Joseph Scadding (1714-1771)
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.
Some time between August 1754 and August 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[4] and again in 1766 by the new sheriff, James Tooker who described Joseph as a yeoman.[5] 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.
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. Execution of Mary Norwood 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.[7]
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.[8] 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.[9] 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[10] 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.[11]
In 1782 Edward married Martha Norrington Ward at the parish church in Ilchester.[12] 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 (an increase of £5 per annum from two years earlier), supplemented by the fees paid by the prisoners on their discharge; 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.[13] 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.[14] In contrast in 1780, according to a report by John Howard, the chaplain Rev. Mr. Pester, was earning £50 per annum for a three day week. Attempted escape by Ward, Maggs and others Mr Pitman was possibly William Pitman, Edward's brother-in-law who also provided the beer that was sold to the prisoners and was the licencee of the Ark in the 1790s. Attempted escape by William Meech
Aiding a prisoner to escape carried a harsh penalty as Joseph Meech found out in April 1796. In the previous November William Meech (alias Jones) was in custody in Ilchester Gaol convicted of larceny (theft). One day Edward found him released from one of his fetters and discovered that William had three small files on him which he had used to get out of the fetter. It turned out that when, in November 1795, Joseph Meech (alias Jones), a horse dealer from Wilmington in Devon, went into Stephen String's cutler's shop in Yeovil and bought three small files he was seen by Roger Pople, a yeoman from Thorncoffin. Sometime later William Gooden, a labourer, reported that when Joseph brought cheese and bread into the gaol for William he also "slipped him privately something else". The witnesses were believed and at the Easter Quarter Sessions held in Wells on 6 April 1796 Joseph Meech was found guilty and sentenced to be transported for seven years.[16] Edward had to take prisoners to Wells, Taunton or Bridgwater Assizes but also sometimes to London where he was accustomed to staying at a house called the Angel, behind St Clements whilst his charges attempted to get an order from a Judge of the King's Bench granting bail. No doubt these trips to London also allowed him time to meet with some of his old friends from his apprenticeship days. Mrs Leigh-Perrot's Trial 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 - or otherwise![18]
The trial of Jane Leigh Perrot took place in March 1800 at the Taunton Assizes held in the Great Hall of Taunton Castle. She must have felt very apprehensive as she approached the Castle knowing that she could be sentenced to death if found guilty. The Hall was so crowded a newspaper reported that no fewer than 2000 persons could be present.
The trial lasted almost six and a half hours but eventually 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.[19] 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 her 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".[20] In his book Grand Larceny being the Trial of Jane Leigh Perrot, Aunt of Jane Austen[21], 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.
Dr Lettsom's Report Howard's earlier report of 1780 indicated that the women-felons had no day-room as a room that seemed to have been for that purpose was being used by Edward as a stables.[23] In 1800 there were a speight of various challenges to Edward on his behaviour and conduct at the gaol: A Mr Gould asserted that a man committed to Ilchester Gaol under the Game Laws was in fact an employee on a farm owned by Edward and was freed ten days before his sentence elapsed. Edward admitted that this had indeed happened but that the man had been freed by the gaol's turnkey without his knowledge and this had happened seven months ago. A Mr Broderill accused Edward of getting profit from beer that was sold in the goal by being in partnership with his brother-in-law Mr Pitman. Edward denied making a profit and Pitman explained how he actually sold the beer 1d a quart cheaper to the gaol than to other persons. Sir Abraham Elton said that there was a report that Mrs Leigh Perrot was frequently out of prison whilst in Edwards care. This also was denied by Edward except for the time before she was recommitted by the Judge after applying for Habeas Corpus. There were also accusations of bad treatment to a prisoner, Smith, but he was unable to bring proof of the accusations and several people spoke for Edward testifying that they never knew of a any cruelty or inhumanity towards prisoners in his care.[24]
Edward’s daughters, Hannah, Letitia usually called Letty and Martha known as Patty had busy social lives. They would be expected to marry and so had to get out and meet lots of young men and in the process they had a great time. Their mother accompanied them on some occasions but more often they seemed to have a fair amount of freedom. Frequently they would take afternoon tea with a group of friends and then go for a walk, perhaps to a neighbouring village, returning in time for a musical interlude with one or two of the young ladies showing off their skills at the piano before supper and leaving around midnight.
Neast Grevile Prideaux was a young man working as an articled law clerk in Ilchester when the Scadding daughters were in their teens and frequently joined them for tea and supper, sometimes at the Scaddings’ or at the house where he lived with his employer, Mr George Tuson, and his family. They would meet up at the same parties and Neast would dance with many young ladies including Hannah, Letty and later Patty when she was old enough to join them, although in his journal he seems to favour Letty. Hannah appears to have been a quieter girl than the more outgoing and bossy Letty. On one occasion Letty, Patty, Neast and a few others were out at 5 am in the hope of seeing an eclipse of the sun. The cloud was too thick so the disappointed young people set out for a walk. Letty proposed that they should go and call on Mrs Stower, a lady who had a farm in nearby Mounthanger, for breakfast. Some of the group objected as it might not be convenient to call but Letty quickly put a stop to any objections and they called on Mrs Stower only to find her milking the cows and too busy to breakfast. She allowed them to make their own breakfast whilst she continued her work and Neast cut the bread and buttered it, made the tea and cleaned up everything afterwards with help from Florence Jones, another of the party. On another occasion walking home from a party Letty became breathless and Neast had to stay back and look after her whilst the others crossed the bridge and went on ahead. He recalls that the moon shone delightfully! Letty also liked dressing up and at one party she dressed up as gypsy and read Neast’s fortune in the cards.[25] Parlour games like ‘Blindman’s Buff’ and ‘My Lady’s Toilet’ and card games were played at the parties and a special treat might be a magic lanthorn show. Whilst the mother's of these young people often joined them for afternoon tea and a walk Mrs Scadding still had a very young family to look after and often entertained her relations and friends at her own house. Neast's employer, George Tuson, was a lawyer and the county clerk of Somerset and as such was very much involved in the organisation of the elections in Ilchester. William Manners
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.
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.[27] 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.[28] 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.[29] 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[30] all his goods etc were to be divided between the surviving children Edwin, James, Henry, Florence, Letitia, Martha, Elizabeth, Isett and Sarah.[31] Following Edward's death on or about 6 August 1811[32] his death notice in the Gentleman’s Magazine describes him as “the humane keeper of the Gaol for the County of Somerset.”[33] 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) Other sources Acknowledgements Photographs of Taunton Castle and The Great Hall - with thanks to Somerset County Council Heritage Service. Copyright Photographs copyright Pauline Leggat 2006 - 2009 Copyright Pauline Leggat 2009
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
