Joseph Scadding (1714-1771)

St Mary and St Andrew's Church, Pitminster

Joseph Scadding was born in the parish of Pitminster in Somerset around 1714, the second son of James Scadding, a butcher, and his wife Margaret (nee Beffin). Pitminster was a village about four miles south of Taunton which included the tithings of Leigh and Blagdon. It may have been in one of these tythings that Joseph was actually born but he was baptised at the Parish Church of St Mary and St Andrew on 13 May 1714 [1].

When he was twenty-three years old he married Susanna Broom at her Parish Church - St Mary in Bridgwater, Somerset [2]. They went to live in Pitminster and their first twelve children were baptised at St Mary and St Andrew's church although at the time James was baptised, in 1739, the family was recorded as living in the nearby village of Corfe.

Banks of the river Ivel in 2006 - where the gaol once stood

Some time between 1753 and 1756 the family moved to Ilchester, then called Ivelchester, an ancient town on the banks of the Rivel Ivel or Yeo some twenty miles away. It was there that their daugters Jane and Fanny were born.

At this time Ilchester was the County Town of Somerset and home to the county gaol. In 1757 Joseph became the gaoler and the family moved into the quarters reserved for the goal keeper. His letter of appointment was signed in 1763 by Sir William Yea[3] and again in 1766 by the new sheriff, James Tooker who described Joseph as a yeoman.[4] As well as being gaol keeper Joseph probably kept a farm but part of his contract dictated that he "be constantly resident at the sd Goal at Ivelchester to attend the Execution of the sd Office of the Keeper" .

The indenture signed by James Tooker gave "authority unto him the said Joseph Scadding to keep secure and detain ... the Body and Bodies of all and every the prisoner and prisoners now being in the said Gaol" and of all future people arrested under the warrant of James Tooker, his under Sheriff and anyone else with the authority to arrrest. Joseph had to keep them secure "without any Escape or Escapes Ease or freedom whatsoever" until they were acquitted or discharged or until James Tooker's office of Sheriff ended and they became the responsibility of a new Sheriff. Joseph's first job was to make copies of all the current warrants and give them to Tooker or his under Sheriff, George Tuson, as an inventory of prisoners at the start of his term.

Sketch of the gaol from a painting

Part of Joseph's job entailed making sure the prisoner was taken to the Assize Court or Quarter Sessions as appropriate and returned to gaol, if necessary, at his own expense. If the prisoner was condemned to die then Joseph had to pay the executioner from his own money and watch to see that the execution was done. If it were a lesser sentence then Joseph had to inflict that punishment himself or pay someone else to inflict it.

In the early summer of 1765, the year before Joseph was re-appointed by Tooker, Mary Norwood, of Axbridge, was found guilty of poisoning her husband, Joseph Norwood, and was sentenced to be executed at Ilchester. She was brought from the prison at about three o'clock in the afternoon - barefoot, her legs, feet and arms covered in tar and dressed in a tarred cloth made like a shift with a tarred bonnet on her head. The summer heat melted the tar and it ran down her face. After being dragged on a hurdle to the place of execution Mary spent some time in prayer and singing a hymn before the executioner fixed a rope around her neck. She adjusted it to the right position herself and then the barrel on which she was standing was rolled away. Mary was probably already dead before the irons secured her to the stake and the fire lit around her. Executions were public events that drew large crowds but it was reported that great numbers felt unable to look as Mary's body burnt at the stake. The executioner seems to have been compassionate as he was reported to have pulled the noose tight several times to ensure she was dead before the fire was lit. What Joseph's thoughts were we don't know but if his contract with Yea was the same as with Tooker we do know that he must have been one of the onlookers.[5]

Under the terms of his contract Joseph had to indemnify James Tooker against anything that went wrong, taking the blame and consequences himself, and if any writs, actions, law suits etc. were delivered to Tooker or his assistants, Joseph would have to pay the fine. Basically James Tooker washed his hands of any responsibility and Joseph had to take full responsibility for any business relating to the running of the goal and the safe keeping of the prisoners.

Joseph's reward for all this was that he "may take all such lawful fees profits and advantages during the time of his Sherifalty of him the sd James Tooker as to the place and Office of Goaler or Keeper of the Goal Ward or prison aforesaid". These 'fees profits and advantages' were very profitable indeed. A prisoner's comfort depended on how much money he gave the gaoler for food, clothing and probably protection from the other prisoners where necessary, indeed if a prisoner paid enough he could stay in the gaol keepers apartment in relative luxury compared to the overcrowded, smelly and noisy cells.

Joseph died in 1771 aged only 57 years and he was buried on the 6 August in the parish church in Ilchester.[6]

---

Edward Scadding (1746-1811)

Edward was the eighth child of Joseph and Susanna having three older brothers and four older sisters. He was baptised in the parish church in Pitminster on 3 April 1746.[7] When he was seventeen years old he went to London as an apprentice with the Goldsmiths Company. He apprenticed himself to Luke Kendall, a Citizen and Goldsmith of London for the term of seven years, but on the same day he was turned over to Chas Barnes a Citizen and Draper of London. On 10 July 1767 having served out his indenture he was turned over to Benjamin Laver, a Goldsmith and Citizen of Old Bond Street in the parish of St George, Hanover Square.[8] 1771 turned out to be quite a year for Edward - he finished his apprenticeship in June and went to work in New Bond Street, London[9] but within two months his father died. Edward returned home and surprisingly took his father's place as the gaoler rather than pursuing a careen as a goldsmith. He was appointed Keeper of Gaol at Ilchester and of Sheriff's Ward or prison, by John Hugh Smyth, the new Sheriff of Somerset, on 19 February 1773 and reappointed in 1803 by Sir Hugh Smyth.[10]

Ilchester in 2006 with the church in the background

In 1782 Edward married Martha Norrington Ward at the parish church in Ilchester.[11] They went on to have twelve children, all baptised at the same parish church.

The following year the records show that Edward Scadding, gaoler at Ilchester, was earning £25 per annum, supplemented by the fees paid by the prisoners; debtors -14s 4d, felons -6s 8d, and the fees paid for the transports at £3 12s 0d each. Ilchester Gaol was licensed to sell beer and wine to the inmates giving Edward another source of income.[12] In February 1774 there were thirty-one debtors and twenty-two felons in the gaol giving an income of £54 11s excluding transports and food and wine profits. By 1807 Edward was earning £125 per annum, supplemented by debtors fees of 14s 4d and felons fees of 13s 4d, the felons fees being twice what they were in 1774 whilst the debtors fees remained the same. This all had the effect of tripling his income especially as there were fewer debtors and more felons.[13]

The convicts were a violent bunch, often devising methods of escape. On one occassion in early October 1786, whilst Edward was at Taunton Sessions, a number of them planned to get out together. A horse-stealer called Ward provided knives "to get off their irons" so that they were free to sneak out whilst "a party of them were to be posted in the passage". The idea was that the stoutest prisoners would be at the front, to fight their way through any opposition encountered, leaving the weakest to follow at the back. The attempt was postponed because one prisoner warned them that a Mr Pitman, who was generally in the gaol when Edward was away, and a debtor named Griffin were in a room overlooking the back yard where they would have to pass. Pitman and Griffin had access to firearms and would probably have been able to kill half of them from the window as they tried to get away. Ward wanted to carry on because, he said, "if half escaped it would do, for the other half would die an honourable death." The plan was discovered, however, because two of the weaker prisoners, Maggs and Sherlock, decided to confess rather than die an 'honourable' death so the plot was foiled.[14]

Edward had to take prisoners to Taunton or Bridgwater Assizes but also sometimes to London where he was accustomed to staying at a house called the Angel, behind St Clements.

In August 1799 Jane Austin's aunt, Mrs Leigh-Perrot, was committed to Ilchester Gaol to await trial for stealing £20 worth of lace from a haberdasher's shop in Bath. This was not considered a trivial crime and the punshment if she was found guilty could be transportation at best or even death. Mrs Leigh-Perrot, also called Jane, lodged with Edward and Martha in the warden's accommodation. This was not uncommon for those in her social position awaiting trial and for part of the time Jane's husband joined her. Jane expected only to be in the gaol whilst bail was arranged but when it was refused she had to make the best of her stay in the gaol. Letters from her were not kind about her circumstances but they do give us a picture of the Scadding household between autumn 1799 and spring 1800.

From the letters we deduce that Edward and Martha's household consisted of five young children as well as two dogs and three cats. The 'Miss Scaddings' are said to have given musical entertainment of an evening - presumably these were older children. The noisy younger children were probably the six-month old baby, Henry, two-year old Isat, Elizabeth (Betsy) aged three, five-year old James and Edwin aged nine. The musical young ladies were possibly Martha, aged eleven, Florence aged thirteen, fourteen-year old Letitia (Letty), Mary aged fifteen and Hannah aged sixteen. To add to the general chaos Mrs Leigh-Perrot complained that the smoke came back down the chimney causing an unpleasant atmosphere in the rooms. Cleanliness, once Mr Leigh-Perrots delight, fell far below his usual standard. Jane complained that the children laid greasy toast on her husband's knees, Small Beer was spilled on his sleeves and Martha licked the knives clean of fried onions. So the house was filthy and noisy. Edward is described as a vulgar man who would swear and shout. Jane hints that the food was so bad that she gave it to the ever hungry cats and dogs rather than offend by leaving it.

For all this Jane must have been much more comfortable than in the cells with the other prisoners and she acknowledges that the Scaddings weren't aware that their behaviour could be objectionable - their intention really was to make the Leigh-Perrots happy.

Jane found it to her advantage to make the best of things and be pleasant to the family - as Edward pointed out, he had a number of relatives and dependents who were always on the petty jury and may have been able to do her a favour.[15]

In court in Taunton Jane was cleared of theft and allowed to leave. She never sued her accusers for wrongfully claiming that she stole from them and rumours abounded as to her innocence and whether she had a propensity to petty theft - but either way it was said that her husband kept a sharp eye on her from then on.

Following Jane's release on 29 March 1800 she wrote a letter to Martha asking for the final account from her stay. Martha replied ten days later, enclosing the account and saying that she could not have been happier if it had been her own family acquitted. The letter has friendly gossip about the inmates, staff and Scadding family. Apparently Edward had been unable to attend Jane's hearing as he had been ill; he was now much better although still with a bad cough. Martha was upset at having weaned the baby Henry because he was now quite ill - possibly with his teeth. Presumably she felt there was a connection between Henry's illness and him not receiving his mother's milk.[16]

Mrs Leigh-Perrot obviously felt kindly to Edward and Martha because, instead of sending them the two guineas she owed on her prison account, she sent a cheque for £25. A reply assured Mrs Leigh-Perrot that Martha had not attended to her because of her rank in life, or in the hopes of any reward, and Martha confesses that she was unable to behave with civility when it is not in her heart - so if Mrs Leigh-Perrot was happy with their behaviour it was down to Martha's own merit. She went on to tell Jane of her concerns over poor Henry who was by then much worse, with a throat so sore he could hardly swallow. Martha was so sorry she had weaned him and worried that he might not survive. The children Florance, Letty and Betsy sent their love and Martha said that Isat thought Jane was coming to fetch her in a coach. Martha offered some homely advice to "wrap yourself up warm..." and "...take a few glasses of port wine every day." Martha's letters were signed "your sincere Friend M. Scadding" or "your Friend most Truly M. Scadding".[16]

In his book Grand Larceny being the Trial of Jane Leigh-Perrot, Aunt of Jane Austen[16], Sir Frank Douglas MacKinnon noted that Mrs Scadding "wrote with a very good hand" that, from the language of her letters and its "almost elegant handwriting", he would not have inferred that she was the coarse, vulgar woman described in some of Jane Leigh-Perrot's earlier letters.

In 1807 Dr Lettsom visited various prisons, including Ilchester, and wrote reports describing the gaol, the cells and a little of the life there. The picture we get is of a gaol partly surrounded by a 16 foot high wall which acted as security. Within the wall there were five separate blocks and court yards for men and women, with the felons and debtors kept separate. The gaolers house was in the centre of the courtyards, adjacent to the chapel, and had an area where the gaoler could grow vegetables. A water pump in the grounds supplied plenty of clean water. Most of the blocks had an arcade on the ground floor so that the prisoners could shelter from the rain, the upper two floors being the cells reached via a stone staircase. The cells varied in size slightly but were approximately nine foot by six foot and eight foot six inches high. The cells had double doors - the inner one made of wood and the outer one a metal grill. There was a window for fresh air, partly glazed and partly wooden slats. The rooms were furnished with an iron bedstead and straw - which was changed monthly and for which prisoners were charged. If they brought their own bed or shared a cell with another person the charges were less. If needed they could have a blanket, coverlet or rug but presumably they paid more for these luxuries. There were also some larger day rooms for the prisoners to use, a cellar, an infirmary and the Turnkey lodge. The gaol was whitewashed at least yearly. As Ilchester didn't have a manufacturing industry to employ the inmates they occupied themselves with handicrafts or playing games - fives, skittles or tennis. The men and women could also talk to each other as the separation between the men's and women's courtyards was just a low wall with a single pallisade. The inmates were washed and the men shaved regularly in the cold or warm baths near the main gate. The men were given a clean shirt every week. The prison clothing was yellow and brown stripes but as it was not compulsory few of the men wore it, prefering instead to wear their own clothes.[17]

Elections in Ilchester in the late 1700s and early 1800s were very corrupt affairs with would-be patrons of the borough's two parliamentary seats vying to control the personnel of the Corporation and thereby the bailiff - the returning officer at parliamentary elections.[18] In the 1790s Richard Troward, an atorney from London, owned large amounts of land in Ilchester and had a controlling influence over the Corporation. The 1799 by-election was won by Lewis Bayly, later Colonel Lewis Bayly Wallis, the heir of Albany Wallis who was in partnership with Richard Troward. Early in 1800 Wallis bought about half of Troward's property. At this time Edward Scadding owned, or claimed to own about 13 acres with various properties in Ilchester and Ilchester Mead. He offered to sell it to Richard Troward for £2500 but they failed to agree on the detail and the deal was abandoned. Around Lady Day in 1802, Sir William Manners started buying up property in Ilchester including the land that Wallis had bought from Troward. The following month Manners told his agent, George Tuson, that he wanted to buy up all the land in Ilchester. In about August 1802 Edward offered the 13 acres to William Manners, an agreement was drawn up for Edward to sell the various properties and land to William Manners and both signed it but the money was never paid and the deeds never handed over. Manners was now busy with elections and other property deals but he pursued the agreement with Edward through requests in a "friendly manner".

The 1802 elections were no exception to the corruption and vote selling of previous elections and this time they were declared void due to the bribery on both sides. The by-election the following year didn't fare much better, when Sir William Manners was disqualified for bribery. Manners, having previously bought much of the property in Ilchester in an attempt to influence the voting and become one the towns two MPs, wasn't going to give up easily. He wanted to increase his control by owning more land and houses and on 23 January 1805 he started a court case against Edward to force him into complying with their earlier agreement. Edward's delaying tactics had recently taken the form of arguing that one of the pieces of land being claimed by Manners was not in the Parish of Ilchester at all, but rather in the neighbouring Parish of Tintinhull - and he had only agreed to sell land in the Parish of Ilchester. Manners disputed this point and wanted all the land or, if it was proved that the land was indeed in Tintinhull, then he wanted an appropriate reduction in the price as he had believed that the disputed 3 acres was part of the deal. A writ was issued to Edward on the 18 May 1805. In his reply, on the 31 May, Edward denied all the charges against him and said he was ready and willing to sell but that Manners had simply "under various frivolous pretences" sidestepped the issue and therefore Edward thought that Manners was not willing or able to complete the agreement. Edward also claimed that he was unable to remember the details of the offer to Troward but thought it the same as offered to Manners - that is without the disputed 3 acres claimed to be in Tintinhull.

Northover House, the home of George Tuson in 1802, next to the gaol.

Following on from this, John Hayward - a young land surveyor from Horningsham in Wiltshire - was employed on behalf of Manners to measure the land shown to him by John Harvey, a yeoman of Ilchester. On the 8 January 1807 he gave his evidence at a meeting at the Blue Bell, an inn run by Edward Norris, where he gave values totaling 12 acres 1 rood 25 perches, including the land claimed to be in Tintinhull which, measured separately, came to 2 acres 1 rood 4 perches. Various people gave evidence on behalf of Manners, one of whom was George Tuson, who had been the Town Clerk in 1802 and also the steward who managed Troward’s estates in Ilchester. He claimed that Troward was given to believe that the whole of the lands offered to him were in the Parish of Ilchester including the disputed 3 acres. On about the 22 June 1807 the case was heard by the Master of the Rolls and the outcome was that Edward should sell all the land to Manners for £2500, pay all the court costs and bring all the deeds to the court. Edward either refused or declined to do so.

The following year Edward gave up his job as the gaoler and probably went to live on a farm in Northover.

Eventually on 2 July 1810, three years after the court's order, Edward took the deeds to the court. But Manners refused to pay because, by then, Edward had let the premises, or a large part of them, to people “in poor or indigent circumstances” – people who were destitute and unable to pay any rent. This would deprive Manners from any rent for a considerable amount of time. Manners also claimed that Edward had not maintained the properties since the agreement and they were in a very bad state of repair - in fact two of the properties had fallen down!  He now wanted to pay less but Edward refused to negotiate and therefore on 3 May 1811 Manners issued another writ against Edward claiming that he should now pay less for the land and property given the new situation that Edward had caused.[19]  

It was about this time that Edward wrote his will. In it he wrote that he had agreed to sell all his freehold and leasehold properties, except the Swan Inn, to William Manners and he instructed the executors to complete the deal. Edward died three months later in August 1811. William Manners issued a Bill of Complaint against the executors in October 1812, he still wanted his land and was prepared to pay £2500 for it. The executors sworn answers the following month showed that they still wanted to sell the land and were and had always been ready and willing to sell since the will had been proven in December 1811.[20] This sworn document had originally insisted that Manners also being paid them interest since June 1811 but the text was subsequently deleted. Presumably the deal was completed without further recourse to the law.

On acquiring the land Manners took drastic action and had most of the houses demolished, thereby making the former occupants homeless and so without a vote to sell. A workhouse was built in place of the houses and it is likely that many of his former tenants ended up there.

He achieved his political aims and in 1810 Manners purchased the Corporation land and the Lordship of the Manor of Ilchester. By 1825 he claimed to own all but three houses in the town and every close but one.

In 1801 the population of Ilchester was 942; it fell to 745 in 1811, owing at least partly to the eviction of political opponents by Manners. The population then rose steeply, to 994 in 1821 and 1,095 in 1831, again partly due to Manners, who offered houses and grazing to potential voters and supporters.[21]

Edward's executors were Samuel Trent of Pen Mill Yeovil, Henry Hodding of Fordingbridge in Hampshire and William Trent of Ilchester. William Trent was his brother-in-law, the husband of his sister, Isat. Samuel Trent , the miller, married Edward's daughter Florence in 1808 and Henry Hodding married Edward's daughter, Letitia, in 1809. With the proceeds from the sale and the remainder of Edward's estate the executors were instructed to pay all other debts and then invest £900 so that the interest could be used to provide for the younger children, Elizabeth, Isett, Henry and Sarah during their minorities. If the executors chose there was provision for them to use the Principal to provide for the childrens future in the proportions of £200 to each daughter and £300 for Henry. After the death of Martha[22] all his goods etc were to be divided between the surviving children Edwin, James, Henry, Florence, Letitia, Martha, Elizabeth, Isett and Sarah.[23]

Following Edward's death on or about 6 August 1811[24] his death notice in the Gentleman’s Magazine describes him as “the humane keeper of the Gaol for the County of Somerset.”[25]

His household may have been noisy, chaotic and dirty; he may have sworn and shouted a lot but in the end Edward was remembered for his humanity.

---

Sources

[1] Pitminster Parish Records transcript - Society of Genelogists (SoG)
[2] Somerset Marriages (pre-1754) - Federation of Family History Societies (FFHS)
[3] Yea family papers, DD\DR/50/5 - Somerset Archive and Record Office
[4] DD\DP/76/3 - Somerset Archive and Record Office
[5] Report on the execution of Mary Norwood
[6] IlchesterParish Records D\P\Ilch/2/1/1 - Somerset Archive and Records Office
[7] Pitminster Parish Records transcript - Society of Genelogists (SoG)
[8] Apprenticeship records - Goldsmiths Company Records
[9] Freedom records - Goldsmiths Company Records
[10] Ashton Court Papers, AC/O/8/5/a and AC/O/8/7/a - Bristol Record Office
[11] Somerset Marriages (post-1754) - Federation of Family History Societies (FFHS)
[12] "Ilchester Gaol" - Taunton Local Studies Library
[13] "A Prisoner in Gaol" - Taunton Local Studies Library
[14] Extract of letter from Mr Scadding, Keeper of Ilchester Gaol,dated 12 Oct 1786 - The Times October, 30 1786
[15] Extracts from letters printed in Notes and Queries for Somerset and Dorset, vol. xviii.
[16]Grand Larceny being the Trial of Jane Leigh-Perrot, Aunt of Jane Austen by Frank Douglas MacKinnon .
[17] Extract from "The County Gaol at Ivelchester" by Dr Lettsom in the Gentleman's Magazine for August 1807.
[18].From: 'Parishes: Ilchester', A History of the County of Somerset: Volume 3 (1974), pp. 179-203. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=66498. Date accessed: 05 January 2008
[19] .Court of Chancery C13/1987/45, C13/56/36, C13/1378/6 - The National Archives, Kew.
The property that was listed in the agreement was:-
i) All that close of meadows or pasture commonly called Cole-Plot Mead situate in Ilchester.
ii) All that one acre of meadows late part of six sexterns of meadow situate in Ilchester Mead near a place called Burlinghams Corner.
III) All that house formerly known by the name of the Red Lion stable and since the Meeting House situate in Ilchester together with a Backside and and garden thereunto adjoining and belonging.
iv) All that close of arable land since converted into an orchard formerly known by the name of Rodds Closesince of Rodds Close Orchard or Frampton's Orchard situate in Ilchester together with two cottages newly built thereupon.
v) All that the reversion in fee simple land in all that plot of land adjoining to the said close formerly called Rodds Close together with the houses and buildings to the said last plot of ground belonging which were formerly built upon some part of the ground called Hutchings-house and afterwards called Bemberton situate in Ilchester.
vi) All that piece of meadow land called Cestern situate in Ilchester Mead aforesaid subjec to the life of Giles Raymond.
vii) All that close of meadow or pasture grouns known by the name of Oathill otherwise Worthill situate in Ilchester.
viii) All that other piece of meadow land containing by estimation three acres situate in Ilchester Mead nad near to the said two pieces of land or one of them above described to be situate in Ilchester Mead
[20] .Court of Chancery C13/143/31 - The National Archives, Kew.
[21].From: 'Parishes: Ilchester', A History of the County of Somerset: Volume 3 (1974), pp. 179-203. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=66498. Date accessed: 05 January 2008. From: 'Parishes: Ilchester', A History of the County of Somerset: Volume 3 (1974), pp. 179-203. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=66498. Date accessed: 05 January 2008.
[22] Martha died in 1833 in Fordingbridge the town where her daughter Letitia and her husband Henry Hodding lived.
[23] Death Duty Registers IR26/290 - The National Archives, Kew.
[24] Death notice, Taunton Courier 15 August 1811
[25] The Gentleman's Magazine. 1811

Other sources
Goldsmiths Company Records - Apprenticeship records, Court Books etc. Thanks to the staff at the Goldsmiths Hall for their help with my research.
British Universal Directory 1793-1798
A History of the County of Somerset: Volume 3 (1974) URL:http://www.british-history.ac.uk/source.aspx?pubid=545
Jane Austin by David Nokes, 1977