The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1881-10-28
The Fall of Newgate
Some Of its Associations and the High An.
tiquity of the Place.
London Saturday Review ]


The precise reasons which induce the city
authorities to demolish Newgate have not yet
been made public. To the outsider 1t would
sometimes appear as If every municipality and
corporation, religious or lay, was subject to
periodical fits of destructiveness. As prison
Newgate, no doubt, is antiquated; but we
shall probably see the present building sao-
ceeded by a smaller one for the safe custody OF
prisoners during the sessions, and may ask
without impertinenee why the old prison could
not have been a little altered aud made suit
able without absol0ts destruction. Many OF
the arguments against the removal of Temple
Bar apply with greater force here. We were
told, for instance, by innumerable writer's that
Temple Bar was the last of the city gates.
They forget, or never knew, that 1t never had
been city gate; but Newgatc is unquestion-
ably one wing of real city gate, having been
built on the site of the southern portion OF the
ancient arched entrance to the city from Hol-
born.
AS to associations, also, Newgate is far more
interesting than Temple Bar 1t vies, in fact,
with the Tower in the eminence OF its involun-
tary inhabitants. Though 1t would he q mock
cry to say Of the present edfice that 1t is orna-
mental, il is undoubtedly one of the most sat-
isfactory public buildings in London-gioomy,
strong, impressive, and with its object as
plainly marked on it as II the word prison
was stamped on every stone. Dance, its archi-
tect, deserves the credit OF having designed
a perfectly simple, but perfectly suitable fn-
cade, the more so as though it Is 800 feet long,
it has no windows, except in the central por-
ton, only thirty feet in width. Although the
height is only fifty feet, the effect produced BY
the mere mass and outline is comparable TO
that of a Norman keep. The central lodge.
with its numerous arched windows In five
stories, has been severely criticised; but, with
out some such feature, the plainness OF the
rest of the front might have failed OF its doe
effect. The earlier design consisted OF only
three stories with an entablature, but the pres
ent arrangement is very preferable. The
statues removed from the old gate, and now
set up in two inches on the front and two at
the south side. are somewhat incongruous, and
the festoons of fetters form very lugubrious
kind of ornament. The 100 years OF its exist
ence have seen many alterations and improve
ments of the interior, but haYe left the exteri-
or substantially as it was when the new build
ing was completed in 1882.
The name of Newgate may be compared
with that Of Newport at Lincoln. Both belong
to the entrance of Roman cities. 1t may be
too much to say that Newgate is the Oldest OF
the London city gates, but it would be dim
cult to prove the greater antiquity oil It's rival,
Bishopsgate. AS a Roman gateit has the az
vantage, for the northern entrance to Roman
London was some distance to the east Oh medl-
the place where the Watingstreet reached
the city wall. When the Romans had diverted
the old road at what is now the Marble Arch,
so that it no longer pursued the course OF tho
modern Park lane to the ford at Westminster,
but turned toward what was then the newly
constructed bridge at London, of the gate on
the hill was determined by the place in the
valley below, of the bridge over the Fleet.
The Holebourn in later times took an English
name from its course among the high cay
banks of Coldbath Fields; here 1t became a
tidal estuary wide enough for ships probably
as large as any then built A water-gate may
have existed at Ludgate, though there are GER
tain indications to the contrary; but the prin-
cipal entrance to the later Roman London
must have been by Newgate. a fragment OF
the road which crossed the city diagonally
from Newgate toward the great bridge over
the Thames still bears its aucient name; but
even here the Waiting street is not quite on
the original site The exact date OF the
alteration to which Nswgate owes its existence
will now in all probability, never be known.
1t must have been after the Roman occupation
of Britain, but that is all we can say with GER
tainty. OF Newgate itself. however, 1t will bc
safe to assert that it was first built when the
Romans made their new wall to take IN not
only the ancient city, but also its suburbs.
Even here, too, the exact date eludes US, bus
it must have been between the time OF Julian
the Apossate and that of Valentinian, or In
the ten years between A. d. 800 and $40.