NEWGATE REFORMED.
Movement towards prison reform--Pentonville 'model' prison
built--Extension of the movement--Opposing views as to _silence_
and _separation_--Widely different treatment of criminals in
various prisons--Mr. Pearson's committee--His proposed system
explained--Attention again attracted to Newgate--Most of the old
evils still rampant, and scarcely any enforcement of
discipline--Some attempt to exercise supervision, and minor
improvements introduced--Scheme of reconstruction by Lord John
Russell found impracticable, and Holloway selected for a new city
prison--Subsequent reconstruction of Newgate on cellular
principle--Committee of House of Lords inquire into whole subject
of criminal treatment, and recommend extensive changes, with
uniformity of system--Prison Act 1865 embodies most of these
recommendations--Finally, an Act passed in 1877 transferring
prisons to the Government, and Newgate closed.
The time at length approached when a radical and complete change was to
come over the old city gaol. It was impossible for Newgate to escape for
ever the influences pressing so strongly towards prison reform.
Elsewhere the spirit had been more or less active, although not
uniformly or always to the same extent. There had been a pause in
legislation, except of a permissive kind. The 2nd and 3rd Victoria, cap.
56 (1839) laid it down that individuals _might_ be confined separately
and apart in single cells. By other acts local authorities were
empowered to construct new gaols or hire accommodation in the district;
but no steps had been taken in Parliament to enforce a better system of
discipline, or to insist upon the construction of prisons on the most
approved plan. As regards the first, however, Sir James Graham, when
Home Secretary in 1843, had appointed a committee of prison inspectors,
presided over by the Under Secretary of State, to draw up rules and
dietaries, which were then recommended to and generally adopted by the
visiting justices all over the kingdom. As regards the second, the
Government had set a good example, and in deciding upon the erection of
Pentonville prison had embarked on a considerable expenditure in order
to provide a model prison for general imitation. The first stone of
Pentonville prison was laid on the 10th April, 1840, by the Marquis of
Normanby, then Home Secretary, and the prison, which contained five
hundred and twenty cells, was occupied on the 21st December, 1842. This
building was a costly affair. The site was uneven, and had to be
levelled; moreover, the gross expenditure was increased "partly from its
being considered necessary, as it was a national prison, to make a great
archway, and to make the character of it more imposing than if it had
been situated in the country, and had been an ordinary prison."[127] Up
to the 21st December, 1842, with the additions made to that date, the
total expenditure amounted to nearly £90,000, or about £180 per cell. On
the other hand, it must be admitted that this was an experimental
construction, and that too strict a limitation of outlay would have
militated seriously against the usefulness of the building. Nor must it
be overlooked that this, the first model prison, although obtained at a
considerable cost, became actually what its name implied. Pentonville
has really been the model on which all subsequent prison construction
has been based. All prisons at home and abroad are but variations, of
course with the added improvements following longer experience, of the
pattern originated by the architectural genius of Sir Joshua Jebb. The
internal arrangements of the new model were carefully supervised by a
body of distinguished men, among which were many peers, Lord John
Russell, Mr. Shaw-Lefevre, the Speaker of the House of Commons, Sir
Benjamin Brodie, Major Jebb, R.E., and the two prison inspectors,
Messrs. Crawford and Russell, with whose names the reader is already
familiar. Major, afterwards Sir Joshua Jebb, was the moving spirit among
these commissioners, and he is now generally recognized as the
originator of modern prison architecture.
The movement thus laudably initiated by the Government soon spread to
the provinces. Some jurisdictions, greatly to their credit, strove at
once to follow the lead of the central authority. Within half-a-dozen
years no less than fifty-four new prisons were built on the Pentonville
plan, others were in progress, and the total number of separate cells
provided amounted to eleven thousand odd. This list included Wakefield,
Leeds, Kirkdale, Manchester, Birmingham, and Dublin. Liverpool was
building a new prison with a thousand cells, the county of Surrey one
with seven hundred. The cost in each varied considerably, the general
average being from £120 to £130 per cell. At Pentonville the rate was
higher, but there the expense had been increased by the site, the
difficulty of access, and the admitted necessity of giving architectural
importance to this the national model prison.[128] Other jurisdictions
were less prompt to recognize their responsibilities, the city of London
among the number, as I shall presently show at length. These were either
satisfied with a makeshift, and modified existing buildings, without
close regard to their suitability, or for a long time did nothing at
all. Among the latter were notably the counties of Cheshire,
Lincolnshire, Norfolk, Suffolk, Nottinghamshire, the East and North
Ridings of Yorkshire. The south and west of England were also very
laggard, and many years were still to elapse before the prisons in these
parts were properly reconstituted.
Not less remarkable than this diverse interpretation of a manifest duty
was the variety of views as regards the discipline to be introduced in
these new prisons. The time was one when thoughtful people who concerned
themselves closely with social questions were greatly exercised as to
the best system of treating the inmates of a gaol. A new and still
imperfectly understood science had arisen, the principles of which were
debated by disputants of widely opposite opinions with an earnestness
that sometimes bordered upon acrimony. One school were strongly in
favour of the continuous separation of prisoners, the other supported
the theory of labour in association, but under a stringent rule of
silence, with isolation only at night. Both systems came to us from the
United States. The difference was really more in degree than in
principle, and our modern practice has prudently tried to steer between
the two extremes, accepting as the best system a judicious combination
of both. But about 1850 the two sides were distinctly hostile, and the
controversy ran high. High authorities were in favour of continuous
separation. Colonel Jebb preferred it; Messrs. Crawford and Whitworth
Russell were convinced that the complete isolation of criminals from one
another was the true basis of a sound system of prison discipline.
Prison chaplains of experience and high repute, such as Messrs. Field,
Clay, Kingsmill, Burt, and Osborne, also advocated it. It was claimed
for it that it was more deterrent; that in districts where it was the
rule, evil-doers especially dreaded coming under its irksome
conditions. Another argument was, that it afforded more hope of the
reformation of criminals. The system of associated labour in silence had
also its warm supporters, who maintained that under this system
prisoners were more industrious and more healthy; that their condition
was more natural, and approximated more nearly to that of daily life.
Better industrial results were obtained from it, and instruction in
trades was easier, and prisoners were more likely to leave gaol with the
means of earning an honest livelihood if so disposed. The opposing
champions were not slow to find faults and flaws in the system they
condemned. Separation was injurious to health, mental or physical, said
one side; men broke down when subjected to it for more than a certain
period, and it was unsafe to fix this limit above twelve months,
although some rash advocates were in favour of eighteen months, some
indeed of two years. The other side retorted that the system of
associated labour was most costly, so many officers being required to
maintain the discipline of silence; moreover, it was nearly impossible
to prevent communication and mutual contamination.
It is scarcely necessary to follow the controversy further. I have only
introduced the subject as showing how little as yet the State was
impressed with the necessity for authoritative interference. The
legislature was content to let local jurisdictions experimentalize for
themselves; with the strange, anomalous result, that a thief or other
criminal might be quite differently treated according as he was
incarcerated on one side or another of a border line. This variety was
often extended to all branches of prison economy. There was an absolute
want of uniformity in dietaries; in some prisons it was too liberal, in
others too low. The amount of exercise varied from one or two hours
daily to half the working day. The cells inhabited by prisoners were of
very varying dimensions; some were not sufficiently ventilated, others
were warmed artificially, and were unwholesomely close. The use of gas
or some other means of lighting might be adopted, but more often was
dispensed with. In a great number of prisons no provision was made for
the education of prisoners, in some others there was a sufficient staff
of schoolmasters and instructors. The discipline also varied greatly,
from the severely penal to the culpably lax. The greatest pains might be
taken to secure isolation, the prisoners might be supervised and watched
at every step, and made liable to punishment for a trifling breach of an
irksome code of regulations, or they might herd together or communicate
freely as in the old worst days. They might see each other when they
liked, and converse _sotto voce_, or make signs; or the chances of
recognizing or being recognized were reduced to a minimum by the use of
a mask.[129] There was no general rule of employment. Hard labour was
often not insisted upon in separate confinement; sometimes it embraced
the tread-wheel or the newly-invented instruments known as cranks, which
ground air. The alternative between labour or idleness, or the selection
of the form of labour, were mere matters of chance, and decided
according to the views of the local magistracy. They were approved of
and employed at some prisons, at others objected to because they were
unproductive, and because the machine was often so imperfect that the
amount of effort could not be exactly regulated. Opinions differed
greatly with regard to the tread-wheel; some authorities advocated it as
a very severe and irksome punishment, which was yet under full control,
and might be made to work corn-mills or prove otherwise productive;
other authorities as strongly condemned it as brutalizing, unequal in
its operation, and altogether a "deplorable invention."
This want of uniformity in prison discipline became ere long an
acknowledged evil pressing for some remedy, and the question was once
more taken up in the House of Commons. In 1849 Mr. Charles Pearson,
M.P., moved for a committee to report upon the best means of securing
some uniform system which should be "punitive, reformatory, and
self-supporting;" but the session was far advanced, and the matter was
relegated to the following year. In 1850 Sir George Grey brought forward
a new motion to the same effect, which was promptly carried, with the
additional instruction to the committee to suggest any improvements. The
latter had reference more especially to a proposal emanating from Mr.
Charles Pearson himself. That gentleman had come to the conclusion that
the ordinary and hackneyed methods of treatment were practically
inefficacious, and that a new system of prison discipline should be
introduced. His plan was to devote the whole labour of prisoners
sentenced to any term between three months and four years to
agriculture. District prisons were to be established for this purpose,
each of which would be in the heart of a farm of a thousand acres. The
prisoners were to cultivate the land and raise sufficient produce for
their own support. Mr. Pearson backed up his recommendations by many
sound arguments. Field labour, he urged, and with reason, was a very
suitable employment; healthful, easily learnt, and well adapted to the
circumstances of unskilled labourers. Such excellent returns might be
counted upon, that a margin of profit would be left after the cost of
the prisons had been defrayed. The scheme was no doubt fascinating, and
in many respects feasible; but Mr. Pearson overlooked some points in
which a more practical mind would have foreseen difficulty, and perhaps
forecasted failure. In his proposal he dwelt much upon the humanizing
effects of healthful open-air toil, anticipating the best results from a
system which made earnings, and indeed release, dependent upon the
amount of work done. That industry might thus be stimulated and
encouraged was probable enough, and later experience has fully proved
the advantage of a judicious system of gratuities for labour; but Mr.
Pearson hardly considered the converse sufficiently, and omitted the
fact that he might have to deal with that persistent idleness which is
not an unknown characteristic of the criminal class. The hope of reward
might do much, but no system of penal discipline is complete unless it
can also count upon the fear of punishment. Mr. Pearson seems to have
taken for granted that all prisoners would behave well in his district
prisons. On that account he made no provision to insure safe custody,
thinking perhaps that prisoners so well disposed would cheerfully remain
in gaol of their own accord. But an open farm of a thousand acres would
have offered abundant chances of escape, which some at least would have
attempted, probably with success. The creation of an expensive staff for
supervision, or the still more costly process of walling in the whole
farm, would have greatly added to the charges of these establishments.
I have lingered too long perhaps over Mr. Pearson's proposal, but some
reference was indispensable to a scheme which marked the growth of
public interest in prison affairs, and which was the germ of the new
system since admirably developed in the convict prisons of this country.
Mr. Pearson and the committee of 1850 have the more claim on our
consideration, because, in the inquiry which followed, attention was
again attracted to Newgate. The condition of that prison in 1850 may be
gathered from the pages of the report. Not much had been done to remedy
the old defects; radical improvement was generally considered
impossible. The great evil, however, had been sensibly diminished. There
was no longer, or at worst but rarely, and for short periods, the same
overcrowding. This was obviated by the frequent sessions of the Central
Criminal Court, and the utilization of the two subsidiary prisons in
Giltspur Street and Southwark. The prison population of Newgate was
still subject to great fluctuations, but it seldom rose above two
hundred and fifty or three hundred at the most crowded periods, or just
before the sessional gaol delivery; and at its lowest it fell sometimes
to fifty or sixty. These numbers would have still further decreased, and
the gaol would have been almost empty, but for the misdemeanants who
were still sent to Newgate at times on long terms of imprisonment, and
for the transports, whom the Home Office were often, as of old, slow to
remove. The old wards, day rooms and sleeping rooms combined, of which
the reader has already heard so much, now seldom contained more than ten
or a dozen each. Some sort of decorum was maintained among the occupants
in the day-time. Drinking and gaming, the indiscriminate visitation of
friends, and the almost unlimited admission of extra food, these more
glaring defects had disappeared.
But reformation was only skin deep. Below the surface many of the old
evils still rankled. There was as yet no control over the prisoners
after locking-up time; this occurred in summer at eight, but in the
winter months it took place at dusk, and was often as early as four or
five. The prisoners were still left to themselves till next morning's
unlocking, and they spent some fourteen or fifteen hours in total
darkness, and almost without check or control. Captain Williams, who was
the inspector of prisons for the home district in succession to Messrs.
Crawford and Russell, stated in evidence that he was visiting Newgate
one night, when he heard a great disturbance in one of the day and
sleeping rooms, and on entering it found the prisoners engaged in
kicking bundles of wood from one end of the ward to the other. Some
attempt at supervision was exercised by the night watchman stationed on
the leads, who might hear what went on inside. If any disturbance
reached his ears, he reported the case to the governor, who next morning
visited the ward in fault, and asked for the culprit. The enforcement of
discipline depended upon the want of honour among thieves. Unless the
guilty prisoner was given up, the whole ward was punished, either by the
exclusion of visitors or the deprivation of fire, sharp tests which
generally broke down the fidelity of the inmates of the ward to one
another. Later on a more efficacious but still imperfect method of
supervision was introduced. Iron cages, which are still to be seen in
Newgate, were constructed on the landings, ensconced in which warders
spent the night, on duty, and alert to watch the sleepers below, and
check by remonstrance or threat of punishment all who broke the peace of
the prison.
These disciplinary improvements were, however, only slowly and gradually
introduced. Other changes affecting the condition and proper treatment
of prisoners were not made until the inspector had urged and recommended
them. Thus the wards, which, as I have said, were left in complete
darkness, were now to be lighted with gas; and after this most salutary
addition, the personal superintendence of night officers, as already
described, became possible. The rule became general as regards the
prison dress; hitherto clothing had been issued only to such as were
destitute or in rags, and all classes of prisoners, those for trial, and
those sentenced for short terms or long, wore no distinguishing costume,
although its use was admitted, not only for cleanliness, but as a badge
of condition, and a security against escape. Renewed recommendations to
provide employment resulted in the provision of a certain amount of
oakum for picking, and one or two men were allowed to mend clothes and
make shoes. The rules made by the Secretary of State were hung up in
conspicuous parts of the prison; more officers were appointed, as the
time of so many of those already on the staff was monopolized by
attendance at the Central Criminal Court. Another custom which had led
to disorder was abolished; prisoners who had been acquitted were not
permitted to return to the prison to show their joy and receive the
congratulations of their unfortunate fellows. The Corporation seems to
have introduced these salutary changes without hesitation. It was less
prompt apparently in dealing with structural alterations and
improvements. Well-founded complaints had been made of the want of
heating appliances in the gaol. The wards had open fires, but the
separate cells were not warmed at all. A scheme for heating the whole
prison with hot-water pipes, after the system now generally adopted
elsewhere, was considered, and abandoned because of the expense.
As to the entire reconstruction of Newgate, nothing had been done as
yet. This, with a scheme for limiting the gaol to untried prisoners, had
been urgently recommended by Lord John Russell in 1830. His letter to
the Corporation, under date 4th June, is an interesting document, and
shows that even at that date the Government contemplated the erection of
a model prison. Lord John Russell, commenting upon the offer of the
Corporation to improve Newgate, provided it was henceforth used only for
untried prisoners, suggested that Newgate should be entirely
reconstructed, and the new building adopted as a model. The Corporation
had agreed to spend £20,000 on alterations, but £60,000 would suffice to
reconstruct. Lord John, with great fairness, admitted that the whole of
this burthen could not be imposed upon the city, seeing that since the
establishment of the Central Criminal Court, Newgate received prisoners
for trial from several counties, and he was therefore prepared to submit
to Parliament a proposal that half the cost of reconstruction should be
borne by public funds. He forwarded plans prepared by the inspectors of
prisons, not for blind adoption, but as a guide. This plan was on the
principle of cellular separation, a system, according to Lord John
Russell, desirable in all prisons, "but in a metropolitan prison
absolutely essential." The Corporation in reply demurred rather to
accepting strict separation as a rule, feeling that it approached too
nearly to solitary confinement. The court was, however, prepared to
consider Lord John Russell's proposal with regard to the cost of
rebuilding; but as the plan was "confessedly experimental, for the
benefit of the country generally, the amount for which the city should
be responsible should be distinctly limited not to exceed a certain sum
to be agreed upon." A proviso was also made that the magistrates should
continue to exercise full control over the new gaol, "free from any
other interference than that of the inspectors on the part of
Government."
No doubt wiser counsels prevailed with Lord John Russell, and on a more
mature consideration he realized that the limited area of the existing
Newgate site, and the costliness of enlarging it, forbade all idea of
entirely reconstructing the gaol so as to constitute it a model prison.
It would be far better to begin at the beginning, to select a
sufficiently spacious piece of ground, and erect a prison which from
foundations to roofs should be in conformity with the newest ideas.
The preference given to the Pentonville system destroyed all hopes of a
complete reformation of Newgate. But the condition of the great city
gaol was evidently considered a reproach by the city authorities, and a
year after the opening of the new "model" at Pentonville, a serious
effort was made to reconstruct Newgate. In 1845 the Gaol Committee
brought forward a definite proposal to purchase ground in the immediate
vicinity for the erection of a new gaol. This gaol was nominally to
replace the Giltspur Street Compter, the site of which was to be sold to
Christ's Hospital, but the intention was of course to embody and absorb
old Newgate in the new construction. The proposal made was to purchase
some fifty thousand square feet between Newgate, Warwick Lane, and the
Sessions House, "the situation having been proved by long experience to
be salubrious." But when this suggestion was brought before the court of
aldermen, various amendments were proposed. It was urged that the area
selected for purchase must be excessively costly to acquire, and still
quite inadequate for the city needs. The Home Secretary had laid it down
that at least five acres would be indispensable, and such an area it was
impossible to obtain within the limits of the city. Now for the first
time the Tuffnell estate in Holloway was mentioned. The Corporation
owned lands there covering from nineteen to twenty acres. Why not move
the city prison bodily into this more rural spot, with its purer air and
greater breathing space?
Eventually Holloway was decided upon as a site for the new city prison.
The necessary preliminaries took some time, but the contracts for the
new building were completed in 1849, when the works were commenced. The
prison was to contain four hundred and four prisoners, and the estimated
expenditure was £79,000. It was to accommodate only the convicted
prisoners sentenced to terms short of penal servitude, and after its
completion the uses of Newgate were narrowed almost entirely to those of
a prison of detention. It was intended as far as possible that, except
awaiting trial, no prisoner should find himself relegated to Newgate.
This principle became more and more generally the rule, although it has
never been punctiliously observed. Now and again misdemeanants have
found their way into Newgate, and within the last few years one offender
against the privileges of the House of Commons.
With the reduction of numbers to be accommodated, there was ample space
in Newgate for its reconstruction on the most approved modern lines. In
1857 the erection of a wing or large block of cells was commenced within
the original walls of the prison, and upon the north or male side. This
block contained one hundred and thirty cells, embracing every modern
improvement; it also contained eleven reception cells, six punishment
cells, and a couple of cells for condemned criminals. This block was
completed in 1859, after which the hitherto unavoidable and
long-continued promiscuous association of prisoners came to an end. In
1861 a similar work was undertaken to provide separate cellular
accommodation for the female inmates of Newgate, and by the following
year forty-seven new cells had been built on the most approved plan.
During this reconstruction the female prisoners were lodged in Holloway,
and when it was completed, both sides of the prison were brought into
harmony with modern ideas. The old buildings were entirely disused, and
the whole of the inmates of Newgate were kept constantly in separate
confinement.
With the last re-edification of Newgate, a work executed some seven
centuries after the first stone of the old gaol was laid, the
architectural records of the prison end. Nothing much was done at
Newgate in the way of building, outside or in, after 1862. The Act for
private executions led to the erection of the gallows shed in the
exercising yard, and at the flank of the passage from the condemned
cells. The first "glass house," or room in which prisoners could talk in
private with their attorneys, but yet be seen by the warder on the
watch, had been constructed, and others were subsequently added. But no
structural alterations were made from the date first quoted until the
time of closing the prison in 1881. But in the interval very
comprehensive and, I think it must be admitted, salutary changes were
successively introduced into the management of prisons. Newgate
naturally shared in any advantages due to these reforms. I propose,
therefore, to refer to them in the concluding pages of this work, and
thus bring the history of prison discipline down to our own times.
The last inquiry into the condition and management of our gaols and
houses of correction was that made by the Lords' Committee in 1863. The
inquiry was most searching and complete, and the committee spoke plainly
in its report. It animadverted strongly on "the many and wide
differences as regards construction, labour, diet, and general
discipline" which existed in the various prisons, "leading to an
inequality, uncertainty, and inefficiency of punishment productive of
the most prejudicial results." The varieties in construction were still
very marked. In many prisons the prisoners were still associated, and,
from the want of a sufficient number of cells, the principle of
separation was still greatly neglected. Yet this principle, as the
committee pointed out, "must now be accepted as the foundation of prison
discipline," while its rigid maintenance was in its opinion vital to the
efficiency of the gaols. Even where cells had been built they were
frequently below the standard size, and were therefore not certified for
occupation as was required by law. Great numbers were not lighted at
night, and were without means by which their inmates could communicate,
in case of urgent necessity, with their keepers. Still greater were the
differences with regard to employment. The various authorities held
widely different opinions as to what constituted hard labour. Here the
tread-wheel was in use, there cellular cranks, or "hard-labour
machines." Both, however, varied greatly in mechanism and in the amount
of energy they called forth, while the former was intended for the
congregate labour of a number, and the latter, as its name implies,
imposed continuous solitary toil. At other prisons "shot-drill," the
lifting and carrying of heavy round shot, was the favourite method of
inflicting penal labour. With these differences were others as opposed
concerning industrial occupation. The gaol authorities often gave the
highest, possibly undue, importance to the value of remunerative
employment, and sought to make profitable returns from prisoners' labour
the test of prison efficiency. In this view the committee could not
coincide, and it was decidedly of opinion that in all short sentences
the hard labour of the tread-wheel, crank, and so forth should be the
invariable rule.
In dietaries, again, the same wide diversity of practice obtained. The
efforts made by Sir James Graham years before to introduce uniformity in
this particular had failed of effect. The Secretary of State's suggested
scale of diet had seldom been closely followed. In some places the
dietary was too full, in others too meagre. Its constituents were not of
the most suitable character. More animal food was given than was
necessary. Vegetables, especially the potato, that most valuable
anti-scorbutic, was too often omitted. In a word, the value of diet as
a part of penal discipline was still insufficiently recognized. The
prisons were still far from inflicting the three punishments, hard
labour, hard fare, and a hard bed, which Sir Joshua Jebb told the
committee he considered the proper elements of penal discipline. It is
interesting to note here that the committee of 1863 fully endorsed Sir
Joshua's recommendations as regards a "hard bed," and recommended that
"during short sentences, or the earlier stages of a long confinement,
the prisoners should be made to dispense with the use of a mattress, and
should sleep on planks." This suggestion was adopted in the Act of 1865,
which followed the committee's report, and of which more directly.
Clause 92, Schedule I. of that act authorized the use of plank beds,
which were adopted in many prisons. They are now the universal rule,
introduced, as was erroneously supposed, by the prison commissioners
appointed under the Prison Act of 1877. Their origin it will be seen
dates back much further than that.
Beds might well be made hard and their use strictly limited. According
to this committee of 1863, beds in the smaller and most carelessly
conducted prisons formed a large element in the life of a prisoner. In
one gaol fifteen hours were spent in bed out of the twenty-four. This
was in keeping with other grave defects and omissions. The minor borough
prisons were the worst blot on the still dark and imperfect system. They
were very numerous, very imperfect in construction and management, and
they were very little required. In them, according to the committee, the
old objectionable practices were still in full force. There was
unrestrained association of untried and convicted, juvenile with adult
prisoners, vagrants, misdemeanants, felons. There were dormitories
without light, control, or regulation at night, which warders, dreading
assault, were afraid to enter after dark, even to check rioting and
disturbance. Prisoners still slept two in a bed. In one prison the
bedsteads had been removed lest the prisoners should break them up and
convert them into weapons of offence. The prison buildings were in many
places out of repair; other houses often overlooked them. A single
officer was the only custodian and disciplinary authority in the gaol.
Complete idleness was tolerated; there was neither penal labour nor
light employment. The prisoners inter-communicated freely, and exercised
the most injurious, corrupting influences upon one another. The total
want of administration was very marked, but in one prison it was such
that the prisoners' food was supplied daily from the neighbouring inn,
and the innkeeper's bill constituted the only accounts kept. The
committee might well suggest the abolition of these gaols, or their
amalgamation with the larger county establishments in their immediate
neighbourhood. Some idea of the comparative uselessness of these small
borough prisons was conveyed by some figures quoted by the committee. In
1862 there were in all one hundred and ninety-three gaols in England
and Wales; of these, sixty-three gave admittance during the entire year
to less than twenty-five prisoners; twenty-two others received between
eleven and twenty-five; fourteen received less than eleven and more than
six; while twenty-seven received less than six prisoners, and were in
some instances absolutely tenantless.
The result of the recommendation of the committee of 1862 was the Prison
Act of 1865, the penultimate of such enactments, many of the provisions
of which still remain in force. The main object of this act was to
compass that uniformity in discipline and treatment generally which had
long been admitted as indispensable, and had never as yet been properly
obtained. The legislature was beginning to overcome its disinclination
to interfere actively or authoritatively with the local jurisdictions,
although still very leniently disposed. However, it now laid down in
plain language and with precise details the requirements of a good gaol
system. The separation of prisoners in cells duly certified by the
inspectors was insisted upon, also their constant employment in labour
appropriate to their condition. Hard labour of the first and second
class was carefully defined. The former, which consisted principally of
the tread-wheel, cranks, capstans, shot-drill, was to be the rule for
all convicted prisoners throughout the early stages of their detention;
while the latter, which included various forms of industrial employment,
was the boon to which willing industry extending over a long period
established a certain claim. The infliction of punishment more or less
uniform was thus aimed at. On the other hand, new and careful
regulations were framed to secure the moral and material well-being of
the inmates of the gaols. The law made it imperative that every prison
should have a prison chapel, and that daily and Sunday services should
be held. The chaplain's duties were enlarged, and the principle of
toleration accepted to the extent of securing to all prisoners the
ministrations of ministers of their own form of belief. Steps were taken
to provide the illiterate with secular instruction. No less close was
the care as regards preservation of health. Stringent rules were
prescribed for the prison surgeons; every prison was ordered to keep up
an infirmary, and the medical supervision was to be strict and
continuous. Dietaries were drawn up for adoption on the recommendation
of a committee of experts. Baths were provided, ablutions ordered, and
all appliances to insure personal cleanliness.
The administration of good government was to be watched over by the
local magistracy, certain of whom, styled visiting justices, were
elected to inspect the prisons frequently, to examine the prisoners,
hear complaints, and check abuses. Under them the governor or gaoler was
held strictly responsible. The books and journals he was to keep were
minutely specified, and his constant presence in or near the gaol was
insisted upon. His disciplinary powers were defined by the act, and his
duties, both in
[Illustration: _Interior of Chapel (1880)._]
controlling his subordinates and in protecting the prisoners from petty
tyranny and oppression, every one of whom he was to see once every
twenty-four hours. But discipline was to be maintained if necessary by
punishment, while decency and good order were to be insured by the
strict prohibition of gambling and drunkenness. The latter was rendered
nearly impossible by the penalties imposed on persons bringing
spirituous liquors into the gaol. The old custom, so fruitful of the
worst evils, of keeping a tap inside the prison was made illegal. So was
the employment of prisoners in any position of trust or authority; they
were not to be turnkeys or assistant turnkeys, neither wardsman nor
yardsman, overseer, monitor, or schoolmaster, nor to be engaged in the
service of any officer of the prison.
The Act of 1865 also encouraged and empowered the local authorities to
"alter, enlarge, or rebuild" their prisons. They might raise funds for
this purpose, provided a certificate for the necessity for the new works
was given, either by the recorder, chairman of quarter sessions, or even
by a couple of justices. Every facility was promised. The sanction of
the Secretary of State would not be withheld if plans and estimates were
duly submitted, and they met with the approval of his professional
adviser, the surveyor-general of prisons. The funds necessary would be
advanced by the Public Works Loan Commissioners, and the interest might
be charged against the county or borough rates. Nor were these the only
inducements offered. Where local authorities were indisposed to set
their prisons in order, or hesitated to embark upon any considerable
expenditure to alter or rebuild, they were at liberty to hire suitable
cell accommodation from any neighbours who might have it to spare; the
only proviso, that no such contract was valid between one jurisdiction
and another unless the Secretary of State was satisfied that the prison
it was intended to use came up in all respects to modern requirements.
But the act was not limited to permissive legislation. Its provisions
and enactments were backed up by certain penalties. The Secretary of
State was empowered to deal rather summarily with "inadequate" prisons,
in other words, with those in which there was no separation, no proper
enforcement of hard labour, no chapel, infirmary, and so forth. He could
in the first place withhold the government grant in aid of prison funds
by refusing the certificate to the Treasury upon which the allowance was
paid. This he might do on the representation of the inspector of
prisons, who was bound to report any deficiencies and abuses he might
find at his periodical visits. The Secretary of State might go further.
Where the local authority had neglected to comply with the provisions of
the 1865 Act for four consecutive years, he could close the "inadequate"
prison, by declaring it unfit for the reception of prisoners. His order
would at the same time specify some neighbouring and more satisfactory
prison which the local authority would be compelled to utilize instead,
and with the concurrence of the other authority, and on payment. A few
provisos governed these rather extensive powers. It was necessary, for
instance, to give due notice when the government grant was to be
withdrawn, and with the warning a copy of the particular defects and
allegations was to be sent to the local authority. The latter too was to
be laid before the House of Commons. In the same way, six months' notice
was required in cases where the closing of a prison was contemplated;
but if these conditions were observed, the Secretary of State could deal
sharply enough with the defaulting jurisdictions.
Yet the law was seldom if ever enforced. It was practically inoperative
as regards the penalties for neglect. It was no doubt as irksome and
inconvenient to the Secretary of State to avail himself of his powers,
as it was difficult to bring home the derelictions of duties and evasion
of the acts. Too much was left to the inspectors. It was nearly
impossible for them to exercise a very close supervision over the whole
of the prisons of the country. There were only two of them, and they
could not visit each prison more than once in each year, sometimes not
oftener than once in eighteen months. The task imposed upon them,
tending as it did to the imposition of a fine upon the local
authorities, was not a pleasant one, and it is not strange if they did
not very frequently hand up the offenders to the reproof and correction
of the Secretary of State. As the almost inevitable consequence, while
the more glaring defects in prison management disappeared, matters went
on after the 1865 Act much the same as they had done before. Districts
differed greatly in the attention they paid to prison affairs. In one
part the most praiseworthy activity prevailed, in another there was
half-heartedness, even apathy and an almost complete contempt for the
provisions of the act.
As the years passed, great want of uniformity continued to prevail
throughout the prisons of the United Kingdom. The whole question assumed
sufficient importance to become a part of the Government programme when
Lord Beaconsfield took office in 1874. The Home Secretary in that
administration, Mr. (now Sir Richard) Cross, having applied himself
vigorously to the task of reorganizing the whole system, became
convinced that no complete reform could be accomplished so long as the
prisons were left under the jurisdiction of the local authorities. The
Prisons Bill of 1876 contemplated the transfer of the prisons to
Government. This bill, reintroduced in 1877, became law that year, after
which the whole of the prisons, including Newgate, passed under the more
direct control of the State. Since then a strong central authority has
laboured steadfastly to compass concentration, to close useless prisons,
and to insure that uniformity of system which all thoughtful persons had
long admitted to be of paramount importance in the administration of
prisons. Three years after the advent of the prison commissioners, it
was decided that Newgate was an excessively costly and redundant
establishment. It was only filled at the periods when the sessions of
the Central Criminal Court were in progress; at others an expensive
staff was maintained with little or nothing to do. At a short distance
stood another prison of detention, that of Clerkenwell, with spare
accommodation sufficient to receive all prisoners who were then
committed to Newgate. These arguments were unanswerable. Accordingly, it
was ordered by Sir William Harcourt, the present Secretary of State,
that Newgate should cease to be used as a regular prison, and it is now,
except during sessions or when the gallows is in requisition,
practically and for ever closed.
[Illustration]
INDEX.
ABDUCTIONS, account of several daring, i. 180-188; ii. 306-311;
Captain Clifford, of Mrs. Synderfin, a rich widow, i. 180;
Swainson, a Dane, of Miss Rawlins, an heiress, i. 181;
Captain Campbell (brother of the Earl of Argyle), of Miss Wharton,
an heiress, i. 181;
Count Konigsmark, of Lady Ogle, i. 182-188;
the brothers Edward Gibbon Wakefield and William Wakefield, of Miss
Turner, an heiress, ii. 306-311.
ABERSHAW, Jerry, execution of, i. 270.
AGAR, concerned in the gold robbery on the South-Eastern
Railway, ii. 391-395.
AKERMAN, Mr., keeper of Newgate, i. 306, 342, 343;
Wilkes's letter to, 430;
his instructions as to gaol fees, 432;
his account of the ravages of the gaol fever, 443;
brave and judicious conduct of, at a fire in Newgate, 447, 448;
Boswell and Johnson on his humanity to the prisoners, 447, 449;
the Rev. Mr. Hackman and Dr. Dodd on, 450 and _n._;
his conduct during the attack on Newgate by the Lord
George Gordon rioters, 465.
ALEXANDER, keeper of Newgate in Mary's time, type
of a brutal gaoler, i. 80-84.
ALLEN, Cardinal John, intercepted letter from, i. 92.
AMUSEMENTS, brutality of popular, ii. 52.
ANDREWS, John, Mayor of Sudbury, committed to Newgate for imprisoning
a Star Chamber messenger, i. 104.
ANGELINI, Edmund, an Italian, offers himself to be executed in the stead
of Fauntleroy, ii. 299.
ARTICLES, the Six, of Henry VIII., persecutions for
infringement of, i. 73, _et seq._
ASCHAM, Master Sheriff, humanity of, i. 83.
ASHLEY, transported for robbing clubs of which he was a member, ii. 346.
ASKEW, Anne, persecution and burning of, i. 76-78.
AUDELEY, Lord, Lord Chancellor, i. 74.
AYLIFFE, John, execution of, I. 272.
'BAD MONEY,' paid for admission to Newgate, explanation
of the phrase, ii. 107.
BAILEY, Rev. W., LL.D., transported for life for forging
a promissory note, ii. 341.
BAKERS in old London, punishment of, for adulterating bread and giving
light weight, i. 31, 32;
case of one John Brid for stealing dough, 32 _n._
BALDOCK, Robert de, Chancellor to Edward II., death of, in Newgate, i. 25.
BAMBRIDGE, warden of the Fleet Prison, charges against, ii. 80.
BARBER, William Henry, a solicitor, transported for
forging wills, ii. 341-343.
BARETTI, Joseph, tried for manslaughter and acquitted, i. 391-393.
BARLOW, Mr., of Burton Hall, attempt of, to escape from Newgate, i. 309.
BARRETT, Michael, executed for complicity in the Clerkenwell
explosion, ii. 421;
the last person publicly executed at Newgate, 421.
BARRINGTON, George, the notorious pickpocket, career of, ii. 33-35.
BARTHELEMY, Emanuel, executed for murder, ii. 371.
BASTWICK, release of, from prison, i. 130;
in the pillory, 236.
BATEMAN, a systematic forger, ii. 454-456.
BAYFIELD, Richard, a relapsed heretic, case of, i. 71.
BEAN, J. W., attempts the life of the Queen, ii. 291, 292.
BEAUFORT, Duke of, robbed of his "George," ii. 33.
BECKFORD, Lord Mayor, i. 14.
BELCHIER, William, highwayman, capture of, i. 411.
BELL, Dr., his inflammatory sermon rouses the citizens against
foreign workmen, i. 64;
is committed to the Tower, 66.
BELLAMONT, Lord, and the suppression of piracy, i. 416-418.
BELLAYSE, Sir Henry, in Newgate, i. 141.
BELLINGHAM, execution of, for murder, ii. 244.
BENNET, Hon. H. G., letter to Common Council on state of Newgate, i. 18;
on the condition of convicts in Newgate, ii. 102, 104, 108;
becomes a member of Prison Discipline Society, 151.
BERNARDI, Major, forty years in Newgate, i. 203;
account of his career, 226-230.
BIDWELLS, the, forgers of acceptances on the Bank of England, ii. 466-469.
BIGAMISTS, male and female, i. 242.
BILBOWS, _or_ BILBOES, room in Newgate, i. 158;
origin of the name, 158 _n._
BIRD, Mr. Edward, executed for murder, i. 376.
BISHOP, executed for "burking" many victims, and
selling their bodies, ii. 330-333.
BISHOPS, list of, who owned prisons, i. 429.
'BLACK DOGGE OF NEWGATE,' the, a 17th-century pamphlet, i. 121.
BLACKSTONE on the illegality of ironing prisoners, i. 429.
BOILING alive, punishment of, i. 62, 63.
BOLAIR, Mr. A., a Jacobite, in Newgate, i. 210, 220.
BOLLAND, James, bill forger, ii. 10.
BONNER, Bishop, his persecutions of Protestants, i. 74, _et seq._
BOROSKI, one of the murderers of Mr. Thynne, i. 183.
BOROUGH Compter, state of, ii. 85;
foulness and overcrowding in, 156, 157.
BOROUGH prisons the worst in the kingdom, ii. 173, 174, 178, 179, 495-497.
BOSWELL, James, on Mr. Akerman, the keeper of Newgate, i. 447, 448.
BOUSFIELD, William, shocking scene at the execution of, ii. 271.
BOW STREET runners, evidence of Townsend, one of the,
as to the state of crime, ii. 3;
number, duties, and remuneration of, 29.
BRANDING, the punishment of, i. 232.
BRANKS, the punishment of the, i. 245.
BRID, John, case of, for stealing dough, i. 32 _n._
BRISTOL Gaol, shocking state of, ii. 158-160.
BROMLEY, Sir T., Lord Chancellor, intercedes for Crowder, i. 95.
BROWN, Mr., gaoler of Newgate, on the improvements introduced, ii. 163.
BROWNRIGG, Mrs. Elizabeth, murderess, i. 372-374.
BRUNT, one of the Cato Street conspirators, ii. 283.
BUCKHURST, Lord, in Newgate, i. 141.
BUCQUINTE, Andrew, a leader of City thieves, i. 26.
BUDDEN, George, escape of, from Newgate, i. 313.
BULLION, robbery of, at the Custom House, in 1834, ii. 321-325;
of 12,000 sovereigns at Mile End, 325;
the great robbery of, on the South-Eastern Railway, 390-395.
BUNCHER, forger of bank-notes, ii. 456-460.
BURDETT, Sir Francis, sent to the Tower, ii. 61, 62.
BURGESS, a clerk in the Bank of England, transported
for life for defrauding it of £8000, ii. 343-345.
BURGESS, a guard, concerned in the gold robbery on the South-Eastern
Railway, ii. 391-395.
BURGLARIES--at Lambeth Palace, ii. 312;
at Grimaldi and Johnson's in the Strand, 312;
at the Custom House, 321-325;
at a bonded warehouse, 322-325;
at a bank, 345;
and at royal palaces, 345.
BURKE, Edmund, his power of creating a capital felony, ii. 4.
BURKE and Hare, reference to the murders committed by, ii. 329.
BURNETT, forger of bank-notes, ii. 456-460.
BURNING of Newgate by the Gordon rioters, i. 463-473.
BURNING to death, the last instance of, in England, ii. 236, 237.
BURNWORTH, Edward, pressed to death, i. 254;
his projected plan of escape, 301.
BURTON, release of, from prison, i. 130.
BURY ST. EDMUNDS Gaol a model prison, ii. 160, 161.
BUTE, Lord, and his influence over the Princess of Wales, i. 393.
BUTLER, William, highwayman, i. 406.
BUXTON, Mr., his philanthropic labours on behalf of prisoners,
ii. 151, _et seq._;
exonerates gaolers from blame, 162 _n._;
on moral deterioration, 165.
CAGLIOSTRO, Count, and Lord George Gordon, i. 479.
CALCRAFT, objections to his mode of hanging, ii. 272;
his antecedents and habits, 273;
how he became hangman, his character, remuneration, &c., 411-415.
CALENDAR, Gaol, i. 317-374.
CALENDARS, Newgate. See _Newgate Calendars_.
CALVERLY, W., pressed to death, i. 251.
CAMPBELL, Captain, his abduction of Miss Wharton, i. 181.
CAMPBELL, Sir James, Lord Mayor, i. 58.
CANNON, chimney-sweep, transported for life for a murderous attack on a police
constable, ii. 370, 371.
CAPITAL punishments, public feeling against, ii. 263;
abolition of, in a number of cases formerly so visited, 264;
as a consequence the number of death sentences in England falls
from 438 in 1837 to 56 in 1839, 264.
CARDAN, Jerome, reference to his 'Commentaries,' i. 61 _n._
CASHMAN, one of the Spafield rioters, conduct after condemnation, ii. 102 and
_n._
CATO STREET conspiracy, account of, ii. 278;
antecedents of Thistlewood, the leader, 279;
the Government acquainted with the plot by the informer Edwards, 280;
plan of the conspirators, 280;
their capture, 281;
trial, 282;
and execution, 283, 284.
CELLAR, the, an underground tavern in Newgate, i. 152.
CHANDLER, one of the Wagner and Bateman gang of forgers, ii. 455.
CHAPEL yard, Newgate, description of, ii. 69.
CHARTERHOUSE, ten friars of the, sent to Newgate, i. 72.
CHARTERIS, Colonel Francis, account of his career, i. 345-347.
CHESTERFIELD Gaol, state of, i. 428.
'CHRONICLE OF TYBURN,' the, i. 319.
CLARKE, John, executed for clipping, ii. 22.
CLARKE, Mrs. Mary Ann, her career
as trafficker in the sale of places, ii. 42;
and her connection with the Duke of York and Colonel Wardle, 42, 43.
CLARKE, Sir Simon, highwayman, i. 406.
CLERGY, benefit of, abuse of, i. 62.
CLERKENWELL New Prison, shocking state of, ii. 175.
CLIFFORD, Captain, his abduction of Mrs. Synderfin, i. 180.
CLIPPING and coining in the 17th century, i. 164-166;
number and profits of the clippers and coiners, 164-166;
in the 18th century, ii. 22;
two early clippers--John Clarke, 22;
and William Guest, 22-24.
CLUBS, robbery of plate from, by a member, ii. 346.
COBBETT, William, imprisoned for libel, ii. 62.
COINING in the 17th century, i. 164-166;
in the 18th century, ii. 24;
enormous extent to which it was carried, 24;
number of private mints and persons employed, 24, 25;
five kinds of silver money, 26;
two kinds of copper, 27;
number of persons prosecuted in a given period, 27;
and nature of the punishment inflicted, 27;
account of Cummings, the resurrectionist and coiner, 460-462.
COKE, Sir Edward, on the derivation of the title 'pie powder' given
to a certain court, i. 42 _n._
COKKE, William, punishment of, for endeavouring to enhance the price
of wheat in old London, i. 30.
COLEMAN, Robert, case of, committed to Newgate, i. 102.
COLLINS, John, attempts the life of William IV., ii. 284.
COMMONS, House of, prosecutions for libels on the, ii. 61, 62.
COMPTERS, the, of Ludgate, Giltspur Street, and the Borough, ii. 84.
CONDEMNED, treatment and conduct of the, in Newgate, i. 150; ii. 101-104,
213-216;
treatment of the, from sentence to execution, 249. _et seq._;
Gibbon Wakefield on, 252-254;
the Recorder's report regarding, 252;
the ordinary censured for his sermon to, 254;
Gibbon Wakefield's account of the Sunday service when the
condemned sermon was preached, 255-260;
bodies of the, given for dissection, 265, 266;
demeanour of the, 424-429.
CONDEMNED cell in Newgate, i. 150.
CONEY-CATCHING, Greene's description of, i. 123-129.
COO, Thomas, case of, over twenty years a prisoner in Newgate, i. 101.
COPE, Mr., governor of Newgate, incompetency of, ii. 193, 199, 200, 252, 253.
CORPORATION, rights and privileges of the, i. 27-43;
dispute between the, and the sheriffs as to the right to appoint the keeper
of Newgate, 48-50;
and with the Lords of the Council on the same subject, 50, 51;
high-handed dealing of the, with certain citizens, 67, 68;
commit an alderman to Newgate for refusing to be sworn, 105;
order of the, that all prisoners acquitted at the Old Bailey
should be discharged without fees, 432;
appoint a committee to inquire into the condition of Newgate, ii. 109;
they propose certain stringent reforms in it, 110-113.
COTTINGTON, Jack, a famous highwayman, account of, i. 172-175.
COTTON, Mr., ordinary of Newgate, his discouragements and censure,
ii. 216, 217;
is censured for the tone of his condemned sermon before Fauntleroy, 254.
COURVOISIER, his execution, ii. 245;
scenes at, 245;
crowded and fashionable congregation to hear his condemned sermon, 262;
and enormous crowd to see him hanged, 263;
discovery of the murder, 348;
apprehension, trial,
confession, and conviction, 348-353.
COWDAY, Walter, keeper of Newgate, charges against, i. 162.
CRABBE'S account of the burning of Newgate, i. 470-472.
'CRAFTSMAN,' prosecution of the, for libel, ii. 57.
CRAWFORD, Mr., inspector of prisons, i. 19.
CRAWFORD, Mr. William, one of the prison inspectors, appointed--his
antecedents, ii. 189;
his labours, 190, _et seq._
CRIME, summary of state of, in first half of 18th century, i. 322, _et seq._;
cause of the prevalence of, 330;
drunkenness, 331;
gaming, 332, _et seq._;
efforts made by the benevolent for the repression of, 337, 338;
various typical cases of crime, 339, _et seq._
See _Crimes and Criminals_.
CRIMES AND CRIMINALS, ii. 2-68;
state of crime at the opening of the present Newgate, 2-4;
evidence of Mr. Townsend, a Bow Street runner, on the subject, 3, 4;
ruthless nature of the penal code, 4-6;
efforts of Sir Samuel Romilly to ameliorate it, 5;
their ultimate success, 6;
forgery a capital crime, 6;
effects of this on the general public, 6;
the Bank of England the most implacable prosecutor of forgers, 7;
strong feeling against these prosecutions, 8;
early forgers, 9-22;
clipping a capital crime, 22;
two early clippers, 22-24;
coining, 24;
enormous extent to which it was carried, 24;
five kinds of silver money and two of copper, 26, 27;
number of persons prosecuted in a given time, and nature of their punishment,
27;
little security for life or property, 28;
the watchmen, their character, duties, and remuneration, 28;
Bow Street runners, their number, duties, and remuneration, 29;
rewards offered for the conviction of criminals, 29 and _n._;
injurious effect of this on the police, 29;
impunity with which robberies were committed, 31;
and attacks in the public streets, 31, 32;
the doings of Renwick Williams, "the monster," 32;
robbing at levees, 33;
career of George Barrington, 33-35;
prevalence of highway robbery, 36;
suppressed in the neighbourhood of the metropolis by the horse patrol, 36,
37;
transportation, 37;
increase of swindlers and sharpers, 38;
doings of some of the principal, 38-42;
general increase in juvenile depravity, 45-47;
dens of young thieves, 47;
moral contamination of the prison, 48; instances of juvenile
precocity in crime, 49, 50;
offering a girl for sale, 50, 51;
resurrection men and their doings, 51;
brutality of popular amusements, 52;
prize-fighting and its aristocratic patrons, 53, 54;
the perils of free speech, severity of the Press laws, 54-62;
frauds on the Exchequer, 62-64;
decoying seamen from the Navy, 64, 65;
statistics as to number of criminals in Newgate, 66-68;
diminution in certain kinds of crime, 275;
fewer street robberies, 275;
corresponding increase in other crimes, 275;
fraud, forgeries, jewel and bullion robberies, and great commercial frauds,
276;
offences against the person confined to murder and manslaughter, 276;
another form of crime--attempts against the sovereign, 277;
other forms of treason--the Cato Street conspiracy, 278;
its hero (Thistlewood), inception, frustration, and punishment, 278-284;
attempts on the life of George III, 284;
Margaret Nicholson, 284;
and Hatfield, 284;
on William IV., 284;
John Collins, 284;
and on the Queen, 285-293;
Oxford, 285-289;
Francis, 289-291;
Bean, 291;
Pate, 292;
increase in the crime of forgery, 294;
Fauntleroy, 294-300;
Captain Montgomery, 301, 302;
the Quaker, Joseph Hunton, 302;
Richard Gilford, 304;
Maynard, the last who suffered death for forgery, 304;
the capital punishment for forgery abolished, 305;
robberies--the burglary at Lambeth Palace, 312;
at Grimaldi and Johnson's in the Strand (£6000 worth of watches), 312;
attempt of Howard to rob Mr. Mullay in a house in Red Lion Square, 312, 313;
attempt to rob Mr. Gee, a solicitor, in a house in York Street, Commercial
Road, 314-317;
career of Ikey Solomons, a notorious fence, or receiver, 317-321;
bullion robbery from the Custom House in 1834, 321, 322;
robbery of diamonds, 322-325;
burglaries, 325;
gold-dust robbery, 325;
discovery of the perpetrators, who had cheated each other, 326, 327;
murders--of Mr. Weare by Thurtell, Hunt, and Probert, 328, 329;
of the Italian boy and others by Bishop and Williams, 330-333;
of Mrs. Brown by Greenacre, 333-336;
increase in crimes of fraud, 338;
Beaumont Smith's false Exchequer bills, 338;
wilful shipwreck of heavily-insured ships, 338;
the case of the Wallaces and the 'Dryad,' 338-341;
another clerical forger--Rev. W. Bailey, 341;
forgery of wills by W. H. Barber, a solicitor, and Joshua Fletcher,
a surgeon, 341-343;
Bank of England defrauded of £8000 by one of its clerks named
Burgess, 343-345;
burglaries, 345;
robbery at Lord Fitzgerald's, in Belgrave Square, 345;
of plate from clubs by a member, 346;
of diamonds by a sea captain, 347;
murderers--Courvoisier, 348-353;
Good, 354-356;
Hocker, 356-359;
an epidemic of murders, 359;
the Mannings, 359-367;
Marley, 367-369;
Cannon, for a murderous attack on a police constable, 370, 371;
Mobbs ("General Haynau"), for murder, 371;
and Barthelemy for murder, 371;
gigantic frauds, 371;
embezzlement of £71,000 by W. Watts, a clerk in the Globe Assurance Company,
371-375;
commits suicide in Newgate, 375;
frauds of R. F. Pries, corn merchant, with bills of lading, 376;
of J. W. Cole, Maltby and Co., and Davidson and Gordon with dock warrants,
377-379;
of Messrs. Strahan, Paul, and Bates with securities deposited
with them, 379-382;
of Robson with false certificates on the Crystal Palace Company, 382-386;
of Leopold Redpath with fictitious stock on the Great
Northern Railway, 386-390;
the great gold robbery on the South-Eastern Railway, 390-395;
the forgeries of J. T. Saward and his confederates, 395-398;
murderers and their demeanour after condemnation, 424-429;
poisoning and poisoners, 431, _et seq._;
Palmer, 432-439;
Dove, 439;
Dr. Smethurst, 439-441;
Catherine Wilson, 441-443;
piracy and murder--the 'Flowery Land' pirates, 444-448;
Müller, 448-452;
Sattler 428, 453;
wholesale forgeries of Wagner and Bateman, and their confederates, 454-456;
and Burnett, Buncher, and Griffiths, 456-460;
Cummings, the resurrectionist and coiner, 460-462;
will forgeries of William Roupell, 462-465;
diamond robbery by the Tarpeys, 465;
the wholesale forgery of acceptances by the Bidwells, Macdonell, and Noyes,
466-469;
some of the most recent cases of murder, 469-472;
the 'Lennie' mutineers, 472, 473;
a few smaller celebrities, 473.
CRIMINAL literature, i. 317-321;
cause of the demand for, 322.
CRIMINAL side of Newgate, description of, ii. 92, _et seq._
CROUCHES, the, punished for offering their niece for sale, ii. 50.
CHOWDER, keeper of Newgate in 1580, inquiry into the conduct of, i. 94.
CROWE, Christopher, case of, a prisoner in Newgate, i. 103.
CRUDEN, Alexander, his labours in Newgate, ii. 126.
CUCKING-STOOL, the, 242.
CUMMINGS, resurrectionist and coiner, ii. 460-462.
CUTPURSES, mode of training, in old London, i. 88;
cutpurses and coney-catchers, 123-129.
DAGOE, Hannah, dreadful scene at the execution of, i. 270.
DALLEY, Daniel, petition on behalf of, and his passengers, i. 130.
DAMIENS, the doom of, i. 248.
DANCE, George, architect of the present Newgate, i. 14, 461.
DANGERFIELD, the informer, his crime and punishment, i. 194.
'DARVELL GATHEREN,' a wooden image worshipped by the Welsh, i. 73.
DAVIDSON, Mr. A., imprisoned for frauds on the Exchequer, ii. 62, 63;
occupies a room in the keeper's house at a rent of thirty
guineas a week, 100.
DAVIDSON, one of the Cato Street conspirators, ii. 283.
DAVIS, Vincent, murderer, i. 362.
DAY, Alexander, his career as swindler, ii. 39.
DEBTORS' Hall, Newgate, i. 155.
DEBTORS, state of, in early times, i. 2;
in 1813, 17;
they are transferred from Ludgate to Newgate, 54;
thence back to Ludgate, 55;
condition of, in Newgate in time of Henry VIII., 69, 70;
accommodation for, in Newgate, 150-152, 153-157;
they are almost starved to death, 427;
the male debtors' side of Newgate, ii. 68;
the female debtors' side, 69;
statistics of the number of writs issued and arrests made for debt in 1802,
74;
amounts owing, and expenses incurred in recovering, 74, 75;
courts for the recovery of debts, 75;
injustice of the City Courts of Requests, 75-77;
a prisoner for a penny, 77;
condition of debtors in the King's Bench Prison, 78-80;
in the Fleet, 80-82;
in the Marshalsea, 82-84;
in the Compters of Ludgate, Giltspur Street, and the Borough, 84, 85;
state of, in Newgate, 85;
garnish and other extortionate fees exacted from, 85-87;
wretched condition of, for food, bedding, and fire, 88, 89;
uncleanness and overcrowding amongst, 89;
how order was preserved, 90;
White Cross Street Prison is erected to relieve Newgate, 91.
DECAPITATION, the punishment of, i. 255.
DEFOE in the pillory, i. 237.
DENNIS, John, the hangman, heads the Lord George Gordon rioters, i. 467.
DIAMONDS, robbery of, in 1834, ii. 322-325;
by a sea captain, 347;
by the Tarpeys, 465.
DIGNITIES, punishment for speaking evil of, i. 110.
DIGNUM, David James, his career as swindler, ii. 41.
DISSECTION, bodies of murderers given for, ii. 265, 266;
abolition of the practice, 265, 266.
DODD, Dr., career of, ii. 12;
forges a bond for £4200, 14;
extraordinary efforts made to save him, 15;
Lord Mansfield's opposition, 16 _n._;
his execution, 17.
DRUNKENNESS, prevalence of, a great cause of crime, i. 331.
DRURY, Sir Robert, Lord Mayor, i. 58.
'DRYAD,' case of the wilful shipwreck of the, for the heavy
insurance, ii. 338-341.
DUBLIN "engine of death," or gallows, description of, ii. 235.
DUNDONALD, Lord, sentenced to the pillory, i. 239.
DUVAL, Claude, the highwayman, account of, i. 175-177.
EDMONSON, Mary, story of the execution of, ii. 121-124.
EDMUNDS, Christina, the poisoner, ii. 471.
EDWARD I., great penal statute of, i. 27.
EDWARD IV., his great charter to the citizens of old London, i. 44.
EDWARD VI., nature of the prisoners in his reign, i. 86-89.
EDWARDS, conviction of, for attempt to rob Mr. Gee, a solicitor, ii. 314-317.
EDWARDS, the informer in the Cato Street conspiracy, ii. 282.
EGREMOND, Lord, in Newgate, i. 26.
ELDER, a horse-dealer, assists in defrauding the Bank of England, ii. 343-345.
ELIZABETH, Queen, religious and political prisoners in her reign, i. 89-92.
ELLWOOD, Mr., his description of Jack Ketch's kitchen, Newgate, i. 155 _n._
ELY Gaol, barbarous mode of securing prisoners in, i. 429.
"ENGLAND, Young," account of the imaginary association so called, ii. 287-289.
ERSKINE. Mr., defends Lord George Gordon, i. 475.
ESCAPES from Newgate, i. 286-316;
early instances of, 288-293;
methods of, 290, _et seq._;
Sir Nicholas Poyntz's, 290;
Edward Lunsford's, 290, 291;
Jack Sheppard's, 294-300;
Daniel Malden's, 301-308;
George Flint's, 308;
attempt of Scott, a highwayman, 309;
Jacobite escapes, 309, _et seq._;
attempt of Mr. Barlow of Burton Hall, 309;
Mr. Forster's, 311;
Brigadier Macintosh's and others, 312;
George Budden's, 313;
Mr. Ratcliffe's, 314-316;
attempt of C. T. White, 339;
of John Williams, 400;
daring and successful escape of H. Williams, 401-404;
various successful and unsuccessful attempts at, 404-409;
last attempt at, 409.
"EVIL May-day" rising of the City prentices against foreign workmen, i. 64-67.
EXCHEQUER, frauds on the, ii. 62-64;
by Mr. A. Davidson, 62;
and Mr. V. Jones, 63.
EXCHEQUER bills, altering and counterfeiting of, i. 348.
EXECUTIONERS, list of early, i. 278;
their bungling performances, 279. See _Hangmen_.
EXECUTIONS, early public, i. 10-12;
first at Tyburn, 10;
then at Newgate, 12.
'EXECUTIONS, The History of,' i. 321.
EXECUTIONS, i. 231-285;
early forms of punishment, 232, _et seq._;
branding, 232;
mutilation, 233;
the pillory, 235-240;
the stocks, 240;
the cucking-stool, 242;
the branks, 245;
whipping, 245;
variety of capital punishments, 247, _et seq._;
the doom of Damiens, 248;
and of Ravaillac, 249;
drowning, 250;
pressing to death, 250;
decapitation, 255;
strangulation, 256;
places of execution in London, 256;
Tower Hill, 257;
Smithfield, 257;
Tyburn, 258;
account of the execution of Colonel Turner in Leadenhall Street, 260-263;
Pepys' account of, 261;
the crowds that attended these exhibitions, 264, _et seq._;
execution of the murderers of Mr. Thynne in Pall Mall, 264;
George Selwyn's craving for, 265;
scenes on execution day, 267, _et seq._;
brutal treatment of the condemned by the mob, 268;
scene at Jack Sheppard's execution, 268;
demeanour of the doomed after sentence, 269, _et seq._;
examples of this--Paul Lewis, 269;
John Rann (Sixteen String Jack), 269;
Dick Turpin, 270;
Nathaniel Parkhurst, 270;
Jerry Abershaw, 270;
Hannah Dagoe, 270;
drink and tobacco given to the condemned on their way to the gallows, 271;
behaviour of Lord Ferrers, 272;
and John Ayliffe, 272;
disregard of the condemned for religious consolation,
273;
duties and privileges of the ordinary, 273, _et seq._;
Dow's bequest for tolling a bell by St. Sepulchre's for the
condemned on their way to execution, 275;
and addressing an admonition to them, 276;
executioners and their office, 277;
bungling performances of, 279;
instances of resuscitation, 279-282;
the place of execution changed from Tyburn to Newgate, 282-285;
all executions not at first at Newgate, 232;
one at Charlotte Street, Rathbone Place, 232;
one at Hatton Garden, 232;
three at Execution Dock, on the Thames, 233;
the Old Bailey gradually monopolizes the dread business, 233;
first executions there, 233, 234;
description of the new gallows, 234, 235;
the Dublin "engine of death," 235, 236;
Phoebe Harris (last instance) burned to death, 236, 237;
the change of the place of execution works no improvement in the conduct of
the mob, 237;
scene at the execution, and last moments of Governor Wall, 238-241;
execution of Holloway and Haggerty, 241;
shocking catastrophe and loss of life at, 242, 243;
of Bellingham, 244;
of Fauntleroy, 245;
and of Courvoisier, 245;
scenes at, 245;
description of an execution, 246-249;
treatment of the condemned after sentence and up to
execution, 249, _et seq._;
Gibbon Wakefield on the treatment of the condemned, 252-254;
the Recorder's report, 252;
the ordinary censured for the condemned sermon before Fauntleroy, 254;
Gibbon Wakefield's account of the Sunday service when the condemned sermon
was preached, 255-260;
his description of another religious service--the formal
thanks of the reprieved, 260-262;
crowded and fashionable congregation to hear Courvoisier's condemned sermon,
262;
and dense crowd to see him hanged, 263;
capital punishment abolished for a number of offences formerly so visited,
264;
dissection of the bodies of murderers, 265, 266;
abolition of the practice, 265, 266;
exhibition of the bodies of dead criminals, 266-268;
those of Clench and Mackay, 267;
that of Williams, the murderer of the Marrs, 267;
the custom of hanging in chains, 268;
shocking exhibitions at executions, 269;
that of Charles White, executed for arson at Newgate, 270;
Luigi Buranelli, 271;
and William Bousfield, 271;
objections to Calcraft's method of hanging, 272;
his antecedents and habits, 272;
expense of obtaining a hangman, 273;
account of Calcraft and his "short drop" system, 411-415;
and of Marwood and his "long drop" system, 415, 416;
demoralizing effects of public executions, 416, _et seq._;
scenes at the execution of the 'Flowery Land' pirates, 417;
and at that of Müller, 417-419;
Parliamentary proceedings for the abolition of public executions, 420;
legally abolished in 1868, 421;
last public execution at Newgate, that of the Fenian, Michael Barrett, for
complicity in the Clerkenwell explosion, 421;
the first private execution was at Maidstone Gaol, 429;
the first at Newgate--Alex. Mackay, for the murder of his mistress, 422;
private executions not popular with the Newgate officials, 423;
demeanour of the condemned, 424, _et seq._;
that of Wainwright, 426;
of Catherine Wilson, 427;
of Kate Webster, 427;
of Marley, 427;
of Christian Sattler, 428;
many attempt to destroy themselves, 429.
FAIRS, privilege of holding, granted to the citizens of old London,
i. 42-44; Southwark Fair, 44.
FARNHAM, Richard, case of, prisoner in Newgate, i. 105.
FARO'S daughters, i. 335, 336.
FARRAR, Captain, for counterfeiting the king's seal, case of, i. 191.
FAUNTLEROY, execution of, ii. 245;
ordinary of Newgate censured for the tone of the condemned sermon preached
before him, 254;
history of his career, 294-300;
an Italian, named Angelini, offers to be executed in his stead, 299.
FELLS, Mr., keeper of Newgate, charges against, i. 163.
FELTON, John, execution of, i. 89.
FEMALE debtors' side of Newgate, ii. 69.
FEMALE felons' side, Newgate, ii. 72.
FEMALES, brutal punishment of, in early times, i. 242-246.
FENN, Rev. Peter, executed for forgery, ii. 257.
FERNHAM, Adam, keeper of Newgate in 1373, i. 43 _n._
FERRERS, Lord, execution of, i. 272;
his body taken to Surgeons' Hall for dissection, ii. 265.
FIELDING on the increase of robberies in London, i. 326;
his raid against gamesters, 333.
FIFTH Monarchy men in Newgate, i. 195.
FINCH, Sir Heneage, Attorney-General, i. 58.
FIRE in Newgate, exemplary conduct of the keeper at a, i. 448.
FISHER, Bishop of Rochester, i. 72.
FITZGERALD, Lord, robbery of his plate-chest, ii. 345.
FLEET Prison, condition of debtors in, ii. 80-82.
FLETCHER, Joshua, transported for forging wills, ii. 341-343.
FLINT, George, his escape from Newgate, i. 308.
'FLOWERY LAND' pirates, the, executed for piracy and murder, ii. 417, 444-448.
FLOYDE, Edward, imprisoned for speaking evil of James I.'s daughter, i. 110.
FORDE, Rev. Brownlow, ordinary of Newgate, notice of, ii. 127-130.
FOREIGN workmen, "Evil May-day" rising of the City prentices against, i. 64-67.
FORGERY AND FORGERS--forging by Government officials and others, i. 348-350;
ii. 6-22, 245, 257, 294-304;
a capital crime, 6;
effects of this on public feeling, 6;
the Bank of England the most implacable prosecutor of forgers, 7;
strong feeling against these prosecutions, 8;
early forgers--Richard Vaughan,
Bank of England notes, 9;
Mr. Gibson, a Chancery deed, 9, 10;
James Bolland, a bill, 10;
the brothers Perreau, a bond for £7500, 11, 12;
Dr. Dodd, a bond for £4200, 12-16;
Charles Price, _alias_ Old Patch, bank-notes, 17-21;
James Elliot and Joshua Crompton, bank-notes, 21, 22;
Fauntleroy, 245;
Fenn, Rev. Peter, 257;
increase in the crime of, 294;
career of Fauntleroy, banker, bonds, deeds, &c., 294-300;
of Captain Montgomery, bank-notes, 301;
of the Quaker, Joseph Hunton, bills of exchange, 302;
of Richard Gifford, bank-notes, 304;
and of Maynard, Custom House warrant, 304;
the latter the last who suffered death for forgery, 304;
conflicting legislation on the subject, 305;
capital punishment for, finally abolished in 1832, 305, 306;
passing fraudulent Exchequer bills by Beaumont Smith, 338;
another clerical forger--Rev. W. Bailey, a promissory note, 341;
forgery of wills by W. H. Barber, a solicitor, and Joshua Fletcher, a surgeon, 341-343;
of false certificates, by Robson, 382-386;
of fictitious stock, by Redpath, 386-390;
of cheques, &c., by J. T. Saward, 395-398;
of cheques and bills, by Wagner and Bateman and their confederates, 454-456;
of Bank of England notes, by Burnett, Buncher, and Griffiths, 456-460;
of wills, by William Roupell, 462-465;
of forged acceptances on the Bank of England, by the Bidwells, Macdonell, and
Noyes, 466-469.
FORREST, burning of a friar named, i. 73.
FORRESTER, a detective, his capture of Burgess and of Captain Ker, ii. 344, 347.
FORSTER, Mr., a Jacobite, in Newgate, i. 211;
his escape, 214.
FOXE, references to, i. 71-92.
FRAUDS by Government officials, i. 348; ii. 321-325.
FRANCIS, John, attempts the life of the Queen, ii. 289-291.
FRANCIS, Mr., executed for murdering Dangerfield, i. 195.
FRANKLAND, William, case of, for shooting a magistrate, i. 329.
FREEMAN, Mr., in Newgate, i. 223.
FRY, Mrs., her labours in Newgate, i. 18;
her first visit, ii. 132-134;
her second visit, four years later, 134;
first effects of her labours, 137-139;
an association formed, work found, and rules drawn up for better regulation
of the female prisoners, 138-142;
marvellous results of her labours, 142-146.
GALLOWS, description of the new, first used at the Old Bailey, ii. 234, 235;
and of the Dublin "engine of death," 235, 236.
GAMING, passion for, and effects of, in London in early part of 18th century,
i. 332, _et seq._;
gaming hells and their victims, 333-336.
GAOL ACTS, list of various, ii. 149, 154, 155.
GAOL CALENDAR, i. 317-374.
GAOL FEVER, i. 424-453;
the result of the foul state of the gaols, 425, 426;
condition of the cells, 426;
often underground, 426;
hardly any light, air, or water, and neither fireplace nor bed, 426, 427;
meagre supply of wretched food, 427;
debtors almost starved to death, 427;
wretched state of prison buildings, 428;
list of noblemen and bishops who owned private prisons, 428 _n._;
state of Chesterfield Gaol, the property of the Duke of Portland, 428;
and of that of Ely, the property of the bishop, 429;
overcrowding the cause of gaol fever, 433, 434;
nature and effects of, 434, 435;
earliest mention of, 436;
and of its ravages, 436, 437;
Newgate, Oxford, King's Bench Prison, 436;
seldom mentioned during the 17th century, 437;
three fatal outbreaks during the first half of the 18th century, 437;
the first, at Taunton, destroys the Lord Chief Baron, Sir
J. Shepherd, J. Piggott, sheriff, and some hundreds besides, 437;
the second, at Launceston, occasions the death of numbers, 438;
and the third, at Newgate, sweeps away the Lord Mayor, Sir T. Abney and Baron
Clark, the judges, Sir D. Lambert, and forty others, 438;
the Corporation order an inquiry, 439;
a new ventilator adopted, 440;
fatal effects of the working of the ventilator, 441;
fever still continues, 443;
Mr. Akerman's account of its ravages, 443;
statistics of, 443;
Howard's views on the subject, 444;
condemns the construction of the new (present) prison, 445;
Dr. Smith reports and condemns the new prison, 445, 446;
humanity, bravery, and presence of mind of the keeper, Mr. Akerman, 447-450.
GAOLS and gaolers in early times, i. 1-5;
in the 13th century, 7-12;
in 1813, 15-17;
mode of appointing, and powers and privileges of the gaoler of Newgate, 46;
appointments to these offices ultimately made by purchase, 47;
Whiston's protest against this abuse, 47, 48;
£3000 recorded as the price once paid for
the office of keeper of Newgate, 47;
and £5000 for that of the Fleet Prison, 47;
this is ultimately forbidden by statute, 48;
poor inmates of, wholly dependent on charity for support, 51;
epidemics and riots in, 53;
tortures used in, 74;
Alexander of Newgate, type of a brutal gaoler, 80-84;
interior of Newgate in Mary's time, 85;
arraignment of gaolers for misconduct, 93;
case of Crowder of Newgate, 94, 95;
a fanatical gaoler, 120;
description of the interior of Newgate in 1667, 147-161;
two keepers of Newgate brought to book, 162, 163;
extortions practised in, 196, 200-204, 207-212;
deputy keeper of Newgate committed to the Fleet for allowing a prisoner to
escape, 290;
mode of obtaining gaolerships and recouping themselves, 431;
the extortion of gaol fees, 432;
in enforcing them the law openly evaded, 433.
See under _Prisons_, _Philanthropy in Newgate_, _Gaol Fever_, &c.
GARDELLE, Theodore, murderer, i. 367-370.
GEE, Mr., a solicitor, the attempt to rob, ii. 314-317.
GENTLEMAN HARRY, two highwaymen so called, ii. 33.
GERARD, Colonel, attempted murder of, i. 140;
is executed for conspiring to murder Cromwell, 141 _n._
GERMAN princess, a famous impostor, account of, i. 188-191.
GIBSON, Mr., executed for forging a Chancery deed, ii. 9, 10.
GIFFORD, Richard, executed for forging bank-notes, ii. 304.
GIGGER, the, a hall in Newgate, i. 153.
GILTSPUR STREET Compter, opening of the, i. 19.
GIRL for sale, offering a, ii. 50.
GLOUCESTER Penitentiary, one of the first improved prisons in England, ii. 109
and _n._
GOLD-DUST, clever robbery of, in 1839, ii. 325, 326.
GORDON, Lord George, i. 445 _n._;
his birth and profession, 463 and _n._;
heads the Protestant Association against the Catholics, 464;
attends a gathering in St. George's Fields, 464;
and heads a monster procession to present a petition at St. Stephen's, 464;
is arrested and committed to the Tower, 474;
his trial, 474, 475;
declared not guilty, 476;
publishes a pamphlet on the condition of the prisoners in Newgate, 476;
for which he is indicted at the King's Bench, 477;
conducts his own defence, 477-479;
found guilty, 479;
before sentence the court considers another libel, 479-482;
fined and imprisoned in Newgate, 482;
where he dies of gaol fever in 1793, 482.
GORDON, the Lord George, riots, i. 15;
origin of, 463;
the mob proceed to Newgate, 465;
threaten the governor, 465;
attack the prison and fire the gates, 466, 467;
headed by the hangman, John Dennis, 467;
they rush into the gaol and release the prisoners, 468-470;
Crabbe's account of the attack, 470-472;
nearly 500 persons killed and wounded, and fifty-nine rioters executed, 473.
GOW, Captain, a pirate, career of, i. 420-422.
GRIEVE, Harriet, her career as swindler, ii. 40.
GRIFFITHS, forger of bank-notes, ii. 456-460.
GUEST, William, executed for clipping, ii. 22-24.
GUILDFORD Prison, state of, ii. 157.
GUILLOTINE, the, i. 255, 256.
HABEAS CORPUS ACT, proof of how much it was needed, i. 106.
HACKMAN, Rev. James, executed for murder, i. 378-383;
his testimony to the humane conduct of the keeper, Mr. Akerman, 450.
HAGGERTY, execution of, for murder, ii. 241.
HAKFORD, John de, punishment of, for false swearing, i. 35.
HALIFAX law, nature of, i. 256.
HALL, Justice, a Jacobite, in Newgate, i. 220.
HALL Ward, the, in Newgate, i. 150.
HANGING, instances of resuscitation after, i. 279-282.
HANGMAN, dialogue between the, and two other officials, i. 207.
HANGMEN and their office, i. 277;
list of early--Derreck, Bull, Gregory Brandon, young Brandon,
Squire Dun, Jack Ketch, Roose, Price, and Dennis, 278;
instances of their bungling, 279; ii. 269-271;
objections to Calcraft's method of hanging, 272;
expense of obtaining a hangman, 273;
account of Calcraft, his character, remuneration, &c., and how he came by the
office, 411-415;
and of Marwood, 415, 416.
HANSARD _versus_ STOCKDALE, celebrated libel case involving an infringement of
the privileges of Parliament, account of, ii. 202, 203 _n._
HARRIS, Phoebe, burned to death before Newgate, ii. 236, 237.
HARROWBY, Lord, the Cato Street conspirators, and the house of, ii. 280.
HATFIELD, attempts the life of George III., ii. 284.
HATTON, Sir Christopher, on the case of Crowder, i. 95.
HAWES, Nathaniel, pressed to death, i. 253.
HAWKESBURY, Lord, allusion to, i. 480 and _n._
HAWKINS, John, butler and highwayman, i. 397-399.
HAWKSWORTH, William, executed for murder, i. 377.
HAYES, Catherine, account of her murder of her husband, i. 350-354.
HENRIETTA MARIA'S attachment to Romanism, i. 111.
HENRY III. and the citizens of London, i. 39-41.
HENRY IV. intrusts the citizens with the custody of Newgate and all other City
gates, i. 43.
HENRY VIII.'S time, crime and criminals in, i. 61;
he punishes the citizens who took part in the "Evil May-day" rising, 65-67;
his religious persecutions, 71-92;
his Six Articles, 73.
HICKS, Sir Baptist, notice of, ii. 266 and _n._
HIGH Hall, the, in Newgate, i. 155.
HIGHWAYMEN, number and exploits of, in the 17th century, i. 166-180;
Whitney, 170-172;
Jack Cottington, 172-175;
Claude Duval, 175-177;
William Nevison, 177-180;
in the 18th century, 397-415;
John Hawkins, 397-399;
James Maclane, 400-403;
William Page, 403;
John Rann, 403-406;
William Butler, 406;
Sir Simon Clarke, 406;
William Parsons, 407-410;
Paul Lewis, 410;
William Belchier, 411;
Jonathan Wild, 412-415;
Henry Sterne, ii. 33;
Henry Simms, 33 _n._
HIGHWAY robbery, prevalence of, in the 17th century, i. 166-180;
and in the 18th, ii. 36;
suppression of, in the neighbourhood of the metropolis by the horse patrol,
36, 37.
HILL, Sir Rowland, mayor, in 1555, i. 94.
HOGAN, John, execution of, ii. 232.
HOGARTH and Mrs. Brownrigg, i. 374.
HOLLOWAY, execution of, for murder, ii. 241.
HOLLOWAY Prison, erection of, i. 21; ii. 491.
HOOPER, Bishop of Gloucester, persecution of, i. 79, 84.
HORSE patrol, suppression of highway robbery in the neighbourhood
of the metropolis by the, ii. 36, 37.
'HOT GOSPELLER,' extract from, on Newgate in Mary's time, i. 84-86.
Houssart, Louis, murderer, i. 359-362.
HOWARD, John, his prison labours, i. 12, 425, 427-430, 432, 433, 436;
on the condition of Newgate, 444, 445.
HOWARD, his attempt to rob Mr. Mullay, ii. 312, 313.
HOWELL, Lawrence, case of, for denouncing George I. as a usurper, ii. 55, 56.
HOWSE, butler, transported for robbing his master's plate-chest, ii. 345.
HUGGINS, John, pays £5000 for the keepership of the Fleet Prison for the life
of himself and his son, i. 47.
HUNT, convicted for participating in the murder of Mr. Weare, ii. 328, 329.
HUNTON, Joseph, the Quaker, executed for forging bills of exchange, ii. 302,
303.