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.