Undergraduate student contribution

Pedagogical Partner contribution

Home > Encyclopedia > Placeography > Prisons

Newgate

roseAgas Map
roseModern Map
roseList documents mentioning Newgate
roseList variant names and spellings

Introduction

The gaol at Newgate, a western gate in the Roman Wall of London, was constructed in the twelfth century specifically to detain fellons and trespassors awaiting trial by royal judges (Durston 470; O’Donnell 25; Stow 1598, sig. C8r). The gradual centralisation of the English criminal justice system meant that by the reign of Elizabeth I, Newgate had become London’s most populated gaol. In the early modern period, incarceration was rarely conceived of as a punishment in itself; rather, gaols like Newgate were more like holding cells, where inmates spent time until their trials or punishments were effected, or their debts were paid off. Newgate housed debtors until they had paid off their creditors, petty criminals, felons awaiting trials, and convicted criminals condemned to die. Life within the walls of Newgate was therefore shared with inmates from all walks of life, and it was often extremely overcrowded, poorly ventilated, and disease-ridden. Close to the prison was the Old Bailey, a criminal court which held the trials of Newgate’s inmates. It is likely that the name Old Bailey comes from a section of outworks on the Roman Wall around London (Newgate: Conservation Area Character Study). The Old Bailey Sessions House was built to carry out trials for criminal cases from the city of London and the shire of Middlesex (Thornbury). Before Old Bailey court sessions, the population of Newgate was often double that of its 150-person capacity (Halliday 23). From 1783-1868 it was also the site of public executions. Newgate therefore gained a lasting reputation as an emblem of hell itself (Defoe 198).

Architecture and Design

Newgate before the 14th Century

The early architectural history of Newgate began in Roman Britannia (Rumbelow 15). The Roman settlement on the north bank of the Thames River would come to be known as Londinium and was walled around its perimeter. The probable precursor to Newgate was known as Westgetum due to its location on the west side of the Wall. In the 1598 edition of his Survey of London, John Stow gives an explanation for the rebuilding of Newgate during the eleventh century. During the reign of William the Conqueror, St. Paul’s Cathedral was rebuilt (after it burned down in 1086), and the new church acquired significant surrounding land for a larger church yard and cemetery. Stow notes:
by inclosing of grounde, for so large a cemitorie, or church yarde: the high and large stréete stretching from Aldegate in the East, vntill Ludgate in the West, was in this place so crossed and stopped vp, that the carriage through the cittie Westwarde, was forced to passe without the saide churchyarde wall on the North side, through Pater noster row: and then south down Aue Mary lane, and againe West through Bowiar row to Ludgate Gap in transcription. Reason: ()[…]Which passage, by reason of so often turning, was very combersome, and daungerous both for horse and man. For remedie whereof, a new gate was made, and so called, by which men and cattell with all manner of carriages, might passe more directly[.]
(Stow 1598, sig. C7v)
Newgate was thus rebuilt to alleviate a congestion problem for westward traffic around St. Paul’s. The earlier gate is not mentioned by Stow, perhaps because it was not large enough for the men and cattell with all manner of carriages that Stow describes to pass through.
Between 1187-1188 the Exchequer granted money to clear land adjoining the gate on which to build a gaol, which was likely made of wood. The use of gatehouses as prisons was not uncommon. London itself had several other prisons converted from gates, such as Ludgate (Kelly). References in the Pipe Rolls to expenditure on Newgate gaol begin in 1194. In the year 1218 the king wrote to the Sheriffs of London, commanding them to repair the gaol at Newgate, for the safe keeping of his prisoners (Thornbury). In 1239 the city authorities paid the sheriffs of London 100 marks from the City farm for their work in making a prison in a turret of the gate (Winter 65). The prison was also constructed not only within the gate’s structure, but also in the adjacent and surrounding buildings. Newgate was in a state of constant decay and in 1275 its condition was so poor that there was a mass breakout of nineteen prisoners (Rumbelow 15). Various attempts to make the prison more hygienic and secure were ordered over the next centuries. Between December 1281 and February 1282 extensive works and maintenance costing in excess of £66 were undertaken at the prison. The thirteenth-century Newgate consisted of the gate itself, various dungeon rooms, and the buildings directly adjacent to the gate on both sides (Bassett 234). The prison suffered damage at the hands of Wat Tyler and his followers during the Peasant Revolt in 1381, although the extent of those damages, and subsequent repairs, remains unknown (Bassett 234).

Richard Whittington

During the early fifteenth century, a new stone tower especially for women was built to the south of the gate. This decision was in reaction to a 1406 report that men and women were being kept so close to each other that women had to pass by them to use the privy (Bassett 238-239). News of squalid conditions were confirmed when, in 1419, Ludgate prison was closed, and its prisoners were brought to Newgate. Later in the same year Henry V reversed that decision, proclaiming that by reason of the fetid and corrupt atmosphere that is in the hateful gaol of Neugate, many persons who lately were in the said Prison of Ludgate, and who Gap in transcription. Reason: ()[…] were committed to the said gaol [of Neugate], are now dead, who might have been living, it is said, if they had remained in Ludgate (Riley). This event prompted Lord Mayor Richard (Dick) Whittington to condemn the overcrowded and disease-ridden prison.
Whittington bequeathed a sum of money in his will to pay for Newgate’s renewal (Byrne 24). In 1423, it was ordered to be torn down, and a new gate and set of buildings were to be built in its place (Bassett 239). This allowed for a purpose-built gaol rather than a converted gatehouse. Whittington’s reconstruction expanded the prison to the north and south of the gate, as well as underneath the main gate (Babington 24; Bassett 239). The new prison comprised five storeys, and was eighty-five feet by fifty in dimensions (Byrne 24). Included within the gate was a chapel and recreation room. Like all prisons, Newgate had developed a Master’s-side, for those with independent means of financial support, and a Common’s-side, which was cheaper, less salubrious and meant shared accommodation. Men and women could now be housed separately, and a Debtors’ Ward was established. The extension included a central dining hall and drinking fountain for use by prisoners, although there would not be an adequate water supply until 1436, when leaden pipes were laid from the cistern which served St. Bartholomew’s Hospital (Bassett 239; Stow 1598, sig. B8r). The gate itself was reconstructed with a flat roof for recreation and rooms within the tower. Inmates staying in these tower rooms were required to pay for the privilege, a luxury that few inmates could afford. Rooms with chimneys and private toilets stood in stark contrast to the overcrowding of the earlier prison. Other prisoners were placed in less convenient chambers south of the gate. This stratified system ensured that the class of prisoner housed in the gaol could determine the level of comfort they received (Bassett 239-240). The new rooms therefore allowed for a more organised prison but encouraged corruption among jailers.
Beneath the gate were basement cells used both as a reception area for new prisoners and to house those convicted of the worst crimes (Halliday 31). The majority of basement occupants were condemned criminals awaiting their executions, and the conditions reflected the status of the occupants. Poor air quality in the basements was an obvious issue quite soon after its construction. An open sewer ran through the basement, and cells were dark, damp and had very low air circulation (Halliday 31). Air quality became such an issue that a windmill was attached to the roof to pull air into the dungeons below. However, documentation in the London Metropolitan Archives records a payment made to a carpenter for repair of the windmill in 1535 (Winter 74). From the outside the prison was also better entrenched into its surrounding environment: Stow notes that Newgate and its neighbouring buildings were paved with stones leuill with the streetes and lanes (Stow 1598, sig. B7r). After the renovation the prison was considered to be sufficiently strong and it was made illegal to put irons on freemen or women. However, some inferior prisoners were still kept underground and in chains (Bassett 241). Whittington’s Newgate would remain largely unchanged until the mid-seventeenth century. In 1629-1631 the façade of the gate was restyled from a gothic into a classical design (Winter 72). Donald Lupton’s 1632 London and the Countrey Carbonadoed and Quartred alludes to this remodeling: It is now well fac’d and headed, / Charity helps much to a decayed estate (Lupton). He suggests that the works were paid for by a charitable person or organization.

Crime and Imprisonment in Early Modern England

During the early modern period, people were arrested for a number of varied crimes such as vagrancy, petty theft, and assault, along with more heinous crimes, known as felonies (Gamini). By 1650 the number of crimes considered to be felonies had increased substantially since the medieval period to include homicide, arson, rape, robbery, burning houses, larceny, burglary, buggery, witchcraft, conjuring spirits, coining, and clipping (Collyn; Durston 377, 378). The sentence for a felony conviction was capital punishment, usually by hanging, and often accompanied by corporal punishment. Suspected felons would be remanded in Newgate until the justices of the peace arrived to supervise the trial—a process known as gaol delivery—which usually occurred three times per year (Harding, Hines, Ireland, and Rawlings 5, 6, 77). All those suspected of committing a serious offence went to Newgate, to be handled either by the mayor’s court or by the justices of gaol delivery (Bassett 233). Trials were held in Newgate until 1539 (O’Donnell 36). If convicted, felons would be returned to Newgate for several days until their execution, which usually occurred at Tyburn or nearby Smithfield (Harding, Hines, Ireland, and Rawlings 77; O’Donnell 53, 74).

Debtors

Throughout the medieval and early modern periods, Newgate was also one of the principal gaols in London (as well as the Fleet) for imprisoning civil debtors as surety for payment, and debtors could remain in Newgate indefinitely until they paid their fine or were freed by their creditors (Harding, Hines, Ireland, and Rawlings 12). Debtors constituted the largest group of offenders in Newgate (Durston 740; O’Donnell 25; Brodie, Croom, and O’Davies 11). In 1724, Batty Langley explained how more wealthy debtors could pay 6s 6d to enter the Masters’ side of the Debtors’ Ward, plus an additional 10s 6d for coal and candles, and claimed that The Master debtors’ side is an absolute Paradise compared to the best of Sponging-Houses (Langley 4). Sponging houses were unofficial places of confinement where debtors were taken by sheriffs and bailiffs under threat of being sent to a genuine prison; they were often overcharged for essentials, however, and Langley was of the opinion that it was cheaper to be sent to Newgate. However, it appears that the segregation was not thorough: an eighteenth-century commentator remarked that The debtor, rendered unfortunate by the vicissitudes of trade, undergoes the ignominy of being confined in the same prison with the most abandoned villains (Chamberlain 14).

Poverty and Theft

Theft was increasingly prosecuted during the early modern period. In early modern England the disparity between rich and poor increased significantly, and three quarters of assize court prosecutions involved property crimes (Bucholz and Key 188). As poverty was often associated with criminality, the most commonly prosecuted offenders of felonious crimes were the wage-dependent and unpropertied (Oberwittler 12). Crime and poverty were perceived outcomes of idleness and personal moral weakness (Dodsworth 586). Idleness manifested in various crimes, it was believed, the most prominent being begging and theft (Spierenberg 12). In his 1623 publication, The Praise and Vertue of a Jayle and Jaylers, English poet John Taylor acknowledges the disproportionate distribution of wealth among the social classes, but nevertheless stresses the concept of individual responsibility, implying that all men, rich or poor, should be able to earn a stable living through diligence and steady work:
This hath beene still the use, and ever will,
That one mans welfare, comes from others ill.
But (as I said) mans selfe is cause of all
The miseries that to him can befall.
(Taylor sig. B5r)
A focus on crime prevention through swift arrest, conviction and punishment served to exacerbate the already unfortunate reputation of the criminal class and the disenfranchised (Beattie 82). Consequently, the poor were more likely to be suspected and convicted of criminal wrongdoing based on reputation alone. In 1603, theft of goods above the value of one shilling, known as grand larceny, was technically still a felony punishable by death (Beattie 82). However, punishments for theft evolved over time and gradually became more lenient. George Wormington received a death sentence for committing burglary in 1674 (The Proceedings of the Old Bailey, George Wormington). By comparison, punishment for theft only a few decades later was branding and whipping. In January 1700, William Lyddall was sentenced to branding on the cheek for theft (The Proceedings of the Old Bailey, William Lyddall), and Elizabeth Spellman and Stephen Smith received a whipping (The Proceedings of the Old Bailey, Elizabeth Spellman, Stephen Swift). In May 1751, William Baldwin was indicted for grand larceny, having stolen one silver candlestick valued at five shillings and a pint earthen mug (The Proceedings of the Old Bailey, William Baldwin). Baldwin was branded and sentenced to six months incarceration in Newgate, a sentence which reveals the constantly varied nature of sentencing over time.

Witchcraft

The early modern period also witnessed a spike in accusations and persecutions of witchcraft, which saw numbers of accused awaiting trial and sentencing in Newgate. In 1602, while Elizabeth Jackson awaited her trial at Newgate on charges of having bewitched a young girl Mary Glover causing her to have fits, she was questioned by a minister, Lewes Hughes. She was found guilty and sentenced to a year in prison and four appearances at the pillory. Hughes claims to have then performed a successful exorcism on Glover. However, when the Bishop of London, who believed that Glover was faking her symptoms, found out about Hughes’ behavior he had him imprisoned for four months (Hughes). The 1621 trial of one of these accused, Elizabeth Sawyer from Edmonton, was published in a pamphlet, The Wonderful Discovery of Elizabeth Sawyer, written by a Minister of the word of God, Henry Goodcole (Goodcole). Goodcole wrote the pamphlet following a visit with Sawyer in Newgate pending her trial and recorded her subsequent confession. Sawyer was a woman of low reputation within her community, who was ultimately found guilty and sentenced to be burnt at the stake on 19 April 1621. Sawyer’s case became the subject of a play the same year, The Witch of Edmonton, written by William Rowley, Thomas Dekker, and John Ford, which drew heavily on Goodcole’s pamphlet. In April 1622, the thirteen-year-old Elizabeth Jennings accused Margaret Russell, known also as the Countess, and three other women, of bewitching her. Russell was committed to Newgate to be examined repeatedly, at one point by Henry Goodcole, however the interrogations failed to result in a prosecution (Uszkalo).

Houses of Correction

Early seventeenth-century England saw a dramatic shift in social attitudes towards capital punishment and criminal sentencing. Although idleness was still perceived to be a sign of criminality, hard labour as a form of imprisonment was suggested as an alternative to capital punishment and method of crime deterrence (Beattie 282). Bridewell Prison and Hospital was established in a former royal palace in 1553 with two purposes: the punishment of the disorderly poor and housing of homeless children in the City of London. In Clerkenwell, the Middlesex house of correction was built in 1616, and the Westminster one in 1618. Their purpose was to provide work for the unemployed, and in many cases force work upon the disorderly, the idle, and the petty criminal based on the assumption that work would prevent further immorality (Bloy; Oberwittler 13). Inmates subject to this punishment were kept to hard labour (such as beating hemp) for days or weeks until discharge by warrant or an acquaintance’s testimony to their good character (Dabhoiwala 799). As a method of criminal sentencing, incarceration with forced labour did not come to replace capital punishment, but instead drastically decreased the popularity of mutilation by branding for the smaller criminal acts of petty theft, vagrancy, slander and debt (Oberwittler 7). Typically reserved for people accused of minor felonies and the young, there was a widespread belief that a period of incarceration at hard labour would lead to the reformation and re-establishment of order in inmates’ lives (Spierenberg 173; Dabhoiwala 799).
As the early modern period progressed, imprisonment as a form of punishment did increase. The terms varied from a few days to a year. The crimes and misconducts that were punished by imprisonment included breaches of peace; contempt for the orders governing everyday life and trade within the city; petty crimes; and disrespect for the governing body. In the case of Edward Swinney and Henry Harrison, both men were charged with murdering a bailiff in 1679. However, the jury concluded that it was not an act of murder and passed down a sentence of manslaughter. On 27 August 1679, Swinney and Harrison were sentenced to incarceration in Newgate for eleven months, without bail or mainprize (Trial of Edward Swinney and Henry Harrison).1 Even occasional habitual offenders could be sent to Newgate as a means to prevent reoffending or partaking in future mischief.

Daily Practices at Newgate

Prisons were privately owned and self-funded, and gaolers, or keepers, did not receive a salary, instead relying on prisoners’ fees to maintain a living and for the prison’s upkeep. Consequently, prisons functioned as a commercial enterprise in which every aspect of prison life incurred a fee, and a prisoner’s standard of living in Newgate was proportionate to the amount that he or she was willing or able to pay (Murray 151). Prisoners had to pay a fee to enter and exit the prison, and were also expected to pay for their food, drink, bedding, coals and candles. Several tiers of accommodation also existed at Newgate. Like all early modern prisons, Newgate was divided into various sections, the Master’s side, the Common’s side, and the Debtors’ side. In each side there would have been a range of accommodation with a sliding scale of appropriate fees. The wealthiest prisoners could lease well-appointed apartments in the Master’s side. Conversely, the poorest prisoners could expect to lodge in group chambers or spartan apartments on the Common’s side (Harding, Hines, Ireland, and Rawlings 88; Murray 151). Some of the chambers on the Common’s side were so notorious that they were given nicknames such as Bocardo, Juliansboure (Julian’s Hole), and the Dungeon or the Hole (Winter 84). Later, the prison would see the addition of the Press Yard for extremely wealthy prisoners.

Gaolers and Corruption

Although officially the lead gaoler (the Sheriff or Keeper) was appointed by the London Court of Aldermen, appointment holders often sublet their office to the highest bidder. This practice of farming out the prison was illegal but was nevertheless widespread (Griffiths 47). Those who purchased the office saw it as a lucrative opportunity, where they could extort prisoners for profit. While it was customary for a gaoler to charge each prisoner four pence upon their release since the ancient times, the gaolers of Newgate were notorious for their unscrupulous tyranny (Babington 43; Griffiths 46). The anonymous 1703 pamphlet Hell Upon Earth described how when prisoners arrived at Newgate, they were deliver’d up to the paws of the wolves, lurking continually in the lodge for prey, alluding to the keepers awaiting the payments they could retrieve from prisoners (Tuus inimicus 2). When a prisoner was delivered to Newgate, claimed the pamphlet, he was held down by two Trunchion Officers while another two picked his Pockets, claiming Six pence apiece as a privilege belong to their Office (Tuus inimicus 6). Extortion was not, however, the exclusive domain of the keepers. After the keepers collected their prize:
they turn [the prisoner] out to the convicts, who hover about him (like so many crows about a piece of Carrion) for Garnish, which is Six Shillings and Eight pence, which they, from an old Custom, claim by Prescription, Gap in transcription. Reason: ()[…] for entering into the Society. (Tuus inimicus 6)
As early as the late fourteenth century the Court of Aldermen had attempted to regulate the charges gaolers levied on prisoners, by prohibiting the charging of fees for entry and for removing their irons (Tuus inimicus 46). Those rules were, however, ignored by the gaolers of Newgate for most of the next three centuries. In addition, Newgate gaolers levied exorbitant fees for foodstuffs, alcohol, and beddings, among many other utilities (Babington; Halliday; Griffiths). Gaolers were even known for charging male prisoners a fee for admission to women’s quarters (Halliday 32-33). Female prisoners did not necessarily detest the practice, as becoming pregnant could often delay their execution or punishment. Those who could not afford the fees were subjected to cruel treatment, and in the words of James Whiston in England’s Calamities Discover’d, were thrown into holes and dungeons Gap in transcription. Reason: ()[…] to be devoured by famine and disease (Whiston 13).
The impact of the gaolers on prisoners’ lives is best glimpsed through a London mayoral proclamation from September 1617:
Whereas of late, notorious mutinies and outrages have been committed by the prisoners within the gaol of Newgate, which is conceived to grow through the negligence of the keepers in suffering their prisoners to become drunk and disordered, permitting them wine, tobacco, excessive strong drink, and resort to women of lewd behaviour. (Babington 48)
It is evident, however, that the gaolers were not merely negligent, but that they deliberately profited from supplying prisoners with such contraband and from condoning lewd behaviour.
Some gaolers were especially noted for their cruelty. Alexander Andrew, keeper of Newgate during the reign of Henry VIII, was described in John Foxe’s Actes and Monuments as the most brutal of all gaolers:
Alexander the keeper of newgate, a cruell enemie to those that lay there for religion, died very miserably, being so swollen that he was more like a monster then a man, and so rotten within that no man could abide the smell of hym. This cruell wretch, to hasten the poore lambes to þe slaughter, would Gap in transcription. Reason: ()[…] [cry] out: rid my prison, rid my prison: I am too much pestered with these heretickes. (The Unabridged Acts and Monuments Online)
Another side of the keeper was provided by Edward Underhill, a talented musician, who was an inmate in 1553 and was often chosen by Alexander to play music for him and his wife during their dinner time (Jowett 41).
Gaolers exploited opportunities to extort fees by subjecting prisoners to a range of abuses, such as restraining prisoners indefinitely in irons, the stocks, or in solitary confinement as a form of torture or until the prisoner paid to be released (Harding, Hines, Ireland, and Rawlings 27, 88). Prisoners frequently petitioned Parliament to complain about these extortions. The Petition of the Rebells in New-gate (1642) claimed that the state of those in prison was one of apparent great misery, condemning all those imprisoned within its walls to not only a sentence of a few years, but a life of destruction and ruine (The Petition of the Rebels in New-Gate). In 1646, the popular political writer John Lilburne publicly denounced the dire conditions of London’s prisons in Liberty Vindicated:
some poore prisoners of late have been in the Prisons of Kings Bench, the Fleet and Newgate, where some have been robbed, beaten, put into Iron boults, dragged out of their beds at unreasonable times of the night, thrust into dungeons, starved, and also murthered, yea some also lamed by Iron fetters (Lilburne.)
The deplorable conditions suffered by prisoners at the hands of their keepers also inspired a plethora of literature, composed mainly by prisoners while in Newgate. Luke Hutton (d. 1598), a highwayman awaiting execution for robbery and trespass in Newgate, was the alleged author of the poem The Discovery of a London Monster called the Black Dog of Newgate, which detailed the abuse and torment he suffered at the hands of his keeper:
Within his clutches did he ceaze me fast,
And bare me straight vnto blacke Plutoes cell:
When there I came, he me in Lymbo cast,
A Stigion lake, the dungion of deepe hell:
But first my legs he lockt in Iron boult,
As if poore I had beene some wanton Coult.
And then he gan with basest termes to braide,
And then he threats as though he would me kill:
And then he daunces for he me betrayd,
And then speakes fayre, as though he ment no ill:
Then like Madusa doth he shake his locks,
And then he threatens me with Iron stocks.
At last he left me in that irksome den,
Where was no day for there was euer night:
Woes me thought I, the abject of all men,
Clouded in care, quite banished from light:
Robd of the Skie, the Scartes, the day, the Sunne,
This Dog, this Diuell, hath all my ioyes vndun.
(Hutton)

Overcrowding

In the period c. 1550-1630, there was an increase in prosecutions for both felonies and petty crimes, which may have been a factor in the overcrowding at Newgate (Sharpe 126). Accommodation within the prison was determined by payment to their keepers. Those who could afford the civility money (6s 6d for debtors and 14s 10d for felons in the late seventeenth century) were admitted to the Masters’ side, the rooms of which were furnished with beds and windows (Sharpe 126; Halliday 32-33). Those who could not afford the charges were condemned to the Common’s side, which consisted of unlighted and unhygienic dungeons. An observer recounted hearing in the Common’s side lice crackling under feet, [making] such a noise, as walking on shells which are strew’d over garden walks (Tuus inimicus 7). Prisoners who were committed to the Common’s side had to share a ward with many others. In 1626, Sir Nicholas Poyntz, a murder suspect imprisoned at Newgate, complained that he had to sleep in a coffin due to a lack of sleeping space (Tuus inimicus 55). One prisoner in the 1630s described his experience of [lying] in a dungeon for fourteen days without light or fire, living on a halfpenny worth of a bread a day (Babington 55). Overcrowding did not subside, and the authorities were well aware of it. In 1633, a committee from the Court of Aldermen was formed in order to view the ruins of Newgate, upon which it was discovered that the prison was overcrowded, containing double the number of prisoners it had capacity for, and that the prison was indeed in a ruinous state (Halliday). In 1642, an Old Bailey bench observed in their sentence that Newgate hath not been more replenished with prisoners these many years than now, there being very nigh three hundred prisoners committed to that infamous castle of misery (Griffiths 110-111).

Food and Drink

Newgate prisoners had to supply most of their own subsistence. Those who could afford to buy their own food were given it via the gaolers, again after the payment of a fee. The impoverished could only rely on the crudest prison diet of bread and water, and very rarely meat (Tuus inimicus 6). Since the thirteenth century, Newgate’s food supply had come from charitable donations and foodstuff declared forfeit by law, such as the unsatisfactory products of guilds and merchants (Griffiths 51-53). These practices continued through the sixteenth century. In his 1556 will, Thomas Cuttell donated a portion of his wealth to the parish church of St. Dunstan’s, and ordered that:
Gap in transcription. Reason: ()[…] at the end of every quarter of the year, with 16s. parcel of the issues of the said tenement, the said Churchwardens shall provide 1 quarter of beef and 1 pack of oatmeal, and distribute the same Gap in transcription. Reason: ()[…] among the poor prisoners of Newgate Gap in transcription. Reason: ()[…] to the intent that they may be comforted by my said gift (Fry.)
Prior to 1630, collection and distribution of those charitable donations and forfeits to Newgate were the sole responsibility of an official called the Steward. In 1630, Newgate prisoners protested against the incumbent Steward named Henry Woodhouse for his extensive embezzlement of the supply under his custody. A 1632 City of London document contains orders relating to the governance of Newgate, requiring all donations and forfeits to be given to and distributed from the Court of Aldermen itself on a quarterly basis. The Steward, who remained responsible for sub-distribution within Newgate, was required to be elected by the prisoners among themselves for a one-year term, making the process accountable to prisoners. Instead of continuing to put a weekly allowance into a common box, the Steward of Newgate was ordered to weekly give an account in writing under his hand Gap in transcription. Reason: ()[…] [of] how, and in what manner the moneyes have beene disbursed (Orders devised and agreed upon). Charitable donations were still allowed to be put into a common box, but the document specifies that the box could only be opened with two keys, one of which was held by the Alderman and the other by the Steward. Although the existence of this document highlights how significant a problem corruption was at Newgate, it is unclear whether these orders were strictly enforced, as little seemed to change.
With the combination of poor living conditions and inescapable corruption, prisoners faced an unpleasant and difficult experience at Newgate. They spent most of their time drinking and gambling. Following the proclamation against abuses in 1617, the Court of Aldermen attempted to curb the disorder by restricting the supply of beer, ale and tobacco into the gaol, and prohibiting games involving cards and dice. However, those rules were again ignored for most of the next two centuries. Prisoners were pretty often elevated with outlandish liquors, claimed the author of Hell Upon Earth, opting to spend their Time in Tipling, [rather] than spare an Hour in a Day to pray for their Deliverance from the Burden of Affliction (Tuus inimicus 1). For the prisoners, drinking was an escape from the harsh realities of prison life. Likewise, gaolers condoned drinking not only as a line of income for themselves, but also as an effective means of pacifying the prisoners. One keeper in 1787 remarked that when the prisoners are drunk they tend to be docile and quite free from rioting (Tuus inimicus 38).

Rioting

Unsurprisingly, tensions were high, which often resulted in riots and disturbances. Rioting was a known problem in early seventeenth-century Newgate, especially among the felons. In 1642, a group of six Jesuits who preached inside Newgate while awaiting execution were pardoned after a tumultuous mutiny among the other prisoners, who refused to die without the Jesuits (Babington 55-56). In 1648, a group of seventeen condemned prisoners rioted during the evening funeral sermon arranged for them, having been supplied weapons by their wives who were permitted to join them for the service. In the affray several keepers were wounded and 15 prisoners managed to escape (Terrible and bloudy nevves from Windsor). However, there were ways in which the prison officials could respond to these disturbances. A bell was rung twice if there was any great Tumult or Uproar among the Prisoners, and this bell would rouse the guards to stop the riot (Tuus inimicus 8). However, it is possible that the guards’ responses to riots and disturbances were sometimes influenced by corruption. A 1655 summary of the laws and statutes of England notes that [i]f a Constable or other such Officer shal arrest one for Felony, and after suffer him to escape, it is felony in such Constable (Collyn). This is indicative that laws were needed to deter guards from aiding prisoners, as guards too were likely compelled by Newgate’s deplorable conditions.

Lack of ventilation and disease

Newgate, from its beginnings, developed a reputation for being in a constant state of disrepair: dirty, overcrowded and poorly ventilated. The abysmal conditions within the prison acted as a catalyst for the spread of disease throughout Newgate from as early as the thirteenth century. The cells were cramped, dark and damp, and the prison was poorly ventilated (Durston 747). The prison was built over two underground ditches which were used as drains. In 1316, Edward II ordered workers to repair this chamber and sewer (cloacum) of Newgate gaol which was to be rebuilt and restored at all speed (Winter 67-69). It is very likely that these underground water channels, along with the proximity of the goal to the city ditch, would have been the source of the constant noisome odours that prisoners frequently complained about. They were attested to by Edward Underhill, who was arrested and sent to Newgate in 1553 for a ballad against the queen. Underhill wrote that he could not sleep at Newgate because ther was so mouche noyse off presonars, and evyll savours (qtd. in Bassett 244).
The severe overcrowding, combined with an assemblage of unwashed, verminous, often starving Gap in transcription. Reason: ()[…] prisoners lead to frequent outbreaks of gaol fever, or typhus, as well as death by exposure (Durston 747; Harding, Hines, Ireland, and Rawlings 93; de Groot 196; Gamini 170). Penniless prisoners were particularly vulnerable, as large numbers of poor prisoners were often confined together in small cells (Harding, Hines, Ireland, and Rawlings 93). Gaol fever threatened to wipe out the majority of the prison population, and in 1419, the prison was closed temporarily to avoid a higher death toll (Bassett 246). It was due to these unacceptable conditions at Newgate that Richard Whittington provided funds in his will for the complete rebuilding of the prison in 1423 (Bassett 239). Despite this reconstruction of the building, disease was still rampant. In 1630, a fisherman named Stephen Smith committed to Newgate for violating plague precaution rules petitioned the Court of Aldermen for his release, crying that he was unlikely to survive imprisonment due to his advanced age and the appalling conditions. He described that overcrowding in Newgate incubated an infectious malignant fever which sends many to their long home (Bassett 55; Griffiths 120). In 1634, a 58 year old priest named Thomas Reynolds, who had been imprisoned at Newgate for five years, also petitioned for his release. He pleaded that the unwholesomeness of the air and strictness of the prison was putting his life at great peril. He further produced a doctor’s statement certifying he suffered from sciatica, defluxion of rheum and stone (Bassett 55).
The abysmal conditions at Newgate were well known in contemporary English society. The general condition of prisons was comedically highlighted in a series of short poems and anagrams of the word prisone by the water poet John Taylor:
PRISONE. Anagramma. NIP SORE.
There men are Nip’d with mischiefes manifold,
With losse of freedome, hunger, thirst, & cold
With Mourning shirts, and sheets, & lice some store;
And thus a Prisone truly doth Nip sore.
PRISONE. Anagramma. IN ROPES.
Againe the very word portends small hopes,
For he that’s in a Prisone is In Ropes.
(Taylor sig. A5v)

Press-Yard

However, these conditions were ameliorated for certain prisoners. From the late seventeenth century at the latest, especially wealthy or privileged State prisoners such as political dissidents and rebels were kept in a separate section of Newgate known as the Press Yard, whither none but persons that have Money to pay extravagant Prizes for their Lodging and Entertainment are admitted (A companion for debtors and prisoners). The Press Yard was in an adjoining building to the gate, in the former Phoenix Inn. It is not clear when the Press Yard was made part of the prison; it is not mentioned in any account until the seventeenth century and so it is possible that it was created after the Great Fire. In 1699 one inmate, known only as E.S. a gentleman, described it as a pleasant place:
When I came there, I must own I was something surprized to find such a great alteration both in the place and persons. The place it self was well enough, only a little obnoxious by an ungrateful stink, which I suppose might be deriv’d to it from the Common Side: The persons had most of ’em the Looks and Carriage of Gentlemen; and, to give ’em their due, behav’d themselves with a great deal of Courtisie and Civility to me as a Stranger (A companion for debtors and prisoners.)
The Press Yard may have been the place where peine forte et dure had been practiced at Newgate until its abolition in 1772, although Daniel Defoe, who wrote about his stay there in 1717, was skeptical of this etymology, and it seems unlikely that such a brutal punishment would be carried out where wealthier prisoners lived. Those who sought admission were charged 20 guineas on entry, and then 11s per week (Defoe 11). Those exorbitant fees granted those who could afford it tremendous freedom and comfort. Not only were they given food and wine on par with that of the Governor of Newgate, they were free to do as they pleased within Newgate, including engaging in sports and games. Defoe described it as a having a very relaxed atmosphere:
I was no sooner let into this Enchanted Castle, but the Gentlemen that were Tenants of it, flock’d round me to take a view of their New unfortunate Companion: Some were Drinking with Friends, some Reading, others playing at Skettles, where there was scarce room to set up the Pins; and a fourth sort were talking extravagantly of Politicks, and of the Progress their Friends made in the Insurrections of Northumberland and Scotland. (Defoe 12)
Family were also permitted to live with the Press Yard prisoners. One Major Bernardi married and raised ten children during his incarceration in the Press Yard, and died at the age of 82 in 1736 (Griffiths 230).

Remedies for overcrowding

One customary method the State employed to reduce overcrowding was dispatching prisoners to military service. This allowed Newgate to make use of their prisoners fighting the King’s wars instead of letting them contribute to overcrowding and adding to the expenses of keeping them. The Recorder of London in summer 1624 sent the Secretary of State a list of 30 prisoners and stressed that They Pester the gaol in this hot weather, and would do better service as soldiers (Babington 50). This practice also appeared to be an effective means for condemned prisoners to escape execution. In January 1645, Parliament received a petition from a group of 40 condemned Newgate prisoners begging for mercy. They argued that for most of them it was their first offence, and furthermore that any of them who shall be thought for Employment will with all Alacrity and Chearfulness adventure their Lives in any Service whatsoever for the Parliament and State (Journal of the House of Lords 10 January 1645). Parliament granted them pardon on the same day the petition was received, which indicates that volunteering for service in exchange for pardon was an established, state-endorsed practice for Newgate prisoners, at least during this period of civil war.
Royal pardon was also used conveniently to ease the management of Newgate. Between 1629 and 1630 Newgate underwent repairs and renovation under the recommendations of the Court of Aldermen. In 1630, the keeper petitioned the King and voiced his concern that Newgate’s poor conditions and overcrowding could lead to a mass prisoner breakout during the renovation. To solve this problem, the keeper requested the King to order the Lord Mayor of London and the Attorney General to account for how many [prisoners] are capable of His Majesty’s mercy and to prepare for their pardon. A reduction in prisoners would make supervision easier for the keeper. Consequently, forty-four prisoners were granted pardon and released (Babington 50). Additionally, there was a tradition at the accession of a new monarch to pardon a number of condemned prisoners, and James II released 76 prisoners in 1658.
The cruel and oppressive treatment of the keepers contrasted with the relative autonomy that prisoners experienced during their time in Newgate, which cultivated the unique social and communal nature of prison life. Prisoners could roam freely within the prison and spend the day (and much of the night) in idle pursuits, such as talking, drinking and gambling (Harding, Hines, Ireland, and Rawlings 91, 92). Although separate wards existed for male and female prisoners, segregation was either not possible or not enforced (Brodie, Croom, and O’Davies 14). Prisoners were also allowed visits from family, friends, business associates or their lawyers, and free men and women even resided in the gaol (Murray 153). The wives and servants of noble inmates and debtors, for example, often lived with these prisoners in their cells (Harding, Hines, Ireland, and Rawlings 92). Gaolers frequently allowed prostitutes to lease rooms in the gaol for a fee (Harding, Hines, Ireland, and Rawlings 92). Day leave might be granted to prisoners for a fee so that they could conduct their business, but were required to return by the end of the day (Murray 153). While poorer prisoners might be confined within the prison walls, they often shared cells and meals with other prisoners (Murray 155). Thus, the constraint of imprisonment was somewhat tempered by the social and communal nature of prison life, and in which liberties could be obtained for a price.
However, although the conditions at Newgate were undoubtedly poor, it is debatable whether it was much worse than other late medieval and early modern prisons (Bassett 246). The Press Yard comprised several rooms on the ground floor and had large windows (Tuus inimicus 4). Furthermore, as recounted by an anonymous early eighteenth-century commentator, when the prisoners are disposed to recreate themselves with walking, they go up into a spacious room call’d the High-Hall (Tuus inimicus 7). Further, an exercise ground existed, though it was described as a place whose length is scarce so much as one may swing a cat in it (Tuus inimicus 4). Thus, although the prisoners at Newgate faced extremely poor living conditions, this was not particularly exceptional in the late medieval and early modern period, and they also had some—albeit limited—opportunities for recreation.
Some criminals were even able to escape punishment entirely. These methods involved generous jury decisions, pardons and reprieves, bribes and given mercy afforded by benefit of the clergy. Particularly, many male offenders evaded the punishment of law by claiming the benefit of clergy. Based on an ancient tradition intended to reserve churchmen for punishment in the church courts, the convict who displayed his ability to read was given the much lighter sanctions of the ecclesiastical jurisdiction (Kesselring 24). The convict would be branded on the thumb to prevent him from claiming the benefit again. From 1623 women found guilty of the theft of goods less than ten shillings in value were also allowed benefit of clergy, and in 1691 women were granted the privilege on the same terms as men (The Proceedings of the Old Bailey, Punishment Sentences at the Old Bailey). Women could also plead the belly, however this only deferred execution until (usually) forty days after the child’s birth. While it did not afford a permanent pardon, in reality many women managed to escape justice this way. Certain circumstances even resulted in criminals physically escaping Newgate, such as Jack Sheppard, a notorious thief and gaol-breaker who regularly escaped from Newgate prison until his execution on 16 November 1724 (Jack Shepard).

The Ordinary of Newgate

The Ordinary of Newgate was the prison chaplain, who was appointed by the Court of Aldermen. He performed multiple pastoral tasks within the prison: preaching to, instructing, and praying with the prisoners, and attending upon those who were condemned to die. He delivered the condemned sermon in the prison chapel, gave them the Sacrament, rode with the condemned to Tyburn, and led the prisoner and the crowd in the singing of hymns at the gallows. The Ordinary was the author of the Ordinary of Newgate’s Account, a publication that ran from 1676 to 1772 and contained biographies and the last dying speeches of the prisoners executed at Tyburn (McKenzie). Profits from the Accounts were considerable: the Ordinary could earn up to £200 per year in the eighteenth century from sales of the publication (The Proceedings of the Old Bailey, Ordinary of Newgate’s Accounts). Over 400 editions of the Accounts were published, and they were sold for 3-6 pence with print runs in the thousands. Most of the Accounts followed a similar format, with a short summary of the names and crimes of the condemned, short biographical sketches of each criminal, accounts of the Ordinary’s visits to the condemned prisoners, and a description of their final confessions and behaviour at their executions. They were highly moralising, usually describing the convict’s life as a descent from minor sins to a career of delinquency and crime. Some objections were raised to the Ordinary’s Accounts: he was profiting from the deaths of convicts, and there were allegations of corruption and bribery. Some prisoners chose not to speak to him, which could be either because they resented his profiting from their fate or because they were of different faiths.

Women at Newgate

The nature of the diverse inmate population at Newgate undoubtedly shaped its history. Whereas modern prisons house genders separately and house juveniles separately from adults, Newgate contained all age groups and sexes. In 1406, land on the south side of the prison gate was given to the sheriffs for the purpose of building a tower which would become separate women’s chambers (Bassett 238-239). However, these new quarters did nothing to change the miserable nature of the female experience at Newgate. Women in the prison were said by commentators to be idle, abandoned, riotous and drunken (Thornbury). Another common narrative is that the women’s quarters were rife with sexual encounters between inmates and administration (Babington 101). The existence of sexual encounters at Newgate is supported by the evidence of women becoming pregnant and giving birth while in prison. The anonymous author of Hell Upon Earth wrote that women were able to escape the death penalty by pleading their Bellies and hence the Women [had] a great Advantage over the Men (Tuus inimicus 10). In 1782, the prison contained a total of 291 prisoners, of which 225 were men and 66 were women (Thornbury).
Publications about the trials of Newgate prisoners frequently featured women, their crimes often sensationalised, as female convicts became the focus of the public’s interest in Newgate. Henry Goodcole’s 1635 pamphlet The Adultresses Funerall Day, which describes the confession and execution of a woman who poisoned her husband, is one such example of authors and publishers profiting from this misogynist angle, its contents likening women to the devil (Goodcole).
The role of women at Newgate was not confined simply to inmate. Many visitors to the establishment were women, and often these individuals were stirred by what they witnessed. The prison reformer Elizabeth Fry wrote to her young sons in 1813 after having visited the prison, expressing concern at the little infants almost without clothing and lack of food provided to women and mothers staying at Newgate (Gurney Fry 348). In 1817, the Ladies’ Prison Visiting Association began to advocate for the rights of female prisoners, having witnessed their extensive tribulations. The committee began to revolutionise prison life for Newgate women, teaching them to read, knit, spin wool and make patchwork. If they were able, prison visitors would sell the prisoners’ works to London citizens and set aside the profits for when the individuals were released. Many children had been born at Newgate and, for them, schools were set up and governed by the eldest and most educated of the female prisoners (Thornbury).

Punishment and Execution in the Newgate Neighbourhood

A variety of non-capital punishments were practiced at Newgate, since imprisonment in early modern England was usually not a punishment itself, but a temporary detention between arrest and sentence. The most common punishment was branding, although this was considered to be primarily a measure to prevent recidivism, rather than a punishment in and of itself. Prisoners were marked by a hot iron with a letter that signified their crime before their release. For example, a vagabond was marked with V; a thief T; a fray-maker F; and a serf without master an S (Halliday 6-7; Griffiths 232-233). The infamous peine forte et dure, or pressing to death, was also practiced within Newgate for prisoners who refused to enter a plea. Prisoners housed in Newgate were also sent into the nearby streets for punishment such as public whipping and exposure in the pillory. Passing through Newgate became an indelible mark on one’s public reputation. This intangible mark could also be accompanied by a physical one: the marks of a criminal past were singed on skin with sizzling irons. A marke spelt trouble (Griffiths 431). The neighbourhood surrounding Newgate would have been populated by these Newgate locals, who were marked by their crimes. Bridewell Magistrates, whose Newgate knowledge included data about previous prosecutions and prisoners, would recognise when a Newgate face stood in the dock (Griffiths 430). This register of familiar faces reflects the local dimension to penal practises and cultures associated with early modern London (Devereaux and Griffiths 21). Some would find themselves in and out of Newgate many times. Joan Garroll was arrested in St Sepulchre [adjacent to Newgate] thirteen times as her home patch was a half-mile circle around Newgate, and of whom Magistrates complained Shee will not be reformed (Griffiths 154-155).

Pressing, or peine forte et dure

While torture could be inflicted to extort fees, it could also be levied to extract a confession from accused felons. Accused felons who were found guilty would forfeit their possessions to the Crown, as well as be executed. However, it was possible for accused felons to refuse to plead guilty to retain their money and property for their families. The consequence of this, however, was to be subjected to pressing, a form of severe and sustained torture that lasted until the prisoner pled guilty or died (McKenzie 303-304). This was a common practice throughout the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and accused felons who refused to plead guilty would spend the remainder of their days in the Press Room of Newgate being tortured until their death. In 1658, Major George Strangwayes was sentenced to:
be put into a mean house (the Press Room), stopped from any light, and be laid upon his back with his body bare; that his arms be stretched forth with a cord, the one to one side, the other to the other side of the prison, and in like manner his legs be used; and that upon his body be laid as much iron and stone as he can bear, and more Gap in transcription. Reason: ()[…] and this shall be his punishment till he die (The unhappy marks-man.)
It was said by some that this ritual took place in the Press-Yard, but it would appear that the Press-Yard and the Press Room were different places.
Newgate was most notorious, however, as the place condemned felons spent their last days before their public execution. Newgate was situated close to Smithfield, the favoured place for executing those convicted of treason, as well as those convicted of petty treason, the verdict given to any woman who had murdered her social superior, such as her husband, master, or mistress (Halliday xii). Its location meant that Newgate was particularly important during religious trials in the Tudor period, such as those of the Protestant martyrs described in John Foxe’s Actes and Monuments. Moreover, the position of Newgate at the western gate of the city meant that it was the starting-point of the ritualised procession route to Tyburn, London’s most notorious extra-mural execution site (near present-day Marble Arch). Indeed, the process of execution was even ingrained in Newgate’s architecture. Its chapel featured a condemned pew on which convicts would sit on the Sunday before their executions (Kalman 56). Executions were customarily scheduled on Mondays, and activities before execution were highly ritualised. On the day before, the Ordinary of Newgate held a special funeral for the condemned prisoners in the chapel. The prisoners ritually sat around a coffin which signified their imminent death, while the Ordinary preached a condemned sermon to what was almost invariably a full Auditory, swelled by numerous Strangers who had paid admission fees to the gaolers (McKenzie 7).
In 1605, Robert Dowe, a citizen and merchant taylor donated 16s. 8d. to the parish church of St. Sepulchre’s, next to Newgate, on the condition that:
after the several sessions of London, on the night before the execution of such as were condemned to death, the clerk of the church was to go in the night-time, and also early in the morning, to the window of the prison in which they were lying. He was there to ring certain tolls with a hand-bell appointed for the purpose, and was afterwards, in a most Christian manner, to put them in mind of their present condition and approaching end, and to exhort them to be prepared, as they ought to be, to die. When they were in the cart, and brought before the walls of the church, the clerk was to stand there ready with the same bell, and, after certain tolls, rehearse a prayer, desiring all the people there present to pray for the unfortunate criminals. (Tuus inimicus)
The chant accompanying the bell gradually evolved into the following verses:
All you that in the condemn’d Holds do lie,
Prepare you, for to Morrow you shall die;
Watch all and pray, the Hour’s drawing near,
That you before th’ Almighty must appear:
Examine well your selves, in time repent,
That you may not t’eternal Flames be sent;
And when St. Pulcher’s Bell, to morrow, tolls,
The Lord above have Mercy on your Souls.
(Tuus inimicus 11.)
The hand bell that was used to announce imminent executions, the Newgate Execution Bell, is still on display in the St. Sepulchre-Without-Newgate Church. The ringing of St. Sepulchre’s bell was the first stage of the execution procession, or drawing, when the condemned prisoners would be loaded onto a cart to make the journey to Tyburn. The bell would be rung in the morning, signaling to the surrounding neighbourhood that the execution procession was about to begin.
The Parish of St. Sepulchre was notoriously poor and dirty, and also a starting place for pauper processions bound for richer parts of the city (Griffiths 85, 113). In 1596, a watchman John Bull looked out for and interrupted vagrants before they could arrive at the church and beg outside the doors (Griffiths 117). Concerns over vagrants in the neighbourhood were no doubt exasperated by the presence of Newgate prison, due to its prisoners spilling out to beg in the surrounding areas.

Newgate Market and the Prison

Newgate Market began as a meat market during the twelfth century and quickly evolved to become a bustling centre of activity. Newgate Street was not commonly referred to as such until the seventeenth century. The road was interchangeably known as Bladder Street or the Butchers due to the large number of butchers and slaughterhouses operating along the street and at Newgate Market (Newgate: Conservation Area Character Study). Public complaints of unpleasant streets saw butchers banned from killing animals in the City during the fourteenth century (Sabine 345–346). Most would remove the innards of animals on special piers allowing waste to be directly deposited into the Thames and Fleet (Sabine 345–346). Butchering did still occur within the city despite these rules, as evidenced by the existence of slaughterhouses along Newgate Street. The River Fleet, which also received sewage from Newgate and surrounding areas, was highly polluted during this time. Newgate Market was also the site of gendered anxieties about vagrant women street sellers, specifically of fish and herbs. Steps to limit street selling accelerated towards 1600 (Griffiths 127). The designated area for hearbwyves to sell was Newgate Market, as it was more effective to restrict sellers to a specific time and place than to attempt to ban or prosecute them, specifically for selling at night and on the sabbath (Griffiths 127). Street sellers would have been an unmissable feature of the neighbourhood due to their loud cries.

Charitable Institutions

Greyfriars Church, a church of the Franciscans established in 1225, was central to the Newgate area. Greyfriars also comprised many domestic and storage buildings for the use of the members of its order. During Henry VIII’s Dissolution of the Monasteries (1536-1541) the church was renamed Christ’s Church and external buildings were redistributed for use as store houses, private homes and for the relief of the poor (Newgate: Conservation Area Character Study 9). Institutions for the poor feature frequently in the neighbourhood. Christ’s Hospital’s Blue Coat School was opened in these buildings by Edward VI just before his death in 1553. Lupton described the school as a good means to empty their streetes of young beggars, and fatherlesse Children (Lupton). The school provided these young children with an education they would not otherwise have received.

The Great Fire and Newgate in the Eighteenth Century

Whittington’s Newgate would not see major changes until it was damaged in the Great Fire of London in 1666. It was repaired largely according to the pre-Fire design in 1672, overseen by the City Surveyor Robert Hooke, who embellished the prison (Cooper 178-179). Hooke’s design featured, on its eastern side, niches containing statues of Justice, Mercy, and Truth, and also saw the addition of a statue of Richard Whittington and his cat.
Conditions at Newgate prison had not improved since the Great Fire. An early eighteenth-century prisoner described his fellow inmates in his diary: it appeared by their behaviour Gap in transcription. Reason: ()[…] they were fit for Bedlam (The secret history of the rebels in Newgate 4).
In 1750 an outbreak of gaol fever, a form of typhus, killed sixty men (Kalman 50). The deaths included others in addition to the prisoners. Cramped conditions in Newgate—up to sixty men to a room—had caused the disease to spread to the nearby courtroom, resulting in the death of the Lord Mayor, two judges, an alderman, several barristers, and a juryman (Kalman 50). The deaths prompted the circulation of plans to rebuild and enlarge the prison. However, a large-scale remodeling was postponed and the only changes made as a result of the deaths were the addition of a ventilation system by eleven contracted craftsmen. However, seven of the men caught fever as a result of working in the prison and one died (Kalman 50).
In 1767, Parliament set aside fifty thousand pounds, raised by taxing coal, for a full-scale renovation of the building (Kalman 51). The prison and gate were demolished and rebuilt by architect George Dance Jr in the style of architecture terrible, a style made popular by French architect Jacques-François Blondel. The style was purposefully grim in the hope that those who viewed the building would do all they could to avoid entering its walls (Kalman 55-56). Various obstacles ensured that the new prison was not completed quickly; on 16 June 1780 the prison was set alight by anti-Catholic Gordon rioters and even prior to the riots various arguments between the contractors, surveyor, and architects had stalled the project for years. The fifty thousand pound budget had also quickly been overspent (Kalman 51). The central quadrangle of the prison was completed in 1782 and the whole structure was completed by June of 1785 (Kalman 52). John Howard, the philanthropist and early English prison reformer, noted in 1779 that the gaol was clean, and free from offensive scents, which was certainly a significant improvement from its earlier years (Thornbury).
Shortly before the completion of the structure, in 1783, public executions were moved from Tyburn to Newgate, where John Burke was among the first of the executions, found guilty of highway robbery and killed on 9 December with nine others (Jackson). Executions at Tyburn ultimately ceased for several reasons, namely: a need to re-establish execution as a theatrical yet efficacious deterrent for crime (especially since 1776 when transportation of condemned criminals to the American colonies ceased and the rate of capital convictions was on the rise); an attempt to resolve traffic disruptions along the Newgate-Tyburn route; and the changing suburban development and gentrification of the western part of the city. Tyburn Road would later be renamed Oxford Street, and Tyburn Lane became Park Lane, in order to remove the stigma of the previous execution site (Devereaux 136). In this new site, prisoners were simply brought out through the Debtors’ Door, where a large, elevated scaffold draped in black fabric had been erected that featured a trapdoor through which the condemned would plunge. Despite the fact that Newgate had been chosen as a site in order to make public executions more dignified, the executions at Newgate were popular, public events. Crowds were dense and overwhelming; onlookers and passers-by were [unable] to make [their] way through them (Carter). Moreover, viewing executions became such a popular pastime that it is said to have disrupted the working day of thousands of working class people (Devereaux 152).
In the eighteenth century, visiting Newgate had become a form of entertainment and a genuine sightseeing option for tourists who paid a large fee and waited in large queues to visit the gaol (Jowett 60). This speaks to the public’s never-waning interest in public displays of punishment, and Newgate’s contemporary notoriety as one of England’s most gruesome prisons.
But despite the enduring public interest in Newgate, its role as the main prison of London began to decline in the nineteenth century. In the second half of the nineteenth century, the English criminal justice system underwent major reforms, as it ultimately evolved towards the modern justice system that is in place today. Newgate was increasingly viewed as a relic of the past, as its poor conditions were clearly a hindrance to the rehabilitation of prisoners. In a letter written in 1809, the poet Dorothy Wordsworth stated that, despite her friend’s favourite theme of conversation being Newgate, in these times [one] would not dare to inflict such a punishment on a criminal as to send them there (Wordsworth 336). In 1868, the gallows were moved inside the compound, as punishment was shifting away from public executions to private ones, conducted within the prison walls for select audiences (Griffiths 234). From 1856, Newgate was only used for temporarily housing prisoners who were awaiting trial, and it was demolished in 1902 (Kelly xix).

Notes

  1. Mainprize was the act of releasing a felon into friendly custody instead of incarceration, upon security given that the felon attend court at a specific time and place. ()↑

References

  • Citation

    Babington, Anthony. The English Bastille: A History of Newgate Gaol and Prison Conditions in Britain, 1188-1902. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1972.

    This item is cited in the following documents:

  • Citation

    Bassett, Margery. Newgate Prison in the Middle Ages. Speculum 18.2 (1943): 233-246. doi:10.2307/2850646.

    This item is cited in the following documents:

  • Citation

    Beattie, John M. Policing and Punishment in London, 1660-1750: Urban Crime and the Limits of Terror. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2001. Print.

    This item is cited in the following documents:

  • Citation

    Bloy, Marjie. The 1601 Elizabethan Poor Law. https://victorianweb.org/history/poorlaw/elizpl.html.

    This item is cited in the following documents:

  • Citation

    Brodie, Allan, Jane Croom, and James O’Davies. English Prisons: An Architectural History. English Heritage, 2002. Print.

    This item is cited in the following documents:

  • Citation

    Bucholz, Robert and Newton Key. Early Modern England 1485-1714: A Narrative History. Wiley-Blackwell, 2008.

    This item is cited in the following documents:

  • Citation

    Byrne, Richard. Prisons and Punishments of London. London: Harrap, 1989. Print.

    This item is cited in the following documents:

  • Citation

    Carter, Elizabeth. Letter from Elizabeth Carter to Catherine Talbot, August 09, 1769. A Series of Letters between Mrs. Elizabeth Carter and Miss Catherine Talbot from the Year 1741 to 1770. Vol. 3. London: F.C. and J. Rivington, 1809. Remediated by Alexander Street.

    This item is cited in the following documents:

  • Citation

    Chamberlain, Henry. A new and compleat history and survey of the cities of London and Westminster, the borough of Southwark, and parts adjacent; from the earliest accounts, to the beginning of the year 1770. London, 1769. Print. ESTC T174314.

    This item is cited in the following documents:

  • Citation

    Collyn, Nicholas. A briefe summary of the lavves and statutes of England. London: Thomas Lock for Mathew Walbancke, 1655. ESTC R39835. Wing C5397.

    This item is cited in the following documents:

  • Citation

    Cooper, Michael. A More Beautiful City: Robert Hooke and the Rebuilding of London After the Great Fire. Sutton, 2003. Print.

    This item is cited in the following documents:

  • Citation

    Dabhoiwala, Faramerz. Summary Justice in Early Modern London. The English Historical Review 141.492 (2006): 796–822. doi:10.1093/ehr/cel107.

    This item is cited in the following documents:

  • Citation

    de Groot, Jerome. Prison Writing, Writing Prison during the 1640s and 1650s. Huntington Library Quarterly 72.2 (2009): 193-215. doi:10.1525/hlq.2009.72.2.193.

    This item is cited in the following documents:

  • Citation

    Defoe, Daniel. The History of the Press-Yard. London: T. Moor, 1717. Remediated by Internet Archive.

    This item is cited in the following documents:

  • Citation

    Defoe, Daniel. Moll Flanders. William Rufus Chetwood, 1722. Remediated by Internet Archive.

    This item is cited in the following documents:

  • Citation

    Devereaux, Simon and Paul Griffiths. Penal Practice and Culture, 1500–1900. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004. doi:10.1057/9780230523241.

    This item is cited in the following documents:

  • Citation

    Devereaux, Simon. Recasting the Theatre of Execution: The Abolition of the Tyburn Ritual*. Past & Present 202.1 (2009): 127-174.

    This item is cited in the following documents:

  • Citation

    Dodsworth, F.M. The Idea of Police in Eighteenth-Century England: Discipline, Reformation, Superintendence, c. 1780-1800. Journal of the History of Ideas 69.4 (2008): 583-605. doi:10.1353/jhi.0.0016.

    This item is cited in the following documents:

  • Drouillard, Tara. Executions. The Map of Early Modern London, Edition 7.0, edited by Janelle Jenstad, U of Victoria, 05 May 2022, mapoflondon.uvic.ca/edition/7.0/EXEC1.htm.

  • Citation

    Durston, Gregory. Crime And Justice In Early Modern England 1500-1750. Barry Rose Law Pub Ltd, 2004. Print.

    This item is cited in the following documents:

  • Citation

    E.S., A companion for debtors and prisoners. London: A. Baldwin, 1699. ESTC R1237. Wing C5581.

    This item is cited in the following documents:

  • Citation

    Fry, G.S., ed. Inquisitions: 2 Elizabeth I (1559-60). Abstracts of Inquisitiones Post Mortem For the City of London: Part 1. London, 1896. 191-211. Remediated by British History Online.

    This item is cited in the following documents:

  • Citation

    Gamini, Salgado. The Elizabethan Underworld. London: Dent, 1977. Print.

    This item is cited in the following documents:

  • Citation

    Goodcole, Henry. The Wonderful Discouerie of Elizabeth Sawyer a Witch, Late of Edmonton. London: A. Mathewes for William Butler, 1621. STC 12014.

    This item is cited in the following documents:

  • Citation

    Goodcole, Henry. The Adultresses Funerall Day in Flaming, Scorching, and Consuming Fire, or, The Burning Downe to Ashes of Alice Clarke, Late of Vxbridge in the County of Middlesex, in West-smith-field on Wensday the 20 of May, 1635 for the Unnaturall Poisoning of Fortune Clarke her Husband a Breviary of whose Confession Taken from her owne Mouth is hereunto Annexed, as also what she sayd at the Place of her Execution. London: Nicholas Okes, 1635. STC 12009.

    This item is cited in the following documents:

  • Citation

    Griffiths, Arthur. The Chronicles of Newgate. London: Chapman and Hall, 1884. Print.

    This item is cited in the following documents:

  • Citation

    Griffiths, Paul. Lost Londons: Change, Crime and Control in the Capital City, 1550–1660. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2008. Print.

    This item is cited in the following documents:

  • Citation

    Gurney Fry, Elizabeth. Letter from Elizabeth Gurney Fry, 1813. The Gurneys of Earlham. Vol. 1. London: George Allen, 1895. Print.

    This item is cited in the following documents:

  • Citation

    Halliday, Steven. Newgate: London’s Prototype of Hell. Phoenix Mill: Sutton Publishing, 2006. Print.

    This item is cited in the following documents:

  • Citation

    Harding, Christopher, Bill Hines, Richard Ireland, and Philip Rawlings. Imprisonment in England and Wales: A Concise History. Routledge Kegan & Paul, 1985. Print.

    This item is cited in the following documents:

  • Citation

    Hitchcock, Tim, Robert Shoemaker, Clive Emsley, Sharon Howard, and Jamie McLaughlin. The Proceedings of the Old Bailey, 1674-1913. https://www.oldbaileyonline.org. [We link to the direct page by date in the parenthetical citation.]

    This item is cited in the following documents:

  • Citation

    Hughes, Lewes. Certaine grievances, or the errours of the service-booke. London, 1643. ESTC R218445.

    This item is cited in the following documents:

  • Citation

    Hutton, Luke. The discouery of a London monster called, the black dog of Newgate. London: G. Eld, for Robert Wilson, 1612. STC 14030.

    This item is cited in the following documents:

  • Citation

    Jack Shepard. The Newgate Calendar. London, 1724. https://www.exclassics.com/newgate/ng173.htm.

    This item is cited in the following documents:

  • Citation

    Jackson, William. The new and complete Newgate calendar. Vol. 6. London: Alex. Hogg, 1795. ESTC T117003.

    This item is cited in the following documents:

  • Citation

    Journal of the House of Lords: Volume 7, 1644. London, 1796-1830. Remediated by British History Online.

    This item is cited in the following documents:

  • Citation

    Jowett, Caroline. The History of Newgate Prison. Barnsley: Pen and Sword, 2017. Print.

    This item is cited in the following documents:

  • Citation

    Kalman, Harold D. Newgate Prison. Architectural History 12 (1969): 50-61. doi:10.2307/1568336.

    This item is cited in the following documents:

  • Citation

    Kelly, Gary, ed. Newgate Narratives Richmond; or, Scenes in the Life of a Bow Street Officer, Drawn Up from His Private Memoranda. London: Routledge, 2008. Print.

    This item is cited in the following documents:

  • Citation

    Kesselring, Krista J. Mercy and Authority in the Tudor State. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2003. Print.

    This item is cited in the following documents:

  • Citation

    Langley, Batty. An accurate description of Newgate With the rights, privileges, allowances, fees, dues, and customs thereof. London: for T. Warner, 1724. Remediated by Bodleian Libraries.

    This item is cited in the following documents:

  • Citation

    Lupton, Donald. London and the countrey carbonadoed and quartred into seuerall characters. London: Nicholas Okes, 1632. STC 16944.

    This item is cited in the following documents:

  • Citation

    McKenzie, Andrea. This Death Some Strong and Stout Hearted Man Doth Choose: The Practice of Peine Forte et Dure in Seventeenth- and Eighteenth-Century England. Law and History Review 23.2 (2005): 279-313.

    This item is cited in the following documents:

  • Citation

    McKenzie, Andrea. Tyburn’s Martyrs: Execution in England 1675-1775. London: Hambledon Continuum, 2007. Print.

    This item is cited in the following documents:

  • Citation

    Murray, Molly. Measured Sentences: Forming Literature in the Early Modern Prison. Huntington Library Quarterly 72.2 (2009): 147-167. doi:10.1525/hlq.2009.72.2.147.

    This item is cited in the following documents:

  • Citation

    Newgate: Conservation Area Character Study. Corporation of London Department of Planning, 1999. https://web.archive.org/web/20120319194553/http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/A5016542-4CE6-4A18-985D-81A504B30150/0/DP_PL_NewgateCA.pdf.

    This item is cited in the following documents:

  • Citation

    O’Donnell, Bernard. The Old Bailey and Its Trials. New York: Macmillan Company, 1951.

    This item is cited in the following documents:

  • Citation

    Oberwittler, Dietrich. Crime and Authority in Eighteenth Century England: Law Enforcement on the Local Level. Historical Social Research/Historische Sozialforschung 15.2 (1990): 3-34. doi:10.12759/hsr.15.1990.2.3-34.

    This item is cited in the following documents:

  • Citation

    Orders devised and agreed upon by the Right Honourable the Lord Mayor and Court of Aldermen of the citie of London, the seventh day of march, 1632. London: R. Young, 1633. STC 16733.3.

    This item is cited in the following documents:

  • Citation

    Riley, H.T., ed. Memorials of London and London Life in the 13th, 14th and 15th Centuries. London, 1868. Remediated by British History Online.

    This item is cited in the following documents:

  • Citation

    Rocque, John. A Plan of the Cities of London and Westminster, and Borough of Southwark with Contiguous Buildings. London: Printed by John Rocque, 1746. Reprinted as The A to Z of Georgian London. Introduced by Ralph Hyde. London: London Topographical Society, 1982. [We cite by index label thus: Rocque 15Db.

  • Citation

    Rumbelow, Donald. The Triple Tree: Newgate, Tyburn and Old Bailey. London: Harrap, 1982. Print.

    This item is cited in the following documents:

  • Citation

    Sabine, Ernest. Butchering in Medieval London. Speculum 8.3 (1933): 335–353.

    This item is cited in the following documents:

  • Citation

    Sharpe, J.A. The History of Crime in England c.1300-1914: An Overview of Recent Publications. The British Journal of Criminology 28.2 (1988): 124-137.

    This item is cited in the following documents:

  • Citation

    Spierenberg, Pieter. The Prison Experience: Disciplinary Institutions and Their Inmates in Early Modern Europe. Amsterdam: Amsterdam UP, 2007. Print.

    This item is cited in the following documents:

  • Citation

    Taylor, John. The praise and vertue of a jayle, and jaylers. London: John Haviland for Richard Badger, 1623. STC 23785.

    This item is cited in the following documents:

  • Citation

    Terrible and bloudy nevves from Windsor. London, 1648. ESTC R205307. Wing T764.

    This item is cited in the following documents:

  • Citation

    The petition of the rebells in Nevv-Gate. London: for Francis Coles and G. Lindsey, 1642. STC P1831.

    This item is cited in the following documents:

  • Citation

    The secret history of the rebels in Newgate. London: J. Roberts and J. Harrison, 1717. ESTC T54379.

    This item is cited in the following documents:

  • Citation

    The Unabridged Acts and Monuments Online. The Digital Humanities Institute. Sheffield, 2011. https://www.dhi.ac.uk/foxe/index.php.

    This item is cited in the following documents:

  • Citation

    The unhappy marks-man. London: T.N. for R. Clavell, 1659. Wing U68.

    This item is cited in the following documents:

  • Citation

    Thornbury, Walter. Fleet Street: General Introduction. Old and New London. Vol. 1. London, 1878. 32-53. Remediated by British History Online.

    This item is cited in the following documents:

  • Citation

    Thornbury, Walter. Newgate. Old and New London. Vol. 2. London, 1878. 441-461. Remediated by British History Online.

    This item is cited in the following documents:

  • Citation

    Trial of Edward Swinney and Henry Harrison. London: Old Bailey, 1679.

    This item is cited in the following documents:

  • Citation

    Tuus Inimicus, Hell upon Earth: or The most Pleasant and Delectable History of Whittington’s Colledge. London, 1703.

    This item is cited in the following documents:

  • Citation

    Uszkalo, Kirsten C. Being Bewitched: A True Tale of Madness, Witchcraft, and Property Development Gone Wrong. Kirksville: Truman State UP, 2017.

    This item is cited in the following documents:

  • Citation

    Whiston, James. England’s Calamities Discover’d: With the Proper Remedy to Restore Her Ancient Grandeur and Policy. London, 1696.

    This item is cited in the following documents:

  • Citation

    Winter, Christine. Prisons and Punishments in Late Medieval London. PhD dissertation. University of London, 2005. Print.

    This item is cited in the following documents:

  • Citation

    Wordsworth, Dorothy. Letter from Dorothy Wordsworth to Thomas de Quincey, 1809. Letters of Dorothy Wordsworth: A Selection. Ed. Alan G. Hill. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1985. Remediated by Alexander Street.

    This item is cited in the following documents:

Cite this page

MLA citation

University of Melbourne History 30073 2018 Students. Newgate. The Map of Early Modern London, Edition 7.0, edited by Janelle Jenstad, U of Victoria, 05 May 2022, mapoflondon.uvic.ca/edition/7.0/NEWG1.htm.

Chicago citation

University of Melbourne History 30073 2018 Students. Newgate. The Map of Early Modern London, Edition 7.0. Ed. Janelle Jenstad. Victoria: University of Victoria. Accessed May 05, 2022. mapoflondon.uvic.ca/edition/7.0/NEWG1.htm.

APA citation

University of Melbourne History 30073 2018 Students. 2022. Newgate. In J. Jenstad (Ed), The Map of Early Modern London (Edition 7.0). Victoria: University of Victoria. Retrieved from https://mapoflondon.uvic.ca/editions/7.0/NEWG1.htm.

RIS file (for RefMan, RefWorks, EndNote etc.)

Provider: University of Victoria
Database: The Map of Early Modern London
Content: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

TY  - ELEC
A1  - University of Melbourne History 30073 2018 Students
ED  - Jenstad, Janelle
T1  - Newgate
T2  - The Map of Early Modern London
ET  - 7.0
PY  - 2022
DA  - 2022/05/05
CY  - Victoria
PB  - University of Victoria
LA  - English
UR  - https://mapoflondon.uvic.ca/edition/7.0/NEWG1.htm
UR  - https://mapoflondon.uvic.ca/edition/7.0/xml/standalone/NEWG1.xml
ER  -

TEI citation

<bibl type="mla"><author><name ref="#MELB1" type="org">University of Melbourne History 30073 2018 Students</name></author>. <title level="a">Newgate</title>. <title level="m">The Map of Early Modern London</title>, Edition <edition>7.0</edition>, edited by <editor><name ref="#JENS1"><forename>Janelle</forename> <surname>Jenstad</surname></name></editor>, <publisher>U of Victoria</publisher>, <date when="2022-05-05">05 May 2022</date>, <ref target="https://mapoflondon.uvic.ca/edition/7.0/NEWG1.htm">mapoflondon.uvic.ca/edition/7.0/NEWG1.htm</ref>.</bibl>

Personography

Locations

Organizations

Variant spellings