The early history of Little Ilford Gaol

This, the second in a series of articles on the story of Little Ilford Gaol, examines the buildings' history from their construction in 1830 until their high point of significance in 1860. The following article will examine its final twenty years and the reasons for its demise.

As previously mentioned, the gaol was built to replace unfit-for-purpose buildings in Barking for the Becontree Hundred administrative area of Essex, which then embraced what is now Barking, Dagenham, Newham, Redbridge, and parts of Havering and Waltham Forest.

 

The new gaol was to hold prisoners sentenced by Waltham, Ongar, Epping, Ilford, Romford and Brentwood magistrates’ courts, and later, from a court built within its grounds in 1852, and later still from one constructed in Angel Lane in Stratford.

 

Official documents variously called the establishment a “gaol” and “a house of correction,” “a common gaol for prisoners for further examination and trial ... for Essex.” Those incarcerated beyond a few days were typically there for minor offences (see later). 

 

More serious offences were considered at the Quarter Sessions court in Chelmsford and committed to Springfield prison in that town. Alternatively, they were sentenced to be hung  (there were over 200 capital offences in the early years of the nineteenth century) or for transportation (often for what to us would seem fairly minor offences—sheep stealing, for example—see later). Long-term incarceration did not become a significant feature of the British penal system until much later in the nineteenth century.

 

Construction of the gaol

 

A major attraction of the new gaol site for the Essex court system was that it was on the main London – Colchester road and reasonably easily accessible to those sending prisoners. According to contemporary maps, the area was wholly agricultural at the time and appears to have been owned by the Marquis of Salisbury (see below). Quite how he came to possess the land in this part of Essex is unclear, but his presence in the area is still acknowledged by the nearby Salisbury school and road, presumably named after him.

 

2nd Marquis of Salisbury - previous owner of the land upon which Little Ilford gaol was built

The Curtis family built the gaol, substantial builders who specialised in the construction of gaols but who also won the contract for building Buckingham Palace! They may have owned the Uphall brickfield on the River Roding, about half a mile away: so – local bricks for local gaols (see here)!

 

Map showing location of the gaol, sited on "High Road, London" and on land previously owned by Marquis of Salisbury

As can be seen from the plan of the prison below, it was well ordered, with the governor having accommodation at the front of the gaol, facing what is now Romford Road, with buildings on either side of him providing a brew house (for beer for prisoners and staff at a time when water was often polluted or disease-ridden), and a bake-house, each with adjacent store rooms. Other non-cell buildings included two infirmaries (one for men and another for women) in the centre of the site, a chapel, work rooms, and a treadmill area (see later).

 

Architects' drawings of gaol at the time of construction, 1830

 

The gaol was built on the “separate system” to try to keep prisoners isolated from each other. This was done partially as punishment, partially to keep “old lags” teaching newer prisoners “new tricks,” and partly, through Quaker influences, to give prisoners silence in which to reflect on their wrongdoing and then repent and reform.  

 

The gaol layout shows the prisoner spaces to be predominantly 24 single cells, roughly 8 feet by 6 feet. In addition, 15 larger cells, 13 feet by 6 feet 6 inches, could be used for multiple prisoners who were on remand rather than those who had already been sentenced.

 

There was no heating in the gaol, even in the harshest winters. Prisoners could control temperatures slightly by opening and closing cell windows, and ventilation bricks were installed on the external walls of all cells to ensure some air circulation. There were no candles or any form of artificial light in the cells.

 

To minimise the inmates' ability to communicate with each other, the gaol had separate areas for male and female prisoners and several different exercise yards within each. As will become clear later, female prisoners were attended to almost exclusively by female staff.

 

The number of prisoners in the gaol fluctuated by season and over time, but in the 1830s, it averaged about 500 prisoners per year, with an average number of around 47 on any given day.

 

A ten-foot high wall surrounded the gaol to prevent escape, and when this seemed inadequate, additional measures were taken. So, when the Eastern Counties Railway (en route to Forest Gate and what is now Liverpool Street) was constructed in the late 1830s, a ten feet ditch was dug at the back end of the gaol, which was a little over 200 yards from the railway line, and an additional iron fence was placed on top of the wall, to make escape more difficult.

 

Escapes seem to have been rare. Although surviving records are patchy, few examples of successful break-outs survive. In almost all cases, recapture seemed pretty swift – with offenders being severely punished (whipping, food deprivation, solitary confinement in darkened cells, etc). The Annual Report to the Home Secretary, October 1845 (ERO Q/SBb 550) stated, “Two prisoners have escaped during the last year but have both been retaken. In both cases, after they scaled the outer wall from the roof of the bakehouse, the necessity of altering which is now under consideration”.

 

The “roof of the bakehouse” became an identified route for escape as the building, like that of the brewhouse, had an additional floor built on it in the early 1840s to provide more staff accommodation. The “necessity for altering” resulted in an iron fence being erected on top of the outer wall, just as it had been when escaping to the new railway line seemed a threat.

 

Increased functions and jurisdiction

 

From 1840 the Metropolitan Police, established a decade earlier, had its jurisdiction extended to parts of western Essex. That, coupled with its recently created detection function, and the beginnings of population growth in the eastern part of London, led to a greater demand for cells in Ilford gaol.

 

The next thirty years of the gaol’s existence were dominated by considerations of its exact role and scope. The gaol couldn’t cope with the increased demands the Metropolitan Police placed on it, nor the steady growth of population in the areas, so various proposals were made to solve the conundrum, including reducing the number of courts it served, narrowing the scope of offences it would cater for, as well as, of course, increasing its size to cope with increased demand.

 

The “visiting magistrates” (see later), who the Essex Quarter Sessions appointed to provide independent oversight and regulation over how the gaol was managed as early as 1842: “felt deep regret that during the past quarter, at a season when there were generally few in the gaols (spring) the numbers had been so large they could not account for them”. They obtained funds to increase the number of cells in the gaol by four in 1846.

 

By the late 1840s, the number of prisoners had increased considerably, so in 1848, 677 were confined during the year, with a daily average of 59.

 

Dealing with growing numbers

 

The reorganisation of “police courts” in the early 1850s resulted in the construction of a new court within the grounds of Ilford gaol in 1853 (see plan below). The court met every Saturday morning and usually sentenced more prisoners to terms in the gaol. This simply increased the demand for accommodation in it!

 

Architects' plans of the new courthouse, built within Little Ilford Gaol in 1850s

 

So, 879 prisoners were confined in 1853 and demands to increase the size of the prison accordingly gathered pace. The number of inmates reached its peak in 1854. At one time that year, 81 males and 18 females were incarcerated within it. The gaol, however, only contained cells for 42 males, with a workroom, day room, and infirmary consisting of two large and two small rooms being used to accommodate the surplus. Females had two sleeping cells and an infirmary of similar size to males.

 

The Essex Standard of 6 April 1855, under the headline “Increased number of prisoners at Ilford gaol”, reported that the magistrates’ committee in Chelmsford:

 

Considered how to reduce demand and recommended that in future the benches of Epping, Brentwood, Waltham Holy Cross and the Liberty of Havering, where the sentences were less than one month, should be sent to Springfield. This is estimated to reduce the demand at Ilford by 24 males and four females … But even at that, taking 1854 figures, there would still be 15 males and eight females not accounted for … especially in the parish of West Ham where the numbers were likely to be much further increased with the prospect of an increase in crime.

 

The committee responded to the increased demand for accommodation by recommending the construction of nine more cells, at a cost of £800.

 

Within a year, consideration was given to expanding Springfield gaol, handing over responsibility for dealing with prisoners captured by the Metropolitan Police to London authorities and closing Ilford gaol. No action on these considerations was taken, but additional pressures were soon placed on Little Ilford.

 

In 1858, the Essex Standard (20 October) reported that the gaol’s finances had benefited from £44 “received from the government for the maintenance of military prisoners” – presumably deserters and others convicted of felonies during the Crimean War. So, there is an added demand for space and additional functions for the gaol.

 

This was probably the high point in the gaol’s history. The next article in the series will examine its final twenty years—from this point until its eventual closure—and beyond.

Little Ilford Gaol – introduction and background

This is the first of a five-part series examining the history and role of Little Ilford gaol, which was the second most important prison facility in Essex for almost forty years. It was located in the area now occupied by Worcester and Gloucester Roads, opposite Seventh Avenue and bordering Romford Road in Manor Park, and over its lifetime will have held around 30,000 prisoners.

Site of Little Ilford gaol today - Romford Road, Manor Park

Gaol was the common spelling for what we would now call jail until the mid-twentieth century, and so will be the spelling we will adopt for the Little Ilford establishment through its mid-nineteenth century existence.

Subsequent chapters, assembled from extensive research at the Essex County Records Office and examining newspaper archives, will delve into the institution's history, its management and supervision, and the lives and conditions of the prisoners it housed.

Little Ilford in the early nineteenth century

Little Ilford owes its mid-nineteenth-century growth to establishing a gaol in 1830. According to the Victoria County History of Essex, it comprised 768 acres, with Wanstead and the River Roding forming its northern and eastern boundaries. It was called Little Ilford to distinguish the area from Great Ilford, which lay east of the Roding and was located on the main London—Colchester road.

It underwent significant changes in the nineteenth century (see here). It transitioned from being the smallest parish in the Becontree Hundred, one of the 23 civil administrative units that had provided civil government for Essex-including law-and-order functions since the Middle Ages, to becoming part of the West Ham Poor Law Union in 1836. It was embraced by the Metropolitan Police District in 1840 and was incorporated into the East Ham Urban District, upon its creation in 1886. This transformation placed it on the cusp of rural Essex and the rapidly growing London conurbation, adding a layer of interest to its historical narrative.

We are getting ahead of ourselves. Little Ilford was entirely rural at the start of that century. There were just 15 houses in the district in 1801, and the only substantial building was the Three Rabbits pub (a coaching and trading inn, dating back to the 1630s). The population during the first three decades of the century hovered around 100. It was almost totally agricultural, with its main crop appearing to be the cultivation of osier (part of the willow family, used for basket making) on the banks of the Roding.

The population rose from 100 in 1831 to 189 a decade later, almost entirely because of the establishment of the gaol.

The local prison situation before Little Ilford was constructed

Before the construction of the Little Ilford gaol, there were only two significant prisons in Essex: Springfield in the county town of Chelmsford – which survives today in a much modified form, and the  Becontree House of Correction, which was located in Barking. They both came under the control of Essex’s Justices of the Peace, who were technically royal appointments but were, in practice, appointed by the Lord Lieutenant of the County, who, himself had been appointed by the Lord Chancellor – head of the judiciary.

To be recognised for the position, they had to be of considerable financial and social standing and socially minded enough to accept the unpaid post. The function required travelling around the county, sitting in judgment at police (magistrates) courts, visiting prisons, and reporting to the Essex Quarter Sessions every three months, which supervised both justice and administration in the county.

Each gaol had courts attached, and in Chelmsford’s case, its Assize and Quarter Session courts dealt with more serious cases, that could have resulted in Transportation or execution. Becontree court and gaol were primarily concerned with minor offences, or holding prisoners awaiting trial in Chelmsford.

The Becontree House of Correction had been located in East Street, Barking and served the whole of the Becontree Hundred between 1609 and 1791, incarcerating both “criminals and lunatics”.  It was replaced by a new “House of Correction/Bridewell” in nearby North Street in 1792, but this facility didn’t last long, as it failed to meet standards set for prisons from the 1820s.

Map of Becontree Hundred, soon after Little Ilford Gaol constructed

Early nineteenth-century prison reform

Prompted by prison reformers, including East Ham/Forest Gate’s Elizabeth Fry (see here), Robert Peel’s 1820s tenure as Home Secretary began to rationalise the justice system. The 1823 Gaol Act sought to establish a measure of uniformity throughout prisons in England and Wales. It established health regulations, required room for religious observance, the separation of different categories of prisoners and facilities for imposing hard labour on certain categories of prisoners. 

Early prison reformer, Elizabeth Fry, who lived about 2 miles from Little Ilford gaol and was the mother of the gaol's most prominent "Visiting Magistrate"

The Act directed county magistrates to inspect gaols at least quarterly and demanded that annual reports for each gaol be sent to the Home Secretary.

The Barking House of Correction could not meet the requirements of the 1823 legislation, so the Essex magistrates sought a replacement. It was closed in 1831, and its functions transferred to the newly created Little Ilford gaol. Thus, a community barely larger than a hamlet came to host the only significant prison in Essex outside the main Springfield establishment in the county town of Chelmsford.

Springfield gaol, Chelmsford c1900

Law and order in Britain before 1829 (and the establishment of the Metropolitan Police) were very much hit and miss. The functions were generally in the hands of “constables,” who were often part-time county appointments. Their main function was the collection of county rates.

 They had no detection or preventative responsibilities but did have the powers of arrest and an obligation to pursue felonies reported to them. The initial pursuit of offenders was often assumed to be the injured party's responsibility, who would call upon constables to make the arrests, serve warrants, and move prisoners from place to place (court, prison, transportation, etc.).

Constables also had a responsibility to clamp down on perceived anti-social behaviour and activity and move vagrants from the parish (because they were a drain on local finances). In the absence of locally convenient gaols, they would often be required to accommodate suspects in their own homes, which was something of a disincentive always to arrest perceived offenders.

Unsurprisingly, the convenience of having a local court and goal encouraged prosecution in the neighbourhood, and small towns with their own courts had greater levels of crime recorded than those whose individuals had a long trek to quarter sessions in county towns. (PJR King: Crime, Law and Society in Essex 1740-1820—unpublished Cambridge PhD, 1984).

Impact of Little Ilford gaol on local law and order

Therefore, establishing a gaol and court in Little Ilford meant that the area surrounding the court was more likely to see convictions for various offences than before the goal was constructed.

The 1829 Act establishing the Metropolitan Police brought a more structured approach to law, order, and detection in London—and a subsequent increase in the number of gaols in London. The Act impacted the court and gaol of Little Ilford when, a decade later, the jurisdiction of the Met was extended to incorporate the area covered by the Little Ilford facilities.

Two distinct actions – the establishment of the goal and court and the incorporation into the territory of a detection police force - within a decade, meant that the West Ham area started to record a greater incidence of crime and conviction than it had previously, although the actual level of criminal or anti-social activity may not have changed at all.

Subsequent chapters in this series on the gaol will examine its fifty-year history and how it was managed and overseen on a day-to-day basis, particularly by the “visiting justices” appointed by the Essex Quarter Sessions. The most prominent of them was John Gurney Fry, son of the aforementioned Elizabeth.

The series will conclude with a detailed look at the gaol’s estimated thirty thousand prisoners, their offences, and the conditions in which they were held during their confinements.