MANCHESTER AND SALFORD PRISONS:BELLE VUE PRISON RECORDS

From June 28th 2010 all the prison records described on the following pages can be viewed by appointment at the new temporary home of Manchester Archives at the Greater Manchester County Record Office in Marshall Street , Manchester. The office is located in the northern quarter of the city, Marshall street runs between Oldham Road and Rochdale Road see here for more details.

This batch of research is something that I am really proud about. It has taught me a lot about the legal system in the Victorian Age and also the social and economic conditions of that time. Other than the hard worked archivists at Manchester Central Library, I have had the privilege of searching through these records before most other researchers. They did not have the time to be able to search these fantastic records as I did. As a result of my many finds MALS have been able to update their catalogue. This included a very significant find.

When people had been sentenced by the various courts they were held in several different locations in the area. With the exception of military prisoners, anyone who was sentenced to longer than six months' penal servitude of longer was usually sent to Millbank Prison in London or Kirkdale near Walton, and later Walton Prison itself. I have extracted the 1851, 1861 and 1871 Census Returns for Millbank Prison which are shown on a separate page.

The registers are very large and heavy to handle. The pages 20 ^3/4  x 14 ^1/2  inches and each records goes across two pages under the column headings; Register Number; Prisoner's Name; When and by Whom Committed; How Committed; Summary Convictions; Sentence; Age Last Birthday; Height: Hair; Eyes; Complexion; Marks Upon Person and Remarks; Profession Trade or Occupation; Place of Birth; Last or Usual Residence (and Address of Friend etc if to be advised of Prisoner's discharge; Religion; Extent of Education; Register in Last Case; Married and number of Children or Single; Parents Living; number of Previous Committals; Register in last case; Register in Next Case; Record Book; Letter Book; How disposed of at trial; Letters Received; Letters Out; Date of Discharge.

It is unusual for all of the main headings to have been completed.

It is well worth remembering that at the time these register were compiled the Court system was different from the one we know today. Prosecutions were mainly brought about by individuals as opposed the state or the police. In the case of the Assize Courts, Grand Juries were sworn in before each session began. These were usually the elite local worthies, such as MPs, factory owners etc who had to be freeholders. Their numbers usually consisted of 23 members and decisions were by majority, with a minimum number of 12 voting in favour. Their job was to review the indictment against a prisoner drawn up by the legal clerks and issue, or not as the case maybe A True Bill of Indictment which was they presented to the presiding Judge.  Quite often in these prison registers in the column marked for the sentence handed out, the words "No Bill Offered" , Bill Ignored" or "Bill Cut" can be seen. The effect of all three was the same, the person was not tried and released immediately. Whether these phrases were used for slightly different technical reasons, such as a procedural irregularity or lack of evidence, I was not certain. I therefore sort the advice of a Law lecturer from Manchester.

No Bill (Offered) indicates that the Grand Jury issued no indictment and that the Judge had no option but to dismiss the case. 

Bill Ignored indicates that although a Bill of Indictment had been issued but it was for the wrong reasons as the Bill did not reflect the evidence being advanced. For example where someone is accused of armed robbery, but the evidence being put forward suggests that the crime was one of assault.  Therefore the Bill had been issued for armed robbery and was no basis for a conviction of assault. The Bill would therefore have been ignored

Bill Cut occurs in more borderline cases, the Bill is not quite right.  There's a difference between burglary and theft.  Burglary requires violence, but theft does not.  If a Bill was issued based on evidence that might  be grounds for a conviction of theft, but the arguments being advanced by the prosecution emphasized the violence used, it  become clear that the Bill was an approximate, but ultimately inaccurate, reflection of the crime for which prosecution was being sought.  In these cases, the bill was cut.

The Manchester Guardian of August 3rd 1868 published the following under the cross head "Stabbing at Belle Vue": The Grand Jury ignored the bill against James Early who was charged with stabbing Sophia Madders, on the 22nd June, and he was set at liberty. Another form of Indictment was a Vexatious Indictment. In order to prevent these the Government passed the Vexatious Indictment Act, 1859, later amended by the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1867, which provided that no Bill of Indictment for perjury, conspiracy, indecent assault or certain other misdemeanours, should be presented to the Grand Jury unless the prosecutor had been bound over by recognizance to prosecute, or unless the person accused had been committed to or detained in custody, or unless the Indictment was issued with the written consent of the Attorney-General. This was the situation until the Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act of 1933. Part of the provisions of this Act abolished the Grand Juries and amended the law as to the presentment of Indictments.

If a True Bill of Indictment was issued the case would then be heard before a Petit Jury of twelve men.

It should also be remembered that in the cases of prisoners appearing in the upper courts, the charge  appearing in the registers is the one that they were originally charged with, and not necessarily the one for which they were actually prosecuted. Quite often prisoners would have the charges reduced from a felony to a misdemeanour. I have seen examples of prisoners being charged with murder and seemingly receiving only a two months prison sentence. I will quote some examples from a famous case later. Therefore in cases where prisoners get what seem to be very light sentences, it is wise to check the newspaper reports of the trial or where available the court records. The reverse can also be true e.g. a charge of Attempted Murder may also have been increased to Murder.

The Penal Servitude Act 1853 saw the beginning of the end of transportation. The Act substituted periods of penal servitude i.e. time in prison usually with hard labour, as punishment for most previously transportable offences.  Most transportation ended by 1867 but the sentence of transportation was not abolished until 1887.  Technically those held in prison were known as prisoners, but those sentenced to penal servitude or transportation were known as convicts, though I don't suppose the people involved were that concerned what they were called.

What was the difference between a Common Prostitute and a Disorderly Prostitute? It all depended upon which Act of the Parliament the lady was convicted under. A Disorderly Prostitute was convicted using the Disorderly Houses Act of 1751. In other words a prostitute who had been operating in a disorderly house i.e a brothel. A Common Prostitute was convicted under the Vagrancy Act of 1824. This referred to women who commonly (as in often) prostituted themselves on the streets. Theses Acts were amended as time when by and were eventually removed from the Statute Book.

BELLE VUE PRISON

Also known as the City/Borough Gaol. Opened in 1849 (now known not to be accurate, see below) by the Borough of Manchester, it was mainly a short term gaol. The longest sentence was usually six months  with many prisoners serving much shorter periods, although there are a few examples of prisoners serving as long as two years' imprisonment. However some longer sentences were doled out to military deserters. Both males and females were incarcerated here. It was also used for holding people on remand awaiting trial at the Assize court and those who had been sentenced to longer sentences who were awaiting transfer to a long term prison. Many of the prisoners were tried at the Quarter Sessions. Located on Hyde Road, the prison was demolished in 1892.

Belle Vue Prison c1855

Courtesy of Manchester Local Image Collection

Records available: (there are some gaps) General Register for both men and women; April 1850 to May 1853; 7 Mar 1859 to 8 Jul 1861; 9 Jul 1861 to 17 Apr 1863; Apr 1863 to Nov 1864; 21 Nov 1864 to 22 May 1866; 22 May 1866 to 15 Jun 1867; 5 Mar 1869 to 2 Nov 1869; 2 Nov 1869 to 18 Aug 1870; 18 Aug 1870 to 8 Jun 1871; 8 Apr 1872 to 6 Mar 1873; 6 Mar 1873 to 26 Jan 1874; 26 Jan 1874 to 25 Oct 1874; 14 Jul 1875 to 24 Mar 1876; 25 Mar1876 to Nov  29 1876; 29 Nov 1876 to 12 Sep 1877 and 19 Jun 1878 to 2 Apr 1879.

Census returns for the above can be found at:

1851 HO 107 2219 folio 434 (also available on M & LFHS CD)

1861 RG 9 2875 folio 131

1871 RG 10 3986 folio 92

1881 RG 11 3912 folio 123

I have now looked at all of the available volumes of these records and many names keep reappearing for the same crimes such as being drunk and riotous, abusive language, neglect of children, drunken driving, prostitution and so on. For these offences the sentences were in the range of three days to one months imprisonment with hard labour or a heavy fine as an alternative. It did not seem to matter how many previous convictions the person had committed. I noted one woman who been convicted of being a common prostitute received a sentence of fourteen days. She  had 108 previous convictions.

However, for crimes of a more serious nature the punishments were severe. Stealing from the upper classes was not tolerated. The following is an entry for one of the "regulars" who was convicted for abusive language and being drunk and riotous on more than a few occasions.

94803 Elizabeth RASPBERRY. 25th April 1874. Stealing from the person of Wm Savage 1 watch his property. Sentence: Sessions May 7th 1874. Female 43 years 5' 2". Dark complexion, black hair, grey eyes. Pockmarked face, lost left eye, scar from cut on forehead and left eyebrow, left ear ???? down,  ears pierced. Occupation: Hawker. Place of birth: Ireland. Person to be notified on release: Friend, Fanny Cochrane, Cumberland St. Roman Catholic. Reading & Writing; nil. Widow, five children. number of previous convictions: 31. How disposed of at Court: Seven Years Penal Servitude with Hard Labour. Comments: Removed to Millbank June 24th 1874.

This next entry relates to the Bill of Indictment on the previous page.

1182: Thomas WILLIAMS. 13th April 1851. Tendering on the 25th January 1851 to Ellen Drake one piece of false & counterfeit coin resembling a sixpence also tendering another 10 days thereafter to June Smith one other false and counterfeit coin resembling a shilling well knowing it to be false and counterfeit. Age; 21 years. ht; 5 ft 9ins. Fresh complexion brown hair grey eyes. Scar right of forehead, 2nd & 4th toes off right foot. Labourer. Liverpool. No settled residence. R C. Reading & Writing: Nr (Non reader). Married with one child. Mother living. How disposed of at Court: six calendar months + hard labour. Date of discharge: Aug 13th.

The charges in the register differ slightly from those in the court records.

My later research indicates that this prison did not open until April 1850. The construction of the gaol was dogged by the plans being altered on almost a weekly basis to cater for changes in design of the use of particular material. The heating system was found to be unable to keep the cells at a reasonable temperature. Some cells were noted to be as cold as 44 degrees. The toilets in the cells were inadequate as was the iron work on the cell windows. The ventilation system did not work correctly. Steam in the washhouse did not disperse. All these faults were noted in a report by the Visiting Justices, who had to issue a licence before prisoners could be housed, dated 10th December 1849.

A Manchester Corporation  sub-committee meeting dated March 14th, 1850 indicates that the prison was not yet open, but that plans should be made ready for the transfer of prisoners from Lancaster Gaol.

The first 25 pages of the prison register M600/1/1/1 are missing and the first full entry is dated mid April, but given the number of convictions at that time and transfers from other gaols, an opening date of 1st April 1850 is not impossible. It was coincidently a Monday. Also it is noted in the minute that the first Borough Sessions after the opening of the gaol was April 8th 1850.

Even after the goal opened for prisoner, it took a long while to be fully operational. A report from June 11th 1850 states that 150 male cells, 50 female cells, 8 reception cells were fully furnished, leaving a further 273 cells to be furnished.

In July 1850 the surgeon noted in his journal: "I have  this day ordered the patients to be removed from the Female Infirmary into cells on account of the extreme dampness of the Infirmary which renders it unfit for use." About the same time the Matron recorded the following in her journal: " The Wardens and Jane Judge, a prisoner who attended to the sick at night, have spoken to me this morning concerning the very bad smell in the corridor from the cells occupied by the prisoners who are sick, particularly that of Mary Maxwell although clean bed and bedding were given yesterday and every possible care taken as to cleanliness. Both Maxwell and McGuire screamed out several times in the night so loud that they were heard all over the Female Prison."

Very soon the number of prisoners incarcerated in the gaol was too great to accommodate, and both men and women had to be sent to the New Bailey Prison, Lancaster and elsewhere. By August 1855 the Borough Gaol Committee had reached the following decision: "Your committee recommended the council to authorise and instruct your committee to take, with as little delay as possible, all the steps necessary to enlarge the accommodation within the the prison walls of the city prison, to the extent indicated upon this plan now submitted, by which it is proposed to give up the whole of the present prison for the confinement of male prisoners only, and to enlarge the wings B and C, so as to obtain 150 additional and separate cells, making the whole number of cells in that prison, 582 and to erect a new building in which 250 separate  cells  shall be provided for the confinement of females: thus making the total number of cells for both sexes, 832 separate cells."

Even after the "new" prison was constructed they were still severe problems. The sewage system was not capable of handling the waste products and the dangers from disease in such a confined environment must have been a constant worry. Below is an extract from the Surgeon's Journal in 1865.

Reg no 30209 died this morning at 5:30 a.m. from typhus fever. She was sent to the gaol on the 13th Oct 1865 for 14 days or pay 18/-. soon after coming into prison she complained (19th) of symptoms of  Febricula and on the 24th was sent to hospital as suffering from fever of a severe type, evidently having its origin in a contagion before she came into Gaol, and developing itself severely in prison, so that at the expiration of her time I did not consider her in a fit state to be removed -- I have for some time felt the want of a Dead House to which bodies could be removed from their cells, and in a case like this, fatal from a very contagious disease, it is very important that some provision be made.

The Visiting Justices were constantly making reports about various faults in the prison, even complaining about the wrong type of tread mills being installed. As previously stated the prison was demolished in 1892, but it closed much earlier than that. Many sources state that the building was condemned because of mining subsidence. The following is taken from the South Manchester Gazette dated 7th January 1877 under the sub heading of "The Closure of Belle Vue Gaol":

 The Magistrates' Clerk read the 10th annual report of the Visiting Committee of Her Majesty's Prison, Hyde Road, which stated that on 24th May 1887, all the prisoners were removed from Hyde Road  to Her Majesty's  Prison at Strangeways, and from then until the present time all prisoners committed by the justices of the city have, by the discretion of  the Secretary of State, been sent to Strangeways prison. The books and documents were likewise moved to Strangeways and Knutsford Prisons, as the committee are informed, by which removal the committee are unable to give the usual figures as to the number of prisoners committed and other particulars embodied in their reports. The Mayor said the reasons given for closing the gaol was that it was unnecessary to have three prisons open at Strangeways, Knutsford and Manchester. There was a diminution in the number of prisoners, which was a very happy state of things under the circumstances. Mr Beard asked whether it was not a fact that the foundations of the tower were giving away. The Mayor said he believed it was.

In reply to Alderman Hopkinson and other Magistrates, the Mayor thought that he matter would be best settled in a legal manner. Parliament seemed to have anticipated things and provided for them in the Act. It was a lawyer's question, and rested upon the interpretation of the Act. The city would be relieved of a permanent cost in the matter.

I have recently found a copy of this report and is differs slightly from the newspaper version of events.

COURTESY OF MANCHESTER LOCAL STUDIES

Whatever the true reason for closing  of the gaol, I am sure that there would be few people who regretted its demise.

MAIN SOURCES;  PRISON RECORDS AT MANCHESTER ARCHIVES AND LOCAL STUDIES AND LOCAL NEWSPAPERS

RETURN TO THE TOP OF THE PAGE                           RETURN TO MENU                         

NEW BAILEY                                                                      STRANGEWAYS

This site is CONSTANTLY being updated. In order to keep track of these updates just click on the Google button . This will add this site to your Google home page or Google Reader.