At Bromsgrove, men and women were whipt in the market place; and at Upton, from the bridge to the turnpike gate leading from thence to Gloucester. At the latter town, in 1737, John Willoughby and Adam Cook were presented for removing and carrying away the prison house or gaol belonging to the town! The circumstances of this very singular charge are not detailed, but the presentment was quashed.
The Gaol.
The first mention made of the state of the county gaol was in 1616, when a petition was sent to the Quarter Sessions from the poor debtors confined therein "against various hard usages, exactions, and extortions offered to prisoners by Mrs. Moore, the keeper," and "when one of the justices took pains to amend it she obeyed him not but used more extremities." Mrs. Moore, however, commenced a cross fire, by petitioning the magistrates at the same time, alleging that her late husband had "taken the gaol upon a very great and extreme rent," and she and her husband had "given trust and credit to many poor distressed prisoners, hoping of satisfaction at their enlargement," but since the death of her husband divers persons had run into debt, and had brought false articles of accusation against her to shield themselves. Her plea was ad misericordiam—that she was "an unprotected female" since the death of her husband, and was persecuted by the very parties to whom she had shown kindness. But unfortunately the lady's allegations were not borne out by fact, for Mr. Fleete, the justice above-named, who had been commissioned to inquire into the matter, caused Mrs. Moore to be bound in £100 "to sell an ale quart of beare for a penie" from that time forward, as it appeared that she had been in the habit of selling the prisoners ale by wine measure, and otherwise so managing her retail business, that for a hogshead of drink which cost her but 12s., she received 32s. Moreover she "tormented those that were of mean condition (i.e., who could not afford to buy her ale) with double irons." So Mr. Fleete ordered this to be discontinued, and that the debtors should be separated from the felons. Nevertheless, next year (1617) out comes the following "Humble petition of the pore prisoners in the Castle of Worcester, humbly showeth unto your good worships that they are many pore men, to the number of thirty prisoners and upwards, who lye there, some upon their behavior, and the most parte of the reste upon matters of small or noe value, having nothinge but the bare allowance of a penie a day to relieve their faintinge bodyes, so that yf they should be inforced to lye longer in this miserable place wold unchristianlike be starved to death with hunger, cold, and nakedness; some of them alsoe having many pore children like to be left to the wide world. May yt therefore please your good worships to consider them, to have their present triall before your good worships, who rather desire to be out of the world than to indure the misery wherein they now are, and your petitioners will ever pray for your worships' health."
A system under which a gaoler rents his prison, and makes his profit by selling drink to the inmates at an enormous rate, reads curiously enough in these days when the science of prison discipline has so greatly advanced as to induce us to make the most costly sacrifices. It will be observed that the county prison was on the site of the ancient castle, once standing near the Cathedral precincts, but which had long been destroyed. An order was made in 1723, "that Mr. Hall, the treasurer, doe take due care that the partition be made in the women's ward, in order to keep the debtors from the felons." In 1767 the Clerk of the Peace was directed to apply to the Treasury for the grant of "a certain piece of garden ground, about five acres, lying contiguous to the public gaol of the county, and particularly serviceable to the occupiers thereof for the time being, and also the site and remains of the old castle or citadel of Worcester, which now is and hath long been used as a public gaol or prison and bridewell for the said county," and praying that the grant of the premises be made to the Earl of Plymouth, Lord Coventry, Lord Sandys, Lord Ward, and other magistrates, including the names of Lygon, Rushout, Winnington, and Dowdeswell, "in trust, for the keeping of prisoners and otherwise for the use and benefit of this county." A petition was, however, transmitted to the Lords of the Treasury, by the mayor and aldermen of the city, against the grant of the site of these fortifications to the county magistrates, and the city authorities were successful in the application. This seems to have been the first effort made towards gaol improvement, but the period was near at hand when the outraged laws of health were to vindicate themselves. The Worcester county prison, with several others in the midland counties, in the year 1783, was visited with the fatal gaol distemper, which swept the cells of their inhabitants and proved fatal to that eminent physician, Dr. Johnstone. At that period I find an order on the book "to apply to the sheriff for his concurrence to fix a temporary gaol, and endeavour by advertisement and otherwise to find one or more proper places for the confinement of felons." Extensive improvements were set on foot, in which the humane system suggested by the philanthropist Howard was introduced, and when the works were finally completed (in 1795) a sum of between £4000 and £5000—a large amount for that period—had been expended. In 1785, William Lygon, Esq., was thanked "for his great trouble in procuring the removal of a number of transports from the county gaol on board the lighters on Thames, whereby the county was saved a considerable expense and the health of the gaol was preserved." About four years afterwards, and while the alterations were still going on, an order was made not to confine any one in the dungeon of the gaol nor to confine any two prisoners in one cell. The spirit of reform, however, was not yet satisfied, for scarcely had the century closed when it was found that the great outlay that had been incurred was useless, and that the establishment was altogether insecure; William Davis, the gaoler, complaining of the escape of certain prisoners; and a "watchman or guard" was decided on. After an unprecedented opposition on the score of expense, and a protracted scene of strife and contention among the magistracy, the Court of Quarter Sessions at length resolved, in the year 1808 (but not till Lord Chief Baron Macdonald had threatened the county with a heavy fine), to build a new gaol in Salt Lane, at a cost of £18,000. The details of these transactions will be found in "Worcestershire in the Nineteenth Century," recently published, the author of which informs us that on the Sunday during or immediately following the Assizes, which used to be known as Assize Sunday, and kept as a great fair, the keepers at the (old) county gaol were accustomed to show the prisoners through the bars to the curious crowd, and collect money in a boot for pointing out those who were sentenced to be hanged! In 1814 the prisoners were removed to the new gaol; and at the very next Sessions, Mr. Wells, attorney, was requested to apply to Mr. Sandys, the architect, relative to the escape of some prisoners therefrom!! From that time to the present this ill-fated building has seemed destined to an endless sinking of capital, for the trial of new experiments and for remedying the stupidity of bygone architects and committees. About £18,000 was spent on it a dozen years ago, and now (1856) nearly £20,000 has been voted for the same purpose.
The Poor.
