DISCUSSION

London was endowed with more prisons than any other English city, in part because its large size and population meant a larger number of offenders, but also because it was the seat of royal justice. There were different types of prison in the city, with different levels of discomfort and security, and some specialization in the types of criminals they hosted. The above reforms were part of larger set, promulgated in 1393 and later copied into the Liber Albus; they also addressed other aspects of the judicial system, such as procedures in certain cases, fees payable to court officials, and the duties of barristers (or pleaders as they were then known).

The Fleet prison was originally intended for offenders from London and Middlesex, but was later also used for outsiders sentenced by royal courts. It was designed as a prison, and surrounded by a moat. It became home to a large number of debtors, since the Exchequer and the Court of Common Pleas (both entertaining cases of debt) made use of it. Ludgate, founded in 1380 or shortly before, was on the other hand for freemen of London; it too came to be designated as a prison for lesser offenders, notably debtors or the better class of citizens and, after a brief abolition, was re-established as such during the mayoralty of Richard Whittington in 1419. The two Counters were minor gaols at changing locations (in the fifteenth century in Cheapside and the Poultry), under supervision of the sheriffs and therefore used for any type of offender who came into the sheriffs' court – although this was primarily debtors or other minor offenders (e.g. vagrants or drunks arrested by the night-watch) who could expect to be fined and released back into society. The Counters were not purpose-built structures; in earlier days the sheriffs had to use their own houses to hold such offenders, while in 1412 one of the Counters was in a house that had formerly been a tavern. The Tun on Cornhill was a temporary lock-up for those breaking curfew or offending againsts morals – typically, in both cases, whores, pimps, and johns; nearby was the city pillory.

Newgate, the oldest and largest of the city prisons, was also under shrieval jurisdiction, as were all the prisons run by the city. It was an adaptation of a city gate and adjoining buildings. As an already strongly-built structure, it received the more serious offenders, including informers and those they accused, the dregs of society; it was a correspondingly harsh environment. Some parts of Newgate were evidently quite unpleasant, but there was doubtless no inclination to make comfortable those destined for hanging – indeed many did not survive the prison conditions long enough to meet that fate. Being "thrown into prison" was perhaps literal in the case of the worst offenders, for we hear of one who died of a broken neck. The foundation of Ludgate was probably intended to prevent citizens being subject to Newgate conditions.

The executors of Richard Whittington obtained permission in 1423 to put part of the fortune he left to the rebuilding of Newgate, with the intent of creating more humane conditions for at least some of the unfortunate housed there. During his lifetime, Whittington seems to have funded the creation of separate quarters there for women. In 1424 the prisoners held there were transferred to the Counters while the work was undertaken.

After completion of the new gate and prison, the civic authorities enacted reforms (1431) that throw light on prison conditions. London freemen and others of similar socio-economic status were to be housed in rooms in the north side of the prison, which were furnished with fireplaces and privies, close to a fountain presumably installed to supply the prisoners with water. Women of similar status were to be housed in rooms of comparable condition in the south side. Prisoners from among these two groups were not to be in irons if gaoled only for small debts. And – it being recognized that imprisonment in damp basements or cells with little or no light could prove unhealthy – they were to be allowed a daily visit (without fee) to the prison chapel, and exhorted to pray there for the souls of their benefactors, Whittington and his wife. Prisoners of lower status and non-Londoners were consigned to rooms of lesser quality, while serious offenders were committed to cells in the basement and more secure spaces on the south side, and were not to be allowed to mix with the other prisoners.

Particular concern was shown for the alms that were the prisoners' livelihood. Those who, presumably having no independent means, wished to be transferred from the Counters to Newgate, in order to benefit from alms, were to be moved within 24 hours. Since it seems that much of the alms collected never reached the prisoners themselves, being purloined by the collectors or by prison officers, it was ordered that two pairs of prisoners should be allowed to beg for alms, at different locations, with each pair provided with a box and a saucer identifying them as prisoners. The collection boxes were to be secured so that only the city sheriff or chamberlain could open them, on a monthly or quarterly basis, and supervise the application of the money to purchase of provisions (food, heating supplies, candles). Prisoners were to be allowed to buy these from whatever source they chose, instead of being forced to buy from prison officials; only the supply of beer remained in the latter's hands.

The upper-scale prisoners were to be allowed to bring in their own beds, without charge. Otherwise the keeper could supply a bed with blankets, but at no more than 1d. per night, as was the fee at hostelries. Lamps and benches were also to be available at specified fees. Ludgate underwent improvements later in the fifteenth century.

The offices of gaoler were often farmed out by the city, so it was natural for such officials to look upon their posts as opportunities for private profit, by charging all sorts of fees for services. Several gaolers were dismissed for corrupt practices or were the target of complaints; an instance of this in 1388, with regard to Ludgate's keeper, may have been what led to the set of reforms above. Reforms did not attempt to abolish the charging of fees, which was a well-established feature of medieval administration, only to prevent it from being extortionate. Those who could afford to pay the fees could expect a more comfortable stay in gaol. While in the thirteenth century we hear horror stories of prison conditions, and the coroners rolls often refer to deaths of prisoners (without any hint of regret), by the close of the Middle Ages there is an impression of more humane conditions – except for those destined for the gallows – reminiscent of the Dickensian debtors prison.