Little Ilford Gaol’s final twenty years

This is the third article on Little Ilford gaol. It delves into its history, tracing its journey from its pinnacle of importance to its intriguing sale in 1880 as: “An eligible site for the erection of villa residences.” Its three acres were swiftly transformed into houses, utilising bricks and other construction materials from the prison buildings, now forming Worcester and Gloucester Roads, off the Romford Road in Manor Park/Little Ilford.

Auction document, for sale of gaol site

By 1860, the gaol's role and scope of responsibilities were under scrutiny. The Essex Standard (4 July) reported the Quarter Sessions to be pondering over whether to retain Ilford gaol solely for remand cases or construct another facility for that purpose:

 

In consequence of Ilford Gaol being within the Metropolitan Police District … it is recommended to the justices in the Ilford Division to commit all further remand cases, as well as short sentences and prisoners on trial at the Central Criminal Court (Old Bailey), to Ilford gaol and all other convicted prisoners, together with prisoners on trial at the Assizes and Sessions (in Chelmsford) to the County gaol in Springfield.

 

It is not clear which of the proposals to combat overcrowding were adopted, but by 1866, the 31st Report of the Inspector of Prisons of Great Britain noted that there had been a reduction in prisoners in Little Ilford. And, simultaneously, apparently, for the first time, indicated that several debtors were imprisoned there. Fourteen in total that year, with the average number at any time being seven – one of whom was female.

 

Changing roles

 

The Inspector’s report of that year also revealed a significant shift in the gaol's inmate population. It noted a higher percentage of all female criminal prisoners (22%) than the typical 10% in previous years. A future article in this series will delve into the nature and types of prisoners held through the gaol's lifetime and the conditions they endured.

 

By this time, there were 35 cells for males and five for females, together with a day room, a punishment cell (for solitary confinement), five reception cells, two male exercise yards, and one for females. For debtors, who were treated differently, there were four sleeping cells, one day room, and one exercise yard. The report did not mention infirmaries.

 

Although there was no “national prison system” at the time, prisons were highly regulated and closely supervised by external bodies, and parliament was very prescriptive about the conditions that prevailed within them.

 

The terms of the 1865 Prison Act had a very significant impact on Little Ilford gaol. Just as an earlier Act had deemed Barking gaol unfit for purpose (see previous article), the 1865 Act offered a real challenge to Little Ilford and its controlling bodies.

 

In January 1868, the Essex Quarter Sessions received a letter from the Home Office saying that Little Ilford did not conform to the standards laid down in the legislation and wanted proposals for addressing the shortcomings. Over the following 18 months, a considerable volume of correspondence related to the matter circulated.

 

Bid for growth

 

The visiting magistrates (supervisors of the gaol) took the challenge as an opportunity to bid for a significant upgrading of its size and status: “in the belief that the great increase in the population in the parishes near London renders such an enlargement necessary and advisable”. (Essex Standard 2 July 1869).

 

The 1865 legislation required cell sizes to be larger than they were in Little Ilford, and the visiting magistrates concluded that this could be done most cost-effectively by knocking down some partition walls and thereby halving the number of cells. This would require the construction of additional cells if the gaol’s  capacity were to be maintained, never mind increased, to cope with “the great increase in the population in the parishes near London.”

 

John Gurney Fry (Elizabeth’s son and a principal visiting magistrate to Little Ilford - for full details, see a forthcoming article) seized the opportunity to increase the significance of Little Ilford. 

The only known surviving photo of John Gurney Fry - son of prison reformer, Elizabeth

 

He proposed that 48 new men’s cells would be required, at a cost of £4,180, six additional women’s cells, at a cost of £725, and £500 would be required to convert the existing 32 cells into 16 larger ones. He proposed that a total of £5,675 would be required for adequate transformation.

 

Huge as this sum was at the time, he argued that it would be dwarfed by the estimated £30k - £40k that would be needed to build a new institution from scratch. For the much smaller sum, he insisted, Little Ilford could not only be made fit for purpose but also relieve some of the pressure on Springfield gaol by accommodating longer-term prisoners. Consequently, he stated that Little Ilford’s significance would be considerably enhanced.

 

It was probably John Gurney Fry’s greatest moment as a visiting magistrate: within two years, he had died of typhoid (the cause of which some put down to the conditions he endured in visiting the gaol – see subsequent article), his vision unfulfilled.

 

Unfulfilled vision

 

His proposals were debated in various forms around the Essex Quarter Sessions for a couple of years (see Essex Herald 17 March 1871 and Chelmsford Chronicle 6 June 1873) but never agreed upon or implemented.

 

Meanwhile, significant developments were happening elsewhere. Edmund Frederick du Cane was a prison administrator who, following the 1865 Prison Act, was instrumental in abolishing penal transportation to Australia in 1867. Two years later, partially in recognition of his achievement, he was appointed to a new role of national Director of Prisons. This was a signal for the effective “nationalisation” of the prison service, taking responsibility for them away from independent county assizes and Quarter Sessions.

 

As part of his proposals, he announced a halving of the number of prisons in Great Britain, boosting the size and importance of some and making the rest redundant. Little Ilford, undeveloped by the Fry proposals, fell victim. It is probably a coincidence, but the leading visiting magistrate at Chelmsford’s Springfield prison, which survived the cull, was Edmund du Cane’s cousin, Sir Charles du Cane.

 

The Essex Quarter Sessions received compensation from the government, to the tune of £120 per cell, for decommissioning the gaol, and was left to dispose of the facility as it saw fit.

 

The end of the institution

 

In a debate at the Quarter Sessions, John Gurney Fry’s long-term fellow visiting magistrate William Swainson Suart outlined some of the options for disposal (Chelmsford Chronicle18 October 1878):

 

The motion of Major Suart to consider and report to the next court (Quarter Session) as to the future disposal of the gaol, for the utilisation of which there are already a charming variety of objects suggested, some thinking that it would make a nice little lunatic asylum (!) or workhouse, some that it should be a hospital for infectious diseases and others that it was too ugly for anything.

 

In the event, it was sold at auction on 14 October 1880 for housing development to George Blizard, 91 Ladbroke Grove, for £3,800. Around 100 houses were built, to form Worcester and Gloucester Roads, which was still surrounded by farmland and open spaces.

 

Purchase contract signed by George Blizzard of Ladbroke Grove

The auction documentation (ERO B280 - see below) makes interesting reading. 

 

 

The auction lot was described as follows:

 

A substantial pile of buildings, a large area of garden ground … an important frontage to the main Essex Road. The total extent being nearly 3 acres. An eligible site for the erection of villa residences. The present buildings affording a large quantity of sound material … (it was) Auctioned by Messrs Beadel of Gresham Street in the City. All fixtures and fittings are included in the sale. “Ilford Prison”.

 

The existing erections have until lately been occupied for the purpose of a prison and comprise a Governor’s House, Eight Blocks of Cells opening into Twelve Yards, one of which has a Well of excellent water, a Stable and other Outbuildings, a Chapel and Court-house, with extensive offices attached. The Buildings are most substantial, the Yards and Cells paved with Bath Stone and the latter enclosed by high and massive Iron Railings, thereby affording a quantity of Building and other Material on the spot, and offering an excellent opportunity to Builders, Speculators and others, for acquiring a profitable Investment. … There is a large extent of garden ground. The whole is surrounded by a High Brick Wall, around which there is a strip of Vacant land, included in the above area.

 

Gloucester Road today, half of the 100 "villas" built on the site of the gaol, partially with materials from the gaol's buildings

 

The next article in this series will examine how the gaol was supervised and managed, and the final chapter will explore the lives and conditions of those incarcerated there.