‘A Man of Temper and Humanity’? The Character of the Ordinary of Newgate in the Spencer Collection

Dr Imogen Knox, John Rylands Visiting Early Career Fellow, tells us about her work on criminals in the Spencer Collection. In this post, she explores the reputation of Paul Lorrain, minister at Newgate prison, and public attitudes surrounding the treatment of criminals condemned to die.

James Sheppard was executed for high treason on 17 March 1718. Sheppard, a teenager, was condemned for plotting to assassinate King George I and install ‘the Pretender’ James Stuart in his place. Details of the crime and execution were published in the 19 March edition of the Ordinary of Newgate’s Account of 1718, contained within the Rylands’ Spencer Collection. 

The Ordinary was the minister who presided over the spiritual care of those confined to Newgate, London’s chief prison. As part of his office, he also held the right to publish accounts of the behaviour, life, and crimes of the condemned. As Amy Milka explains, these accounts ‘afforded the condemned the opportunity to confess, repent, and publicize their remorse and penitence’.¹ The publications were a lucrative aspect of the position, from which the Ordinary could earn up to £200 a year. 

Paul Lorrain was Ordinary from 1700 until his death in 1719, during which time he sought to expand the economic opportunities offered by the printed Accounts.² Lorrain used the outlet to promote his other writing projects and increasingly included advertisements for medicines, recent publications, and even local estate sales.³

A man of honour?

James Sheppard’s execution in 1718 gave rise to controversy. Some believed that the young man was ‘Lunatick, and therefore ought not to have been condemned to die’. Others felt that the behaviour of Paul Lorrain, the Ordinary, who attended Sheppard in his final days and published the account of his death in the Ordinary of Newgate’s Account of 19 March, had been inappropriate and unfair. 

The writer of an anonymous letter published in the aftermath of the execution (see also image below) criticised Lorrain’s ‘impertinent Visits’ and ‘Usage of the poor Boy’ during his imprisonment. The letter argued that Lorrain had slandered Sheppard in his Account of 19^th March. Indeed, Lorrain had described Sheppard as ‘very rude and unmannerly’ during his confinement, and ‘obstinate’ at the execution. The letter writer suggested that Sheppard simply had ‘nothing to say’ to Lorrain and desired to have his ‘precious Moments’ of remaining life ‘undisturb’d’ by the Ordinary’s questions. Rather than ‘A Man of Temper and Humanity’, Lorrain was, to the writer of this letter, one of ‘Wrath and railing Accusations’ who was unfit for office. 

Lorrain’s response to this ‘strange and unaccountable letter’, which he hints at in his Account of 31^st May 1718, is lost. Though frustrating for the reader invested in this dispute, its absence is unsurprising. Like many pieces of early modern print, the Ordinary of Newgate’s Accounts only survive in part. The John Rylands Library’s Spencer Collection contains a significant number of the surviving Accounts published between 1689 and 1730. These Accounts and associated print including the letter which criticised Paul Lorrain were acquired by George John, Second Earl Spencer, from the library of Narcissus Luttrell, a lawyer who lived and worked in London and Middlesex from the late seventeenth century until his death in 1732.

From this material we gain a fascinating insight into the experiences of criminals condemned to die and, as this blog post explores, the man who presided over them as they awaited execution. The Ordinary was responsible for the spiritual care of the prisoners but also occupied a position of power and financial gain. Paul Lorrain especially received criticism not only for his work but for his personal life and beliefs.

‘False and groundless’ rumours

As a result of his high-profile position, the Ordinary regularly drew criticism. Lorrain’s predecessor John Allen (1698-1699) had been dismissed for corruption, having extracted confessions from criminals by making false promises to reduce their sentence. The letter writer concerned with James Sheppard’s treatment in 1718 echoed this accusation, suggesting that Lorrain’s main concern was income from his ‘Penny Scribble’.

The execution of James Sheppard was not the only example of controversy in which Lorrain found himself. Two years earlier, in 1716, Lorrain had printed a letter (Spencer Collection 17604.155) which termed him ‘either the most ignorant Person alive, or else the most accomplish’d Sycophant’. Like the Sheppard affair, this letter had been occasioned by Lorrain’s treatment of men condemned for treason. Lorrain dismissed the author as a ‘Scurrilous Writer’ who was likely ‘either a Papist or an Atheist, or both’. His response to this letter also provides insight into his personal background. Striking back at a remark that he was ‘driven out of France for [his] Principles’, Lorrain hints at his Huguenot Protestant origin, stating that he left France ‘by the Cruelty of the Popish Religion’.

In 1719 yet more rumours circulated about Lorrain, this time that he had got drunk ‘at a Brandy-shop in Newgate-street, went thence to the Condemn’d Prisoners in the Chapel, where he shamefully spued upon his Cushion, and presently dy’d’. The same publication – which Lorrain himself detailed in the Account of 27 May (see image below) – also asserted that Lorrain was previously ‘a French Dancing-Master’ and had even been ‘try’d at the Old-bailey’ for an unspecified crime. Lorrain, who likely only spread these rumours further by detailing them in the Account, clarified that ‘all and every of those Passages’ was ‘utterly false and groundless’. He promised a reward for any information which could lead to the discovery of the author and printer of the ‘Scandalous Lying Paper’.

Lorrain remained a contested figure even after his death. In 1725 he was the subject of mockery by satirist Alexander Pope who called into question the truthfulness of his accounts of criminal lives and confessions. The criticism over Lorrain’s conduct in office and swirling rumours about his personal life indicates societal concern with precisely who was ministering to criminals in the capital’s most infamous prison. Even those who had been condemned to die deserved to be treated with ‘Humanity’ as they awaited death.

1. Amy Milka, ‘‘Preferring Death’: Suicidal Criminals in Eighteenth-Century England’, Eighteenth Century Studies 53:4 (2020), 694 ↩︎
2. Lincoln B. Faller, ‘In Contrast to Defoe: The Rev. Paul Lorrain, Historian of Crime’, Huntingdon Library Quarterly 40:1 (1976), 59 ↩︎
3. Peter Linebaugh, ‘The Ordinary of Newgate and his Account’, in J. S. Cockburn (ed.), Crime in England, 1550–1800 (London: Methuen, 1977), p. 248 ↩︎