impracticable to preserve a judicious system of separation. No sleeping cells were provided, and, as we know, the prisoners passed the night associated together in crowded rooms. No inspection was possible. On these accounts the Prison Discipline Society were of opinion that Newgate was “particularly objectionable as a model for imitation, ... a remark not deserving the less attention because the exterior of the prison presents a massive and imposing elevation which is calculated to excite impressions in favour of its security and seclusion.”

[73]Seeante, p. 155.

[74]There were still some notorious exceptions. The most extraordinary neglect prevailed in the county prison at Exeter, which was left year after year in its old disgraceful state, overcrowded, filthy, without chaplain, hospital, dietaries, or proper clothing for prisoners.

[75]Just before sessions the total was generally much higher, and reached at times to nearly 500.

[76]See last chapter of this volume.

[77]This is the French and Belgian practice still. In both those countries a portion of thepécule, or prisoner’s earnings, can be spent in the prison canteen in various luxuries of diet.

[78]The Gaol Acts of 1823-4.

[79]‘Report of P. D. Society, 1827,’ p. 37.

[80]It was the Duke of Richmond, himself the chairman of that committee, who had introduced the bill for the purpose.

[81]Seeante, p. 131.

[82]Mr. Wakefield’s abduction of Miss Turner will be found treated at length in chapter viii. His work on the punishment of death, which deals with Newgate at this time, I shall draw upon largely in the next chapter.

[83]These words were the foundation of the great libel cause of StockdaleversusHansard, which will be remembered as threatening a serious collision between the House of Commons and the administration of the law. Mr. Stockdale, feeling aggrieved at the remarks of the Inspectors of Prisons, brought an action for libel against Messrs. Hansard, who published them. Hansard pleaded justification, and that the report was privileged, being printed by the authority of the House of Commons. Lord Denman, on the bench, dissented, and charged the jury that no such authority could justify a libel, but Hansard obtained a verdict of not guilty. Stockdale then brought a fresh action, and Hansard appealed to the House for protection. A Committee of the House was appointed to inquire into the matter, and it upheld the view that official blue books could not be open to action for libel. This formed the basis of Hansard’s defence; but the court would not admit the plea, and cast them in damages. Hansard did not pay, and went on with the publication. A third action was then commenced, on the grounds that the sale of the report was a reiterance of the libel. To this action Hansard would not plead. A fresh declaration was filed by Stockdale, with the damages laid at £50,000; and as Hansard still, under the advice of the House, would not appear, the case again went against him.Stockdale now sued for his damages in the Sheriffs’ Court. The sheriffs, well aware that Messrs. Hansard were backed up by the House of Commons, tried to escape giving a judgment, at least until the House met, but they were ordered by the superior courts to proceed. They accordingly assessed Stockdale’s damages at £600, and in liquidation thereof entered into possession of Hansard’s premises. The printers once more appealed to the House, which on the first day of the session went into the whole case. On the motion of Lord John Russell, the sheriffs were summoned to the bar of the House for infringing its privileges, and committed to the custody of the sergeant-at-arms. Stockdale was also summoned, cross-examined, and committed, but to Newgate. He, notwithstanding his imprisonment, continued to bring action after action; then his attorneys, through whom they were commenced, were summoned to the bar of the House, and also sent to Newgate. Meanwhile the sergeant-at-arms, under a writ of Habeas Corpus, had to produce the sheriffs at the court of Queen’s Bench; but the judges would not release them, holding that they were legally detained. Much dissatisfaction now began to show itself throughout the country, but the House of Commons would not yield an inch on the question of privilege. The subject was debated night after night, and at last, to settle the matter once for all, Lord John Russell introduced a bill specially intended to protect all parliamentary publications, issued by either House, from any proceedings in any court of law. This was passed in due course, and the privileges of Parliament were upheld.The sheriffs had already been released from custody on grounds of ill-health. An application was made for the enlargement of Stockdale and his attorneys from Newgate on the passing of the bill, but it was at first rejected. Two months later the application was renewed, and being unopposed, the prisoners were set free.

Stockdale now sued for his damages in the Sheriffs’ Court. The sheriffs, well aware that Messrs. Hansard were backed up by the House of Commons, tried to escape giving a judgment, at least until the House met, but they were ordered by the superior courts to proceed. They accordingly assessed Stockdale’s damages at £600, and in liquidation thereof entered into possession of Hansard’s premises. The printers once more appealed to the House, which on the first day of the session went into the whole case. On the motion of Lord John Russell, the sheriffs were summoned to the bar of the House for infringing its privileges, and committed to the custody of the sergeant-at-arms. Stockdale was also summoned, cross-examined, and committed, but to Newgate. He, notwithstanding his imprisonment, continued to bring action after action; then his attorneys, through whom they were commenced, were summoned to the bar of the House, and also sent to Newgate. Meanwhile the sergeant-at-arms, under a writ of Habeas Corpus, had to produce the sheriffs at the court of Queen’s Bench; but the judges would not release them, holding that they were legally detained. Much dissatisfaction now began to show itself throughout the country, but the House of Commons would not yield an inch on the question of privilege. The subject was debated night after night, and at last, to settle the matter once for all, Lord John Russell introduced a bill specially intended to protect all parliamentary publications, issued by either House, from any proceedings in any court of law. This was passed in due course, and the privileges of Parliament were upheld.

The sheriffs had already been released from custody on grounds of ill-health. An application was made for the enlargement of Stockdale and his attorneys from Newgate on the passing of the bill, but it was at first rejected. Two months later the application was renewed, and being unopposed, the prisoners were set free.

[84]Prisoners’ evidence.

[85]In 1833 a sentence of death was passed on a child of nine, who had poked a stick through a patched-up pane of glass in a shop-front, and thrusting his hand through the aperture, had stolen fifteen pieces of paint, worth twopence. This was construed into house-breaking, the principal witness being another child of nine, who “told” because he had not his share of the paint. The boy was not executed.

[86]These Newgate tokens were circular thin pieces of metal of various sizes. The initials or the names of a loving pair were punched upon them, together with a heart or some symbol of affection; sometimes with a motto, such as ‘True for ever,’ ‘Love for life.’ The greatest value was attached to these tokens by the criminal classes. Those at large constantly wore them round their necks, and treated them as amulets to preserve them from danger and detection.

[87]Lord John Russell, at that time Home Secretary.

[88]Seeante, vol. i. cap. vi.

[89]Newgate Calendar.

[90]Catnach’s ‘Street Literature.’

[91]‘A Book for a Rainy Day,’ p. 167.

[92]Ibid.p. 171.

[93]Seeante, p. 127.

[94]Governor Wall had held the rank of colonel in the army when serving at Goree.

[95]‘Picturesque Sketches of London,’ by Thomas Miller, 1851.

[96]Seeante, p. 214.

[97]‘The Punishment of Death in the Metropolis.’ E. Gibbon Wakefield, p. 139.

[98]It was the Rev. Peter Fenn.

[99]By 32 Henry VIII. cap. 42 (1540), surgeons were granted four bodies of executed malefactors for “anathomyes,” which privilege was extended in the following reign.—Haydn, ‘Dict. of Dates,’ p. 32.

[100]Sir Baptist Hicks also built Campden House, Kensington. In 1628 he was created Baron Hicks and Viscount Campden, with remainder to his daughter’s children. She was the wife of Lord Noel, ancestor of the present Earl of Gainsborough.

[101]‘New Monthly Magazine,’ 1855, p. 376.

[102]This murder inspired De Quincey’s ‘Murder as one of the Fine Arts.’

[103]Dymond, ‘The Law on its Trial,’ p. 57.

[104]Dymond, ‘The Law on its Trial,’ p. 194.

[105]That of Roderick Maclean, 1882.

[106]See cap. i. p. 7.

[107]It was said that the dinners he gave were of the most sumptuous andrecherchédescription. The story goes, that one of his most chosen friends, who attended him to the scaffold, entreated him, as on the brink of the grave, and unable to take anything out of the world with him, to reveal the secret of where some wonderful curaçoa was obtained, for which Fauntleroy’s cellar was famous.

[108]Seeante, p. 102.

[109]The reader will have perceived from the Inspectors of Prisons first report that this hope was still unfulfilled in 1836, twelve years later.

[110]See chap. ii. p. 129.

[111]For abduction. Seepost, p. 302.

[112]At Liverpool, in 1842, there was a case of abduction, and the well-known case of Mr. Carden and Miss Arbuthnot in Ireland occurred as late as 1854.

[113]See vol. i. p. 178.

[114]But not quite. The Warwick Mail was stopped in 1827, and robbed of £20,000 in bank-notes.

[115]That sound and illustrious lawyer, Sir James Stephen, is of opinion that the receiver of stolen goods is one of the greatest of criminals; and in his recently-published history of the Criminal Law he seriously recommends capital punishment for those who have been repeatedly convicted of the offence.

[116]Seeante, p. 317.

[117]Seeante, p. 344.

[118]Seeante, p. 18.

[119]Erected for night watchman.

[120]i. e.sentence.

[121]‘Times,’ Nov. 15, 1864.

[122]Seepost, p. 441.

[123]Seeante, p. 369.

[124]Seeante, p. 271.

[125]That of Cook, for which he was tried and sentenced to death.

[126]They have since been repeated, but accompanied by more premeditation, in the case of Lefroy, who murdered Mr. Gould in a first-class carriage on the Brighton line in 1881.

[127]Evidence of Lieutenant-Colonel Jebb, Commons’ Committee, 1850, ii. 50.

[128]None, however, equalled the enormous expenditure incurred at York, where a prison had been built some years previously, under the auspices of Sydney Smith, at a cost of about £1000 per cell.

[129]Prisoners at first greatly dreaded the mask. Mr. Field, in his book on prison discipline, mentions a prisoner on his way to Reading Gaol, soon after the separate system was introduced, who jumped out of the cart at the gaol door and tried to drown himself, handcuffed as he was. His plea when rescued was that he wished to avoid the mask.

Back to Index Next