John Ashton

__________

CHAPTER XIX.

THIS prison was of great antiquity, and its genealogy, like all respectable ones, dates back to William the Conqueror, at least; for we find, under date 1197, [84] "Natanael de Leveland & Robertus filius suus r.c. de LX marcis, Pro habenda Custodia Domorum Regis de Westmonasterio, & GaiolÆ de Ponte de Fliete, quÆ est hÆreditas eorum a Conquestu AngliÆ; ita quod non remaneat propter Finem Osberto de Longo Campo." Or, in English, "Nathaniel de Leveland and his son Robert, fined in sixty marks, to have the Custody of the King's Houses at Westminster, and the Prison at Fleet-bridge, which had been their inheritance ever since the Conquest of England; and that they may not be hindered therein by the Counterfine of Osbert de Longchamp."

There seems to have been some double dealing in this transaction, in which, as was only natural in those days, money went into the King's pocket.[85] "And Osbert de Longchamp fined in five hundred marks, to have the King's favour, and seizin of all his lands and chatels whereof he was disseised by the King's Command, and to have seisin of the Custody of the Gaol of London, with the Appurtenances, and of the Custody of the King's Houses of Westminster: provided that Right be done therein in the King's Court, in case any one would implead him for the same." [86]

Robert de Leveland, the son of the foregoing Nathaniel, was bitten by the then fashionable craze for Crusading, for he is found, in 1201, petitioning King John for leave to delegate the care of the King's Houses at Westminster, and the Fleet Prison, to Simon FitzRobert, Archdeacon of Wells, for the space of three years, during which time he should be in the Holy Land. His prayer seems to have been granted; but he evidently drew a little money before he went away, for, in the Chancery Rolls of the same year, he was paid £15 10s. by the City of London, on account of the King's Prison of Flete, and he also received other sums of £10 12s. 10d. for the Custody of the King's Houses at Westminster, and £7 12s. 1d. for the Custody of the Gaol of London.[87] By which, and also by the foregoing notice of Osbert de Longchamps, it is evident that, at that time, the Fleet prison was the principal, if not the only, prison in London.

Robert de Leveland re-entered upon his duties after his three years' leave, and a document is extant[88] in which he is excused payment of £10 he had borrowed; but (possibly in lieu) he was bound to serve beyond the seas—i.e., in foreign parts—with horses and arms. When he died is not known, but his widow evidently succeeded him as custodian, for in December, 1217, [89] his wife Margaret has the same allowance given her in regard of the King's Houses at Westminster "as the said Robert had been accustomed to during his life." Thus she was the first female Warden of the Fleet; there were others, as we shall see by and by.

It is a moot question, and I put it forward with all reserve, as to whether there was not even an earlier mention of the Fleet before the very authentic case of Nathaniel de Leveland; but as it is open to objection that there were more Fleets than one, I only give the cases, and make no comment. [90] 1189: "William de Flete gave a Mark to have his plea in the King's Court touching a hyde of land, versus Randolph de Broy." And again,[91] in 1193: "Richard de Flet fined in one hundred Marks, that his daughter might be delivered from Ralf de Candos, who said he had espoused her."

In the Rolls are many cases which mention the Fleet, but, although it was a House of Detention, for debtors, especially to the King, and persons committing minor crimes, it never seems to have been degraded into what we should now term "a Gaol." No felons seem to have been incarcerated there, and there is no mention of gyves or chains, but they were used in after years.

It would seem that another "lady" Warden of the Fleet existed in Edward II.'s time, for, in 1316, "Johanne, late Wife of John Schench deceased, who held of the King in chief the Serjeanties of the Custody of the King's Palace of Westminster, and of his Prison of Flete, married Edmund de Cheney, without licence obtained from the King, in that behalf. Whereupon the said serjeanties were taken into the King's hands, and straitway the Treasurer and the Barons committed the Custody of the Palace of Richard Abbot, who was sworn de fideliter, &c., and the Custody of the Flete Prison to John Dymmok, Usher of the Exchequer, who was sworn in the like manner. Afterwards the said Edmund made Fine for the said Trespass, and the said serjeanties were restored." By which we see that thus early "women's rights" were fully recognized, and "employment for females" in occupations hitherto enjoyed exclusively by men, seems to have been in force.

Although not in Chronological Order, I may as well add another, and the only other mention that has come under my notice of a female Warden (1677): [92] "A Woman Guardian of the Fleet, marries her Prisoner in Execution; he is immediately out of Execution; for the Husband cannot be Prisoner to his Wife, it being repugnant that she, as jaylor, should have custody of him, and he, as husband, the custody of her."

Without some effective supervision, as is the case with our Prison Commissioners, abuses were bound to creep in, and the Governor or Warden of any Prison, (who doubtless had paid heavily for the appointment) had to recoup himself by squeezing the unfortunate prisoners, and we shall find several examples of this in the Fleet. The earliest seems to have been in the second year of Henry IV. (1400) when a petition was presented to Parliament [93] which prays, in its quaint Norman French that "les fees de Gardien de Flete sorÉnt mys en certain" that the fees might be settled.

It is possible that extra fees were taken for a certain amount of liberty allowed to the prisoners by the Warden, who would allow him to go out of gaol on certain conditions, and we may be certain, for a consideration also. The Warden was answerable for his Prisoner, and if he escaped, he had to pay the debt, so that we may be certain that his ephemeral liberty was highly purchased. That this was the case we find in 7 and 8 Hen. IV. (1406)[94] "que si ascun Gaoler lesseroit tiel Prisoner aler a large par mainprise [95] ou en baile, que adonques le persone envers qi le dit Prisoner estoit condempne aureoit sa action et recoverir envers le dit Gaoler." Or in English, "That if any Gaoler allowed such Prisoner to go at large, either by mainprize or bail, that, then, the Person to whom the Prisoner was indebted might have his action, and recover against the said Gaoler." Yet, notwithstanding this, there were many actions brought against the Wardens for allowing their prisoners to escape. A relic of this power of the Wardens to accord a certain amount of liberty to their prisoners, obtained till the last hours of the Fleet. There was, in the Rules, a defined district surrounding the Prison, in which prisoners, on providing approved sureties for the amount of their debt, and paying some fee, might reside, on condition that they did not overstep the boundaries. That this custom of granting temporary exeats was very ancient, is indisputable, for, in the 1 Richard II. (1377) a complaint was made that the Warden of the Fleet "sometimes by mainprize, or by bail, and sometimes without any mainprize, with a Baston of the Fleet," i.e., accompanied by a prison official, would allow his charges to go abroad, "even into the country."

It is impossible to give a list of all the prisoners of note who were committed to the Fleet, and they must only be glanced at, but with the accession of Mary, some illustrious and historical names appear. First, and foremost, and almost immediately after her accession to the throne, we read, thanks to the preservation and collation, of State Papers,[96] that on the 29th of July, 1553, a letter from the Privy Council was sent to the "Wardene of the Flete, for the apprehensyone and commyttyng of the Lord Russell, Anthonye Browne of Essex, and John Lucas." All these prisoners seem to have been treated with great leniency, for there is a letter (July 31) to the Warden of the Fleet bidding him to give Mr. Lucas and Mr. Cooke the libertye of his Garden, so that there must have been a garden then attached to the Fleet prison—and a postscript orders that "he shall delyuer Mr. Anthonye Browne, and suffer hym to goo to his awne Howse."

Nor were the others kept long in durance, for on the 3rd of Aug., 1553, the Council wrote to the Warden willing him "To set at libertye John Lucas, and John Cocke, Esquiers, giueing them Commaundement withall to repaire to their Mancion Howses and their to make theire aboode vntill they shall here further of the Queene's Pleasure." And even the incarceration of Lord Russell was mollified, for a letter was written on 9th Aug. to Mr. Garret, one of the Sheriffs of London, "whereby the Countesse of Bedforde is licensed to have free access twise or thrise in the week, unto the Lord Russell, her son, remayning in the said sheriff's custodie, so the sheriff be present at their Talke and Conference."

I give the above so as not to spoil the continuity of the story, but there is mention of the Fleet prison long before; for instance, in 1355, Edward III. wrote "to his well-beloved and trusty, Simon Fraunceys Mayor of the City of London, Hugh de Appleby, and Robert de Charwaltone, greeting. Whereas we have been given to understand that the Foss [97] by which the mansion of our Prison of Flete is surrounded, and which, for safety of the said prison was lately made, is now obstructed and choked up by filth from latrines built thereon, and divers others refuse thrown therein, that there is cause to fear for the abiding there of the persons therein detained, by reason of the same; and because that, by reason of the infection of the air, and the abominable stench which there prevails, many of those there imprisoned are often affected with various diseases and grievous maladies, not without serious peril unto themselves. We, wishing a befitting remedy to be applied thereto, and that the said Foss may be restored to its former state, in which it was when it was first made, and so improved; and, for making provision thereon, desiring upon the matters aforesaid more fully to be informed, have assigned you, and any two of you, to survey the Foss aforesaid, &c."

This warrant was followed by an Inquest held at the Church of St. Brigid in Fleet Street on Tuesday, the 9th of January, 1356, on the oath of Richard le Cok, (Cook) Nicholas le SporiÈre (Spurrier), and Thomas le Glaswrighte (Glassblower) and nine others. From it we learn that the "Foss of Flete" ought to be ten feet in breadth all round the Prison; that it ought to be so full of water that a boat laden with one tun of wine might easily float round it; and that the shelving banks of the Foss were then covered with trees. Also that it was quite choked up with the filth of laystalls and sewers discharging into it; and that no less than eleven necessary houses (or wardrobes, as they seem very generally to have been called in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries) had been illegally built over it "to the corruption of the Water in the Foss aforesaid; and to such an extent is the flow of water obstructed and impeded thereby, that the said Foss can no longer surround the Prison with its waters, as it should do." [98]

The Acts of the Privy Council throw some light on the Fleet, giving several instances of Committals thereto, one of the first being 9 Hen. V. Oct. 14, 1421. [99] Wherein Hugo Annesley, who probably was then Warden of the Fleet, was directed to incarcerate therein one Grey de Codenore, who had been exiled, and having received his passport, remained in England, notwithstanding.

In 1 Henry VI.,[100] 19 May, 1423, the "gardein de notre prisone de Flete" was commanded to bring before the King some prisoners whom he had in custody, namely Huguelyn de Chalons, Johan Billy, Johan de Cheviers, Regnault de Graincourt, Hellyn de Bassiers, Pierre de Mombreham, and Pierre de Pauniers "noz prisoniers prisez a la reddicion de notre ville de Harefleu."

In the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries are many notices of committals to the Fleet, so numerous that I can only mention a few, one only of which I give in the original spelling. 32 Hen. VIII. Sept. 9, 1540.

"Lr~es was also brought from the Lord Pⁱvey Seale, declaring a certayn affray to be made by S^r Geoffrey Poole in Hampshyre upon one Mr. Gunter a justice of peax, for that (as Poole sayd) one of Gunter's srvants had spoken evill of hym, and for that also that hymself Gunter had disclosed to the King's Counsail in the tyme of Poole's trouble certain secret conference which Poole had w^t hym. And answer was made to the sayd Lord Pⁱvy Seale that calling the complaynt eftesones before hym the lordes and others the gent~ and justices of peax in the cutrey to thentent the cryme of S^r Geffrey might be notorious to all the Cutrey there he should c~mytt the said S^r Geffrey to the Flette to remayne there until further knowledge of the Kings pleas^r."

Evidently great interest was made for this naughty Sir Geoffrey, for we learn on Sept. 24th that "It was declared to the Lady Poole, the wife of Sir Geoffrey Poole, that the King's higness had pardoned her husband of his imprisonment," and the Lord Privy Seal was directed to release him. But he seems to have been a very cantankerous knight, for we find him in hot water again next year. April 8, 1541, "Whereas Sir Geoffrey Poole, Knight, had violently and contrary to the King's Highness' peace assaulted and hurt [101] Sir John Mychaill clerk, parson of Racton in the County of Sussex," and he had to put in sureties to keep the peace towards the said parson, and to answer the bill preferred against him. But it seems that he had some provocation, for a letter was written to him requiring him to remember, as far as he could, the "haynous and traytorous woords spoken by S^r John Michaell."

On Nov. 7, 1540, Browne, the son and heir of Sir Matthew Browne of Surrey, was committed to the Fleet, together with some of his servants, for burning a certain stack of wood in Surrey. On Jan. 8, 1541, John Gough of London, printer, was sent to the Fleet for printing and selling a seditious book. On March 18, 1541, there seems to have been a riot among some of the servants of the Gentlemen of the Privy Chamber, and three of them were committed to the Fleet. On April 24, 1541, a smuggler was put into ward here, one Giles Hasebarde of Southampton, a "berebruer," who had put on board "a ship of Holland, named the Mary of Dordroyt," five pockets of wool, without a licence, intending to send them to Flanders. For this he was sent to the Fleet, the wool confiscated to the King's use, and the Master of the ship was mulcted in half the value of his vessel; but Hasebarde was not long in durance, as he was liberated on April 30th. To thoroughly understand the reason of this man's imprisonment in the Fleet, we must remember that he was sent there as being a Debtor to the King, and in the fifteenth century it was a very common practice for delinquents who were confined in other London prisons to confess themselves, by a legal fiction, debtors to the King, in order to get into the Fleet prison, which was more comfortable. But to show the variety of so-called crimes, or misdemeanours, which were punishable by imprisonment here, there is the case of John Barkley of Canterbury, innholder, who was committed to the Fleet for having molested the King's Highness with sundry troublous supplications, and it was found that he "appered manyfestly to be a comen barrater [102] and a malicious pomoter of false and injust mattiers to the gret vexac~on of the Kings faithfull subjects."

It was also used as a house of detention, for we find Oct. 17, 1541, that Cowley the Master of the Rolls in Ireland, was examined, but because the time was too short to do it thoroughly, the Lord Chancellor sent him to the Fleet "untill syche tyme as the King sholde com~ to London." It seems to have been a refuge for misdemeanants, for April 3, 1542, John Bulmer Esquire, for his wilful disobeying of an order taken between him and his wife by the Council, was committed to the Fleet. And does not Shakespeare make Sir John Falstaff a denizen of this prison? (Second Part King Henry the Fourth, last scene).

"Chief Justice. Go, carry Sir Iohn Falstaffe to the Fleete
Take all his Company along with him.
Falstaffe. My Lord, my Lord.
Chief Justice. I cannot now speake, I will heare you soone:
Take them away."

Sir Rd. Empson, so well known in Henry the Seventh's time, was indicted for sending, without process, persons accused of murder, and other crimes, "to the late King's Prisons, to wit the Fleet, the Compter, and the Tower of London." And, from the Articles of Impeachment against Cardinal Wolsey, it would seem that he was in the habit of committing to the Fleet, those who thwarted him in his demands. One case (Article 38) is: "Also that the said Lord Cardinal did call before him Sir John Stanley K^nt which had taken a Farm by Covent Seal of the Abbot and Covent of Chester, and afterw^ds by his Power and Might, contrary to Right, committed the said Sir John Stanley to the Prison of the Fleet by the space of a Year, unto such time as he compelled the said Sir John to release his Covent Seal to one Leghe of Adlington, which married one Lark's daughter, which woman the said Lord Cardinal kept, and had with her two Children; whereupon the said Sir John made himself Monk in Westminster, and there died."

Here is another example of the Cardinal's highhanded method of dealing with those who did not exactly bend to his will, in Article 41 of his Impeachment: "Also where one Sir Edward Jones, Clerk, parson of Orewly in the County of Bucks, in the 18th year of your most noble reign, let his s^d parsonage with all tithes and other profits of the same to one William Johnson, for certain years; within which years, the Dean of the s^'d Cardinal's College in [103] Oxenford pretended title to a certain portion of Tithes within the s^d parsonage, supposing the s^d portion to belong to the parsonage of Chichley, which was appointed to the Priory of Tykeford, lately suppressed, where (of truth) the Parsons of Orewly have been peaceably possessed of the s^'d portion out of the time of mind: Where upon a Subpoena was directed to the said Johnson to appear before the Lord Cardinal at Hampton Court, out of any term, with an injunction to suffer the said Dean to occupy the said portion. Whereupon the said Johnson appeared before the said Lord Cardinal at Hampton Court, where without any Bill the said Lord Cardinal committed him to the Fleet, where he remained by the space of twelve weeks, because he would not depart with the said Portion: and at last, upon a Recognizance made, that he should appear before the said Lord Cardinal, whensoever he was commanded, he was delivered out of the Fleet. Howbeit, as yet, the said Portion is so kept from him that he dare not deal with it."

Footnotes

[84] Mag. Rot. 9 Ric. I. Rot. 2a, Lond. & Midd.

[85] Mag. Rot. 9 Ric. I. Rot. 14b, Kent.

[86] Liberate Rolls, p. 25. Rot. Lit. Pat. Hardy, p. 4.

[87] Rot. Cancell. 3 John, f. 100.

[88] Close Rolls, 6 John, f. 33.

[89] Close Rolls, 2 Hen. III., f. 346.

[90] Mag. Rot. 1 Ric. I. Rot. 2b, Bedef. Til de Oblatis CuriÆ.

[91] Mag. Rot. 5 Ric. I. Rot. 2a, Nordfolch and Sudfolch.

[92] See Platt's Case cited Vaughan's Reports 1677, p. 243.

[93] Rolls of Parl. vol. iii. p. 469.

[94] Ibid. vol iii. p. 593a.

[95] Allowing a prisoner to go at liberty on finding sureties.

[96] Hayne's State Papers, vol. i.

[97] The moat or ditch fed by the Fleet, which washed the walls of the prison.

[98] See "Memorials of London and London Life in the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Centuries," by H. T. Riley, 1847, pp. 279, 280.

[99] "Proceedings and Ordinances of the Privy Council of England," edited by Sir H. Nicholas, 1834, vol. ii. p. 303.

[100] Ibid. vol. iii. p. 93.

[101] Beneficed Clergy were given the title of Dominus or Sir—as Sir Hugh Evans, in the Merry Wives of Windsor.

[102] A vexatious and litigious person—one who stirs up strife.

[103] Christ Church, Oxford.

Decorative End of Chapter

---

Decorative Chapter Heading

CHAPTER XX.

THE Fleet was, evidently, a handy prison, elastic enough to suit all cases, for on Aug. 19, 1553, at the Star Chamber, "Roger Erthe, alias Kinge, servaunt to Therle of Pembroke, and William Ferror, servaunt to the Lord Sturton, were, for making of a Fraye, committed to the Charge of Warden of the Fleete."

In September, 1553, the Fleet received a prisoner whose name is historical wherever the English language is read, for the Privy Council being held at Richmond, on the 1st of Sept. "This day appered before the Lordes, John Hooper, Bishop of Gloucester, and Miles Coverdale, Bishop of Exon. And the said Hooper, for Considerations the Councell moving, was sent to the Fleete."

Turning from Mary's reign to that of Elizabeth, we find equal religious intolerance, for we read in Strype's "Annals of the Reformation, A.D. 1582, "that Fleetwood, the Recorder of London, sent a letter to the Lord Treasurer, informing him that one Osborn, a priest and Franciscan friar, had been examined, and confessed that "in crastino EpiphaniÆ, he said Mass in the Fleet (where many recusants were committed) in the Lord Vaux's Chamber, (to whom he was related) before that Lord, Mr. Tresham, Mr. Tyrwhit, and others," which three, at the London Sessions, in Guildhall, were convicted on Osborn's evidence.

Fleet parsons were evidently an institution in the sixteenth century, for besides the above-mentioned Osborn, there was another committed to the Fleet, on May 27, 1584, one Sir R. Stapleton. His fault seems to have been that he had preached against the Archbishop of York, for which he was arraigned in the Star Chamber, and was, with others, ordered to read an apology—which he did—but in such a contemptuous manner, that he was sent to the Fleet.

In the seventeenth century, many Puritans were incarcerated here, especially after the Restoration, when their gloomy fanaticism ill accorded with the ideas of the age. The bow had been strung too tightly during the Commonwealth, and when it was unstrung the reaction was great. So many were put into prison for conscience' sake. Even in Elizabeth's reign there were many in prison, and we can hardly wonder at it when we consider it was an age of religious intolerance, and the religion professed by these devotees was of a most unattractive character. Strype, writing of A.D. 1588, says of them:

"In the Summer Time they meet together in the Fields, a Mile or more.[104] There they sit down upon a Bank. And divers of them expound out of the Bible, so long as they are there assembled.

"In the Winter Time they assemble themselves by five of the Clock in the Morning to the House where they make their Conventicle for the Sabbath Day, Men and Women together. There they continue in their kind of Prayers, and Exposition of Scriptures, all the Day. They Dine together. After Dinner make Collections to pay for their Diet. And what money is left, some of them carryeth to the Prisons, where any of their sort be committed.

"In their prayers, one speaketh, and the rest do groan and sob, and sithe,[105] as if they could wring out Tears. But say not after him that prayeth. Their Prayer is Extemporal."

In January, 1600, Lord Grey of Wilton was committed to the Fleet, by Queen Elizabeth's order, for assaulting the Earl of Southampton, on horseback, in the public street.

There is a fair bibliography of the Fleet prison in the seventeenth century. In 1620-1 there was a broadsheet published "A briefe collection of the exactions, extortions, oppressions, tyrannies, and excesses towards the liues, bodies and goods of prisoners, done by Alexander Harris, Warden of the Fleete, in his foure yeares misgouernment, ready to be proued by oath and other testimonies." This was answered by Harris, and his MS., which is in the possession of the Duke of Westminster, was published by the Camden Society in 1879, entitled the "Œconomy of the Fleete; or an Apologeticall Answeare of Alexander Harris (late Warden there) unto XIX Articles set forth against him by the prisoners." Of which book more anon.

Then there was a "Petition to Parliament of the distressed prisoners in the King's Bench, Fleet and other prisons"—but this has no date. In 1647 was published "A Whip for the Marshal's Court by Robert Robins Gent, being his Petition to the House of Commons." The preface to the Reader, is dated from the Author's "Iron Cage in the Fleet." In 1653 there was "A Schedule; or, List of the Prisoners in the Fleet remaining in custody May 25, 1653."Some of them were very bad cases, as "William Gregory committed February 7, 1651, one Outlawry after Judgment, severall other Outlawries and Trespasses, no sums mentioned;" or "Hustwayte Wright committed June 29, 1650, for £31 1s., Execution, besides Outlawries, Latitats and Cap. no sum appearing."

"Thomas Keneston committed Nov. 4, 1646, for 51,000 Actions, and severall Orders of the Exchequer." In 1669 appeared "A Companion for Debtors and Prisoners, and advice to Creditors, with a description of Newgate, the Marshalsea, the two Counties, Ludgate, the Fleet, and King's Bench prison." In 1671 was published "A Short Narrative, or Anatomie of the Fleet Prison &c.," by John Knap, M.D. In 1690 there was "A plea for the City Orphans and Prisoners for Debt." In 1691 appeared a soul-harrowing little book, called "The Cry of the Oppressed, a tragicall Account of the unparalleled Sufferings of the poor imprisoned Debtors and Tyranny of their Gaolers, with the case of the Publisher (Moses Pitt)." Here the interest is much heightened by numerous engravings showing how prisoners were beaten, made to feed with hogs, were covered with boils and blains, the females outraged by their gaolers, and many other enormities. I would fain quote at length from this book, but space will not admit of it. In 1699 we find "An Argument that it is impossible for the nation to be rid of the grievances occasioned by the Marshal of the King's Bench and Warden of the Fleet, without an utter extirpation of their present Offices."

The Case as made out by the prisoners against the Warden, Alexander Harris, in 1620-1, was, if it could have been thoroughly substantiated, most damaging to him, but they overreached themselves by their manifest exaggeration. A few examples will suffice. There were nineteen counts against him all of grievous weight, but we will only take four as a fair sample. (1) Murder; (2) Felony; (3) Robbery; (4) Excessive Rates for Chambers. First, as to the Charge of Murder, this is the accusation: "After knowne quarrels and fightings between two prisoners, lodging them in one chamber, where, quarrelling and fighting againe, and notice to him thereof giuen, and of likely further mischiefe; this notwithstanding, continuance of them together, vntil the one murthered the other."

This referred to two prisoners, Sir John Whitbrooke and another named Boughton. According to the Warden's account Whitbrooke did not deserve much pity. In July, 1618, he was given into the Warden's Custody, by the order of two Courts, to be kept a close prisoner, but he soon developed "dangerous energy," for on the 10th of the same month, almost immediately after his committal, he "came into the Warden's studdy where the Warden (in his gowne) was wryteing, and fashioned his speech, sayeing that he came to speake with the Warden about his lodging, who answeared that he would willingly speake about that, and money for it, whereupon the Warden putting dust[106] upon the wryteings and turneing his back to lay them aside, Sir John Whitbrooke strooke him on the head with the sharpe ende of a hammer, whereof one Cleft was before broken off, and the other cleft newly whett, giveing fower wounds to the scull, and some bruses before the Warden could close with him; but then the Warden thrusting him out of the studdy, did throwe Whitbrooke on the back, and took away the hammer, Whitbrooke (being undermost) did hould the forepart of the Warden's gowne soe as he could not rise; att which tyme the Warden's blood abundantly gushed downe upon Whitbrooke, and the Warden could have beaten out Whitbrooke's braynes with the hammer, but that he was neither wrothfull nor daunted.

"Then after, two maydes servants (heareing the noyse) came into the roome, and one loosed Whitbrooke's hands from the Warden's gowne, or ells the Warden must have killed him to acquitt himselfe. Soe soone as the maydes came the Warden shewed them the hammer all bloody, telling them that Whitbrooke had wounded him therewith; the butler of the howse then alsoe comeing upp to cover the table, the Warden bidd him and others (which followed) to laye hands upon Whitbrooke &c.; but to take heed they hurt him not; soe they letting him rise and rest himselfe, he took a stiletto out of his pockett and stabbed the Warden's deputie cleane through the middle of his hand, which (notwithstanding it was presently dressed by a good chirurgion) did rankle upp to his shoulder, and was like to have killed him; he also stabbed the porter of the howse directly against the heart, and drewe blood, but it pierced not: he stabbed the gaoler into the hand and twice through the sleeve of his dublett, so as then they lay violent hands upon him, put on irons and carryed him to the strongest warde of the prison (called Bolton's warde)."

And a perfectly proper punishment for any one who ran amuk like Whitbrooke because there was an organized mutiny. "And upon this some three score prisoners breake upp all the strongest prisons and dores of the wards and Tower chamber, assaulting the Warden and his servants with weapons &c., according to a plott and purpose before resolved upon, as appeares by depositions."

The poor Warden had no bed of roses, more especially as the female element was afterwards introduced in the shape of Lady Whitbrooke, who of course, was a warm partisan of her husband. Harris writes:

"The lady alledgeth that in September the quarrell betweene the Warden and Whitbrooke was renewed.

"The Warden answeareth that in July, 1619, Whitbrooke and Boughton with six others (being lodged in a great Chamber) they and six more shutt out thirtie of their Companie and fortefied the gaole against the Warden, refused all perswasions of the Warden, constables, and Alderman's Deputie, the comands of the Lord Cheife Justice, of the Lord Chauncellor and his Serjeant at Armes; yet yeilded to the clarke of the councell sent from the Lords. Whitbrooke and Boughton being then in one humour; and, upon unblocking the prison, Whitbrooke desired liberty; it was offred him upon security, he would give none, then he made question where to lye, to which was answeared there were five other roomes he might make his election of, which he would; but he said he would none other but where he formerly laye (it being indeed the fayrest). They fortified these roomes againe when the Warden was out of towne, soe as during Whitbrooke's life and Boughton's being there with their adherents the Warden had noe comand in that part of the prison."

It is almost needless to say that these peculiarly unquiet spirits quarrelled among themselves. We have heard enough of Whitbrooke to know that he was a quarrelsome cur—impatient of restraint, and thoroughly lawless in his habits; but it is evident that he persuaded his wife that he was an injured innocent; for, in poor Harris's "Apologia pro sua vita," a story which he tells so naively, and so nicely, he says:

"The lady alledgeth that the Warden (for revenge) resolved and reported he would send Whitbrooke to Boulton to keepe.

"The Warden answeareth that he for governement sake and to suppresse misdemeanours doth thretten to putt prisoners (offending) into Boulton's Wards (Many yeares familiarlie soe called as he thinketh of bolts or irons put on them), where Whitbrooke was put when he wounded the Warden and his servants; he continued there but a small tyme, and was removed to a roome called the Tower Chamber (where Henry Boughton and many others did lye), thence Boughton was removed into the common prison in December, 1618, and Whitbrooke was removed thither June 16, 1619, soe as to that tyme they lay five moneths within one lodging, and six moneths severed in other lodgings and noe quarrell stirred.

"The Lady alledgeth that presently at their comeing together Boughton suddenly stabbed and wounded Whitbrooke, whereof he dyed.

"The Warden answeareth that over and above the eleaven months aforesaid, yet from June 16th untill September 16, 1619, being 3 moneths, they two combyned in their exploits against the Warden without falling out (for ought the Warden knewe), but 16 September Boughton fell out with Harvey (one of his chamber felowes), whom Boughton assayled with his teeth, and bitt him by the thombe, whereof Whitbrooke, Willis, Harvey, and others there lodged, advised the Warden, wishing him to take some course. The Warden sent divers messages by the gaoler to Whitbrooke to remove thence and to lye elsewhere; he would not, sayeing none should remove him but by violence, and they were so strong there, as the Warden could doe nothing, none ells durst come amongst them. Holmes and Maunsell offered him libertie amongst other gentlemen upon bonds.

"The Warden acquainted the Lord Chauncellor of their fortifications, of some other stabbing there, of this particular brawle, and besought his lordshipp to send them to Newgate. The Lord Chauncellor comanded such motion to be made at the tyme of a seale; it was moved by Mr. Woomelayson, as appeares by his briefe, then his lordshipp wished oath to be made of this offence, and called for presidents [107] to remove them, in which meane tyme Boughton (being provoked and wounded by Whitbrooke) did stabb him, whereof he dyed within 13 dayes, and it was about 14 moneths after he wounded the Warden and stabbed his 3 servants as appeareth by the generall lodgeings and places where they laye, sometymes together, and sometymes severed, ensueing to be seene in the end of this answeare to this Article, and, if the testimony (which was long after delivered to the Warden, by a prisoner in the Fleete) be true, then the same Harvey, and one Tymothy Willis and Sir John Whitbrooke himselfe, did (of sett purpose) whett on Boughton to anger and quarrell, because they scorned Boughton and meant to assayle him.

"When Whitbrooke, Boughton, &c., ymured themselves upp in the wards as aforesaid, a view or survey of the roomes was given the Lordes of the Councell, and they (were) satisfied.

"After the tyme of the supposed quarrell (which was about Whitbrooke's and Boughton's fortifieing the house) they contynued lyeing where they were before, amongst others.

"Wheresoever they had lyen they might quarrell when they mett, as Whitbrooke many moneths before broke Willis his head with a pott or candlestick." These two ill-conditioned animals fell to loggerheads, and Boughton drew upon Whitbrooke, and so wounded him that eventually he died. And this shows the very lax discipline that then obtained in the Fleet. Of course, no weapons should have been allowed, but "It is alsoe alledged that Boughton did provide a sword, and it was brought him by a woeman from whom the porter of the Fleet tooke it, and delivered it to the Warden (as he did indeed) and therefore say their accusers that the Warden knew the same sword was to kill Whitbrooke.

"The Warden had it about a yeare and a halfe before this accident (of Whitbrooke's death) happened, and delivered it back againe to the woeman that brought it, with charge not to bring any thither whatsoever.

"It was avouched that the sword was Boughton's, and put to dressing to a Cutler, who sent it home againe, so as Boughton might have killed Whitbrooke with it before it went to dressing, if he had intended any such thing. Nay, Boughton had alwayes in his trunck (as appeared afterwards) a stilletto so keene, so cleane and ready, as would soone have done such a fact if he had meant it; yea, swords and other weapons want not in the Fleete, and the Warden cannot prevent it. This fact was mere accidentall, and not precogitate as the lawe hath founde it, which acquitted Boughton of Manslaughter upon his arraignement." Harris, I think, and, most probably, my readers will agree with me, has made out a very fair case in his own favour; but I must not deal with the other charges against him at such length.

Footnotes

[104] Presumably, from the town.

[105] Sigh.

[106] There was no blotting paper in those days, but pounce was used, which was either powdered resin, gum sandarach, or copal, or powdered cuttle fish. I believe that pounce may even now be bought at law stationers. It was dusted on to the wet ink by means of a pepper caster.

[107] Precedents.

Decorative End of Chapter

---

Decorative Chapter Heading

CHAPTER XXI.

THE second count brought against him by his mutinous prisoners was "Remouing a prisoner out of his chamber, hauing 51 lib. 1 s. hid vnder his bed, which the prisoner required he might go to his chamber to dispose of, which was denied, and he thrust vp in another roome close prisoner, vntill the Warden and some of his seruants rifled his bed of that mony."

Hear the Warden's defence:— "By this is pretended that one Coppin (who euer did beare the name of a poore fellowe) lost 51 li., with takeing whereof, if he dare charge any person or persons the Lawe is and hath beene open for him theis two yeares past. But his abettors haue putt it here rather to infame, then that they can think it true, as by the ensueing answeare appeares.

"For Edward Coppin, liued as a poore prisoner in the Fleete for breach of a decree, and continueing above six yeares, would never be drawen to pay the Warden one penny for meate, drinke, lodging, or attendance; but at last he ran away, and was upon the Warden's pursuite taken againe, but before he ran away, he was sometymes restrayned of the libertye of the Fleete yards and walks (as is the custome of all prisons in England); and he lodging in the three Tower Chambers with sixteene persons, they often thretned their keeper to stabb him, to take away the keyes of the prison, to bind him, to hang him; lastly they fortefied that prison, soe that the Warden could not dispose or order them. And with two malletts and steele chissells they had cutt the stone workes of the dore, soe as noe locks or bolts could shutt them; and while they were thus doeinge Coppin came downe to fetch a mallett, wherewith he was taken beneath, and presentlie put into another warde aparte from his fellowes, about three a clock in the afternoone 15 July 1619, not speakeing of any money."

Master Coppin was one of Boughton's gang, but even that malfaiseur could not back up his claim, for "A rumour was spredd in the Fleete that Coppin had lost 50 li. The Warden heareing thereof, sent for Coppin, and asked him: he said he would say nothing except Sir Francis Inglefield were present. Then the Warden said, Nay, Coppin, if you have nothing to say to me, you may depart againe.

"Then the Warden was informed by Mr. Boughton and Wall, that the day before it happened that Coppin was removed, they had made meanes to borrowe some money upon a pawne, and Coppin professed and swore he had not so much (being fower (4) pounds) as they demanded. Then the Warden caused Coppin's trunck (being new and well locked) to be opened in Coppin's presence, and delivered it to him, in which Trunck within a Bagg put in a Box (as they said) there was about xxix^s; and then was sett on foote this rumour when Coppin had advised with Mr. Rookwood to doe it.

"About January 1620, Edward Coppin confessed that he never receaved any money since he came to Prison.

"Mr. Williams saith that he hath heard that Coppin hath confessed that he lost noe money."

So we may acquit the Warden on this count. Poor Man! he had a rough lot to deal with, but it is to our advantage that it was so, for his refutation of the charges brought against him throws a flood of light on the domestic manners of the time, and of the Fleet prison in particular.

The third count against the Warden was one of robbery, "11 lib. 6 s. taken out of the Trunk, and by violence, from the person of a close prisoner sicke in his bed, by the Warden and his seruants." And Harris meets this, as all others, fairly and straightforwardly. Says he:— "This toucheth money taken from one Thraske, then a Jewdaiser, or halfe Jewe, committed close prisoner by the Lords of the Councell, from whom, and such like, though in the Gatehouse, King's Bench, Fleete, &c., it hath beene used to take away and keepe their money, yet the Warden tooke not his until he abused it very dangerouslie, and whether this takeing away may be said Robbery, let the answeare followeing decide.

"And although the complainte be used with a Circumstance, as if the Prisoner were sick, thereby to make a shewe as if the Warden gaped at his death and money; that was most untrue for Thraske was in perfect health."

This prisoner was sent to the Fleet, to be put in the pillory, whipped and branded, and, besides, to suffer solitary confinement, but he found means to write letters to the King and the Lord Chancellor, and the Warden was much blamed for allowing him so to do. But poor Harris, who must have been plagued almost to death by his very recalcitrant charges, could not find out whence his prisoner procured his writing materials, and at last came to the correct conclusion that he was bribing the gaoler who waited upon him. So, with some servants, he personally searched Mr. Thraske's apartment and person, and found his pens, ink, and paper, and also £11 6s. in money, together with a bag and cord with which he used to receive supplies from outside, and by means of which he disseminated his pernicious literature. All of which the Warden very properly confiscated, but the money was kept, and used for the prisoner's benefit. "When Thraske had worne out his cloathes and desired other, the Lord Chauncellor bid the Warden buy for Thraske some cloathes, which was done accordingly, even soe much as Thraske desired; the Warden alsoe gave him money to buy wyne for his comforte at tymes." And, in the long run, the poor Warden declares that he was about £80 out of pocket by his prisoner.

The last charge we will investigate, is that of "Excessiue rates of Chambers." (No. 13 on the list of 19) "Whereby orders no man ought to pay for any Chamber, the Warden allowing bed and bedding, aboue 2s. 4d. a weeke, he exacteth 8s., 10s., 13s. 4d. and of some twentie shillings a weeke without bedding." The Warden replies to this that "the Orders of the Prison are, That noe Parlor Comoners and Hall Comoners must lye two in a Bedd like Prisoners, They of the Parlor at ijs. iiijd. the weeke. They of the Hall at xiiijd. If any such will lye in the Prison then there is noe question of their payment, nor any more required. But the missery is this that none there will pay at all, but stand upon it that they should pay nothing, which is contrary to right, to Custome, and to usage.... An^o 1597. The Prisoners then Articling against the Warden Sett forth that one Prisoner paid xxxs. others xxs., xvs., xiis., xs. a weeke for Chamber without Bedd. The Warden then made his Answeare to the Comittees that he took xs. a Chamber, and the rest was for more chambers than one, and in respect of Dyett, though they had none, but fetched it abroad.

"Soe if Prisoners will have more ease than ordinarie, and a Chamber or two for themselves and theirs in the Warden's howse, they are by the orders and Constitutions to Compound with the Warden for it, it being the Warden's freehould, and demyseable.... To such prisoners as lye two in a Bedd, the Warden is to find them Bedd, and for Bedd and Chamber they are to pay. Whether by Bedd is meant all furniture of Bedding, that is to be doubted, for it was never put in practise; but as for those which lye in the Warden's freehould by agreement he is not bound to find them Bedd or Bedding except it be so conditioned. And such will hardly vouchsafe to lye on the comon Bedding which passeth from Man to Man; And the Warden can as hardlie buy a new Bedd for every new prisoner which cometh, and therefore the lodgings of ease were provided for men of quality and not for the mean sorte of prisoners, as the accusation would seeme to inferre; And when Mr. Chamberlayne informed against the Warden touching Chambers, All the cheife gentlemen in the Fleete certified under their hands that they held their Chambers by agreement to have a Chamber alone to each, and were contented with the rates."

That the Wardenship of the Fleet was an onerous position, may be inferred from Harris's statement that "he hath had at one tyme the King's prisoners for two hundred thowsand[108] pounds debt, besides the affayres of State."

That the office of Warden of the Fleet was of very ancient origin we have seen in the case of Nathanael de Leveland, and he also proves that it was heritable, for he, and his family, had held it for 130 years, and more. And it had a far-reaching jurisdiction, for in the 3 Eliz.[109] we learn that "Upon an adjournment of the term to Hertford, several prisoners were committed to the Castle there. This Castle was part of the Duchy of Lancaster. The Queen had granted a patent to A. of the Custody of this Castle for his Life; resolved by the Judges that the Warden of the Fleet shall have the Custody there of the Prisoners committed by the Chancery, Common Pleas and Exchequer: For he is the Officer of those Corts; and although the Patentee has the Custody of the Castle, and though it be the Prison of the County, yet his interest ought to give place to the public weal, and common justice."

In course of time, the Wardenship became a position which was openly sold; and our old friend Harris makes no secret of it. "They likewise alledge that I^o Elizabeth it was purchased by Tirrell at the rate of 160 li. per annum and that long after it was held at 100 li. per annum, and refused for 200 li. But now that (thorough extortion) there is made 4,000 li. per annum by the relation delivered to one Mr. Shotbolt.

"To which is answeared, that the purchase paid by Tirrell, (as appears by the deed inrolled) was 6,000 markes or 4,000 li. which, if it be devided at tenne or twelve yeares purchase, being more than an office of that nature was worth in those dayes (which is above three score yeares past) it will bring 400 li. tenne yeares purchase, and therefore here is sutor ultra crepidam, for 160 li. at that rate would yeild but 1,600 li. in money, and there was not then the fift part of the buildings and lodgings which now are.

"Mr. Anslowe (as is credibly informed) held it by fyne (and otherwise) at 600 li. per annum, and had but some part of the benefitts of the prison, nothing of the pallace at Westminster. And as for this Warden's valuation of it at 4000 li. per annum, it might be, supposeing that if the benefitts of the pallace were had &c. But what if the one with the other cost in expences 4,000 li. per annum, what will be then advanced?" &c.

This selling of the Office of Warden, led to a great squabble in the early days of Queen Anne's reign, and it seems to have arisen in this way. A Warden of the Fleet, named Ford, in the reign of William and Mary, was found guilty of suffering one Richard Spencer to escape, but was acquitted of some minor charges, and a certain Col. Baldwin Leighton obtained a grant of the Office on April 6, 1690. On June 25, 1691, this grant was quashed, and Leighton soon after died. A Mr. Tilley, in the fifth year of William and Mary purchased the Inheritance of the said Office, together with the Mansion and Gardens thereto appertaining, but on Dec. 23, 1704, judgment was given in the Queen's Bench that the Office be seized into her Majesty's hands, and this was affirmed in Parliament.

The discipline in the prison at this time seems to have been very bad, so much so that many witnesses who could have spoken of Tilley's misdeeds were hindered from giving evidence, some by being put into dungeons; others, by violence, bribes, or other artifices. Take a case in point, which happened about this time. The case of Robert Elliot and others. "One Francis Chartyres was Arrested at the several Suits of the said several Persons, about the 4th of May last, all their Debts amounting to 140 l. and upwards, which cost them 20 l. to effect: And the said Francis Chartyres being a stubborn and an obstinate Man, and dangerous to Arrest, he having killed several Persons upon the like attempt, and at this Arrest run the Bayliffs through. And after he was taken, he by Habeas Corpus turned himself over to the said Fleet Prison. And Mr. Tilley, and the Turnkey, and one Whitwood, an Officer of the Fleet, were acquainted, by the persons above mentioned, what a dangerous Man he was, and what it cost them to take him; but they took no notice thereof, and declared they would let him out for all of them; and so they did, and the next Day the said Persons Arrested him again, and he went over to the Fleet a second time, and was immediately set at liberty; who coming to the Persons aforesaid, at whose Suit he was Arrested, bid them defiance; saying, He was a Freeman, for that he had given 18 Guineas for it, and they should never have a farthing of their Debts, which they now doubt of, the said Chartyres being gone for Scotland."

Hatton, in his "New View of London," 1708, gives, the boundary of the Rules, and also descants on the pleasantness of the Prison, as an abode. "Fleet Prison, situate on the East side of the Ditch, between Ludgate Hill and Fleet Lane, but the Rules extend Southward on the East side of Fleet Canal to Ludgate Hill, and thence Eastward to Cock Ally on the South side of Ludgate Hill, and to the Old Bayly on the North, and thence Northward in the Old Bayley both sides the Street, to Fleet Lane, and all that Lane, and from the West End, southward to the Prison again. It is a Prison for Debtors from any part of the Kingdom, for those that act or speak any thing in contempt of the Courts of Chancery and Common Pleas; and for the pleasantness of the Prison and Gardens, and the aforesaid large extent of its Rules, it is preferred before most other Prisons, many giving Money to turn themselves over to this from others."

CHAPTER XXII.

THINGS got so bad that Parliament ordered a Committee to inquire into it, and they began their sitting in Feb. 25, 1729. But, previously, the prisoners had petitioned the Lord Chief Justice and other justices without effect, and those petitions with Huggins' (who was the Warden) replies were published in a folio pamphlet, which contains much information.[110] The first petition was in 1723, and it was mainly addressed to the extortions of the Master, the sixth Article alledging that the fees exacted by the Warden were in excess of those settled by Law, Nov. 14, 1693—instanced as follows:

The eleventh prayer of this Petition was, "And lastly, that for the better suppressing Prophaneness and Immorality among us, and that the Misery of Imprisonment may in some measure be alleviated by the Observance of good Manners, Cleanliness, and Quietude, we humbly pray your Lordships would enable us to regulate our selves in such Manner as the Prisoners in the King's Bench are empowered to do by a Rule of that Court, 20 die post festim SanctÆ Trinitatis. 11 Anne."

Huggins replied to all the petition, but his answer to No. 6 was "The Warden saith, That so soon as the Fees were settled by this Honourable Court, he caused a Copy thereof to be framed and hung up in the Common Hall of the House, signed by Sir George Cook; also a Copy of the Rules and Orders of the House, which said copies the Prisoners were pleased to burn, tear to Pieces, and obliterate; and the Warden denies that he has taken or receiv'd, or any for him, to his knowledge, more, or greater, Fees than were contained in the said Copy of Fees hung up in the said Prison."

And as to the Eleventh prayer of the Petitioners "The Warden saith, that the Prisoners in general, are so very ungovernable, that they have tore up the Trees around the Bowling Green, and cut down several of the Trees in the back part of the Prison, set by the Warden some years since, for the better Accommodation of the Prisoners; also broke down the Stocks in the said Prison, and the Houses of Easement were fitted up lately by the Warden, they have torn it almost to Pieces, and committed other Outrages, and most of them, altho' two Years in Arrears of Rent to the Warden, refuse to pay him any Part thereof, and will by Force, and in defiance of the Warden and his Officers, keep in Possession of the Rooms and Furnitures, Swearing to stand by each other."

Petition after petition was sent from the Prisoners to the Lord Chief Justice about the oppressions of Huggins and his myrmidons, and duly answered in some shape by the Warden, but there was one, in which the fourteenth Charge is as follows. "That the Warden, on the Death of any Prisoner detains the Body from his Friends and Relations untill they will pay him, what Chamber Rent was due from the Deceased; and in the mean Time his cruel and unchristian like Practice, is to make the best Bargain he can with the poor Family of the Deceased, for the Purchase of the Dead Body, in order to give it Christian Burial, at their own Expence, by which means he often extorts large Sums of Money, for granting the Relations the Liberty of taking away and burying the Dead Body; which tho' a very natural and reasonable Desire, is nevertheless often frustrated by their Inability to purchase it at his Price, and, rather than accept what may be in their Power to give him, he often suffers the Dead Body to lye above Ground seven or eight Days, and often Times eleven or twelve Days, to the great endangering of the Health of the whole Prison, by the nauseous Stench, which being often times the Case, is very offensive all over the House; and when he has refused what he thought not worth his Acceptance, he buries them in the common Burying place for Prisoners, when the Body is often taken up by their Friends to be bury'd their own Way, and the Warden seizes to his own Use the Cloaths, Furniture, and what ever else there is for Fees and Chamber Rent, which he pretends to be due from the said deceased Prisoner."

Huggins' reply to this was diabolically insolent. "For Answer thereto, My Lords, the Deputy Warden saith, That scarcely a Prisoner hath died on the Masters-Side, that was not largely indebted to him; and therefore, possibly, he might have used endeavours to get what part of the Money was due to him, as he could fairly from the Deceased's Relations."

But the Cup of his iniquities was rapidly filling. He made one Thomas Bambridge "A Newgate Sollicitor, and a Person of abandon'd Credit" (as the petition in the case of Mr. Mackphreadris describes him) his deputy warden, and then, things came to a climax. As we have seen, Parliament took cognizance of the scandal, and issued a Commission to inquire into the matter, and their first sitting was on Feb. 25, 1729. Their report was presented to Parliament on March 20th of the same year—so that no time was lost in looking into the evils complained of.

It recites that Huggins by a gift of £5,000 to Lord Clarendon "did by his interest, obtain a grant of the said office (i.e., Warden of the Fleet) for his own and his son's life.

"That it appeared to the Committee, That in the Year 1725, one Mr. Arne, an Upholder, was carried into a Stable, which stood where the strong room on the Master's side now is, and was there confined (being a place of cold restraint) till he died, and that he was in good state of health before he was confined to that room."

Huggins growing old, sold his interest in the Wardenship of the Fleet, and his Son's reversion therein, to Bambridge and Cuthbert, for the sum he had originally given for the place; and then Bambridge, being his own master, went somewhat ahead, and the Committee found that he connived at escapes, sent his prisoners to Spunging-houses, or private prisons, not so long ago done away with, where they were well, or badly treated, according to the money at their disposal.

And we read of one shocking case, which can best be given in the very words of the Report. "That these houses were further used by the said Bambridge, as a terror for extorting money from the prisoners, who, on security given, have the liberty of the rules; of which Mr. Robert Castell was an unhappy instance, a man born to a competent estate, but being unfortunately plunged into debt, was thrown into prison: he was first sent (according to custom) to Corbett's, [111] from whence he, by presents to Bambridge, redeemed himself, and, giving security obtained the liberty of the rules; notwithstanding which he had frequently presents, as they are called, exacted from him by Bambridge, and was menaced, on refusal, to be sent back to Corbett's again.

"The said Bambridge having thus unlawfully extorted large sums of money from him in a very short time, Castell grew weary of being made such a wretched property, and, resolving not to injure further his family or his creditors for the sake of so small a liberty, he refused to submit to further exactions; upon which the said Bambridge ordered him to be re-committed to Corbett's, where the smallpox then raged, though Castell acquainted him with his not having had that distemper, and that he dreaded it so much, that the putting him into a house where it was, would occasion his death, which, if it happened before he could settle his affairs, would be a great prejudice to his creditors, and would expose his family to destitution; and therefore he earnestly desired that he might either be sent to another house, or even into the gaol itself, as a favor. The melancholy case of this poor gentleman moved the very agents of the said Bambridge to compassion, so that they used their utmost endeavours to dissuade him from sending this unhappy prisoner to that infected house; but Bambridge forced him thither, where he (as he feared he should) caught the smallpox, and, in a few days, died thereof, justly charging the said Bambridge with his death; and unhappily leaving all his affairs in the greatest confusion, and a numerous family of small children in the utmost distress."

He squeezed everybody, made what rules he liked, and introduced new and pernicious customs, for, says the Report, "It appeared to the Committee, that the letting out of the Fleet tenements to Victuallers, for the reception of Prisoners, hath been but of late practised, and that the first of them let for this purpose was to Mary Whitwood, who still continues tenant of the same, and that her rent has, from 32 l. per. ann. been increased to 60 l. and a certain number of prisoners stipulated to be made a prey of, to enable her to pay so great a rent; and that she, to procure the benefit of having such a number of prisoners sent to her house, hath, over and above the increased rent, been obliged to make a present to the said Bambridge of forty guineas, as also of a toy (as it is called), being the model of a Chinese ship, made of amber, set in silver, for which fourscore broad pieces had been offered her....

"And, notwithstanding the payment of such large fees, in order to extort further sums from the unfortunate prisoners, the said Bambridge unjustly pretends he has a right, as warden, to exercise an unlimited power of changing prisoners from room to room; of turning them into the common side, though they have paid the master's side fee; and inflicting arbitrary punishments by locking them down in unwholesome dungeons, and loading them with torturing irons."

According to the Committee's report, Jacob Mendez Solas, a Portuguese, was, as far as they knew, the first prisoner that was ever loaded with irons in the Fleet. He was thrown into a noisome dungeon, which is described as a place "wherein the bodies of persons dying in the said prison are usually deposited, till the coroner's inquest hath passed upon them; it has no chimney, nor fireplace, nor any light but what comes over the door, or through a hole of about eight inches square. It is neither paved nor boarded, and the rough bricks appear both on the sides and top, being neither wainscotted, nor plastered; what adds to the dampness and stench of the place is, its being built over the common sewer, and adjoining to the sink and dunghill where all the nastiness of the prison is cast. In this miserable place the poor wretch was kept by the said Bambridge, manacled and shackled for near two months. At length, on receiving five guineas from Mr. Kemp, a friend of Solas Bambridge released the prisoner from his cruel confinement. But, though his chains were taken off, his terror still remained, and the unhappy man was prevailed upon by that terror, not only to labour gratis for the said Bambridge, but to swear also at random all that he hath required of him: and the Committee themselves saw an instance of the deep impression his sufferings had made upon him; for on his surmising, from something said, that Bambridge was to return again, as Warden of the Fleet, he fainted, and the blood started out of his mouth and nose."

The upshot of this Committee was that the House petitioned the King to prosecute Huggins, Bambridge, and their satellites, who were all ordered to be committed to Newgate for trial. Huggins was tried, or rather the preliminaries of his trial were arranged on the 20th of May, 1729; but his trial for the murder of Edward Arne, a prisoner in the Fleet prison, by immuring him in the dungeon above described, from the effect of which confinement he subsequently died, did not take place until next day. After a long and patient trial, he was acquitted; and he managed, not only to survive his disgrace, but live to the age of 90.

Bambridge was also tried, at the Old Bailey, for the murder of Robert Castell, as before described, but he was acquitted by the Jury. Upon this acquittal, Castell's widow brought an appeal against Thomas Bambridge, and Richard Corbett, for the murder of her husband; but here their luck still stood them in stead, for they were both acquitted. Bambridge, some twenty years after, committed suicide by cutting his throat.

Hogarth, in 1729, received a Commission from Sir Archibald Grant of Monnymusk, Bart., who was one of the Committee, to paint a portrait picture of his brother Commissioners with Bambridge, and the irons used by him in the Fleet. Bambridge is decidedly nervous—and a poor prisoner is introduced into the picture, though I cannot find, from the Report, that he really was before the Committee of the House.

These prosecutions somewhat purified the atmosphere of the Fleet, but still there were grumbles, as there naturally will be when men are restrained in their liberty, and are left to brood upon their miseries, and incarceration; but the little pamphlet,[112] which airs these grievances, deals principally with the hardships of fees, and the dilapidated state of the Common Side. The title-page prepares one for a not over cheerful ten minutes' reading.

The writer says that after the reign of Huggins and Bambridge, the Chapel was adorned—and the great Hall adjoining, formerly for the Use of the Prisoners, "is now made into a commodious new Coffee House, and thought to be as Compleat a one, as any in Town (wherein one of the Warden's Servants is put, to be useful upon Occasion). Part of the Pews in the Chapel being taken into it to make it compleat, [113] and serves for a Bar and Bedchamber.

"Opposite to the Great Hall, or Coffee Room, is the Begging-Grate, where Prisoners had an Opportunity to speak with a Friend, and sometimes get Sight of one whose Inclinations did not lead him to pay a Visit to the Place, wou'd drop a Shilling, and perhaps some Beer to the Beggars; but now the same, altho' of an ancient standing, is Brick'd up, and the unhappy Persons who can't submit to beg, depriv'd of viewing the Street, or seeing their Chance Friends." So we see, that although the comforts of the inmates had been somewhat looked after, this little privilege, which they had long enjoyed, and, doubtless, as long abused, was taken from them. It was, afterwards, restored.

CHAPTER XXIII.

BUT enough of the miserables in connection with the Fleet Prison. We shall find that it is even possible for a prisoner to write pleasantly, nay, even somewhat humorously, upon his position, as we may see by the perusal of a poem entitled "The Humours of the Fleet. An humorous, descriptive Poem. Written by a Gentleman of the College" &c., Lond. 1749. Under the frontispiece, which represents the introduction of a prisoner into its precincts, is a poem of thirty-two lines, of which the following is a portion:—

Here we see, very vividly depicted, the introduction of a new prisoner; the Chamberlain is introducing him to the Cook, whilst the Goaler and Tapster seem, already, to have made his acquaintance.

The notes appended to the Poem are in the original.

After a somewhat long exordium on prosperity and poverty, together with the horrors of a spunging-house, and imagining that the debtor has obtained his Habeas, which would permit him to choose his prison, the Poet thus sings:

Here follow two or three pages of but little interest to the reader and the Story continues:

CHAPTER XXIV.

WE saw in the lines, under the Frontispiece to the foregoing poem, Garnish was mentioned, and the fact was stated as a Custom then in force of taking the prisoner's coat to pay for his fees on entrance.

In the Criminal prisons, the prisoners themselves demanded Garnish from a new-comer, that is, a trifle of money—to drink. In 1708, at Newgate, this sum seems to have been Six shillings and Eightpence "Which they, from an old Custom, claim by Prescription, Time out of Mind, for entring into the Society, otherwise they strip the poor Wretch, if he has not wherewithal to pay it." [149] And in the old Play of the Lying Lover we are introduced to a Scene in Newgate where the prisoners are demanding Garnish from some new-comers.

"Storm.Nay, nay, you must stay here.

Simon.Why, I am Simon, Madam Penelope's Man.

Storm.Then Madam Penelope's Man must strip for Garnish; indeed Master Simon you must.

Simon.Thieves! Thieves! Thieves!

Storm.Thieves! Thieves! Why, you senseless Dog, do
you think there's Thieves in Newgate? Away with
him to the Tap House (Pushes him off). We'll drink
his Coat off. Come, my little Chymist, thou shalt
transmute this Jacket into Liquor."

Yet although this custom was general, I have only once met with an engraving of the actual process, which, judging by the man's agonized countenance, was not a pleasant one to him. It occurs in the frontispiece to a little pamphlet called "An Oration on the Oppression of Jailors; which was spoken in the Fleet Prison, on the 20th of February, 1730/1," &c. And under the engraving, are these lines.

Respecting this practice let us hear what Howard in his "State of the Prisons in England and Wales," 1777, says, in his Chapter on "Bad Customs in Prisons." "A cruel custom obtains in most of our Gaols, which is that of the prisoners demanding of a new-comer Garnish, Footing, or (as it is called in some London Gaols) Chummage. 'Pay or strip' are the fatal words. I say fatal, for they are so to some; who having no money, are obliged to give up part of their scanty apparel; and, if they have no bedding or straw to sleep on, contract diseases, which I have known to prove mortal.

In many Gaols, to the Garnish paid by the new-comer, those who were there before, make an addition; and great part of the following night is often spent in riot and drunkenness. The gaoler or tapster finding his account in this practice, generally answers questions concerning it with reluctance. Of the Garnish which I have set down to sundry prisons, I often had my information from persons who paid it.... In some places, this demand has been lately waved: in others, strictly prohibited by the Magistrates" —so that we see that this custom was already in its death throes, in the last quarter of the eighteenth century.

But in the interval between Bambridge and Howard, the prison was not a pleasant place of residence, if we may judge from "The Prisoner's Song" published in 1738, of which I give an illustration and the Words.

When Howard visited this prison in 1774 and 1776, he found on the former occasion 171 prisoners in the House, and 71 in the Rules. On the latter there were 241 in the House and 78 in the Rules. And he says:

"The Prison was rebuilt a few years since. At the front is a narrow courtyard. At each end of the building there is a small projection, or wing. There are four floors, they call them Galleries, besides the Cellar floor, called Bartholomew-Fair. Each gallery consists of a passage in the middle, the whole length of the Prison, i.e., sixty six yards; and rooms on each side of it about fourteen feet and a half by twelve and a half, and nine and a half high. A chimney and window in every room. The passages are narrow (not seven feet wide) and darkish, having only a window at each end.

"On the first floor, the Hall Gallery, to which you ascend eight steps, are a Chapel, a Tap room, a Coffee room (lately made out of two rooms for Debtors), a room for the Turnkey, another for the Watchman, and eighteen rooms for Prisoners.

Besides the Coffee-room and Tap-room, two of those eighteen rooms, and all the cellar-floor, except a lock up room to confine the disorderly, and another room for the Turnkey, are held by the Tapster, John Cartwright, who bought the remainder of the lease at public auction in 1775. The cellar floor is sixteen steps below the hall Gallery. It consists of the two rooms just now mentioned, the Tapster's kitchen, his four large beer and wine Cellars, and fifteen rooms for Prisoners. These fifteen, and the two before mentioned, in the hall gallery, the Tapster lets to Prisoners for four to eight shillings a week.

"On the first Gallery (that next above the hall-gallery) are twenty-five rooms for Prisoners. On the second Gallery, twenty seven rooms. One of them, fronting the staircase, is their Committee room. A room at one end is an Infirmary. At the other end, in a large room over the Chapel, is a dirty Billiard-table, kept by the Prisoner who sleeps in that room. On the highest story there are twenty seven rooms. Some of these upper rooms, viz., those in the wings, are larger than the rest, being over the Chapel, the Tap-room, &c.

"All the rooms I have mentioned are for the Master's side Debtors. The weekly rent of those not held by the Tapster, is one shilling and three pence unfurnished. They fall to the Prisoners in succession, thus: when a room becomes vacant, the first Prisoner upon the list of such as have paid their entrance-fees, takes possession of it. When the Prison was built, the Warden gave each Prisoner his choice of a room, according to his seniority as Prisoner.... Such of the Prisoners (on the Common Side) as swear in Court, or before a Commissioner that they are not worth five pounds, and cannot subsist without charity, have the donations which are sent to the Prison, and the begging box, and grate. Of them there were, at my last visit, sixteen....

"I mentioned the billiard table. They also play in the yard at skittles, missisipi, fives, tennis, &c. And not only the Prisoners; I saw among them several butchers and others from the Market; who are admitted here, as at another public house. The same may be seen in many other Prisons where the Gaoler keeps or lets the tap. Besides the inconvenience of this to Prisoners; the frequenting a Prison lessens the dread of being confined in one.

"On Monday night there is a Wine Club: on Thursday night a Beer Club; each lasting usually till one or two in the morning. I need not say how much riot these occasion; and how the sober Prisoners are annoyed by them.

"Seeing the Prison crowded with women and Children, I procured an accurate list of them; and found that on (or about), the 6th of April, 1776, when there were, on the Master's side 213 Prisoners; on the Common side 30. Total 243; their wives (including women of an appellation not so honorable) and children, were 475."

In Howard's time the fees payable by the Prisoners were the same as were settled in 1729 after the trials of Huggins and Bambridge; but the prisoners exercised a kind of local self-government, for he writes:—

"There is, moreover, a little Code of Laws, eighteen in number, enacted by the Master's-side Debtors, and printed by D. Jones, 1774. It establishes a President, a Secretary, and a Committee, which is to be chosen every month, and to consist of three members from each Gallery. These are to meet in the Committee room every Thursday; and at other times when summoned by the Cryer, at command of the President, or of a majority of their own number. They are to raise contributions by assessment; to hear complaints; determine disputes; levy fines; and seize goods for payment. Their Sense to be deemed the sense of the whole House. The President or Secretary to hold the cash; the Committee to dispose of it. Their Scavenger to wash the Galleries once a week; to water, and sweep them every morning before eight; to sweep the yard twice every week; and to light the lamps all over the House. No person to throw out water, &c., anywhere but at the sinks in the yard. The Cryer may take of a Stranger a penny for calling a Prisoner to him; and of a Complainant two pence for summoning a Special Committee. For blasphemy, swearing, riot, drunkenness, &c., the Committee to fine at discretion; for damaging a lamp, fine a shilling. They are to take from a New Comer, on the first Sunday, besides the two shillings Garnish, to be spent in wine, one shilling and sixpence to be appropriated to the use of the House.

"Common-side Prisoners to be confined to their own apartments, and not to associate with these Law Makers, nor to use the same conveniences."

In 1780 the famous Lord George Gordon, or "No Popery" Riots took place—those Riots which were so intensely Protestant, that (according to the Contemporary Gentleman's Magazine) "The very Jews in Houndsditch and Duke's Place were so intimidated, that they followed the general example, and unintentionally gave an air of ridicule to what they understood in a very serious light, by writing on their Shutters, "This House is a true Protestant."

These Riots are very realistically brought before us in Charles Dickens' "Barnaby Rudge," but then, although the account is fairly historically faithful, yet the weaving of his tale necessarily interfered with strict historical details; which, by the way, are extremely meagre as to the burning of the Fleet prison. The fact was, that, for the few days the riot existed, the outrages were so numerous, and the Newspapers of such small dimensions, that they could only be summarized, and the burning of Newgate eclipsed that of the Fleet. But, on the Wednesday, June 7, 1780, the Annual Register, p. 261 (which certainly has the best description I have been able to see) absolutely breaks down, saying:—

"It is impossible to give any adequate description of the events of Wednesday. Notice was sent round to the public prisons of the King's Bench, Fleet, &c., by the mob, at what time they would come and burn them down. The same kind of infernal humanity was exercised towards Mr. Langdale, a distiller in Holborn, whose loss is said to amount to £100,000, and several other Romish individuals. In the afternoon all the shops were shut, and bits of blue silk, by way of flags, hung out at most houses, with the words "No Popery" chalked on the doors and window shutters, by way of deprecating the fury of the insurgents, from which no person thought himself secure.

"As soon as the day was drawing towards a Close, one of the most dreadful spectacles this country ever beheld was exhibited. Let those, who were not spectators of it, judge what the inhabitants felt when they beheld at the same instant the flames ascending and rolling in clouds from the King's Bench and Fleet Prisons, from New Bridewell, from the toll gates on Blackfriars Bridge, from houses in every quarter of the town, and particularly from the bottom and middle of Holborn, where the Conflagration was horrible beyond description."

The burning of the Fleet was done calmly and deliberately, as is well told in "A Narrative of the Proceedings of Lord Geo. Gordon," &c., 1780. "About one o'clock this morning (Tuesday, June 6), the Mob went to the Fleet Prison, and demanded the gates to be opened, which the Keepers were obliged to do, or they would have set fire to it. They were then proceeding to demolish the prison, but the prisoners expostulating with them, and begging that they would give them time to remove their goods, they readily condescended, and gave them a day for that purpose, in consequence of which, the prisoners were removing all this day out of that place. Some of the prisoners were in for life." And in the evening of the next day, they fulfilled their threat, and burnt it. This was the second time it had been burnt down, for the great fire of 1666 had previously demolished it.

It was rebuilt, and remained the same, with some few alterations and additions until its final destruction. We get a good view of "the Bare" or racket ground in 1808, an outline of which I have taken from Pugin and Rowlandson's beautiful "Microcosm of London," 1808, [150] according to which book, "The Fleet Prison, it is believed, after the fire of London in 1666, was removed to that site of ground upon which the almshouses through Vauxhall turnpike, on the Wandsworth road, now stand, until the old prison was rebuilt, Sir Jeremy Whichcott, then Warden, having his family seat there, which he converted into a prison; for which patriotic act, and rebuilding the old one at his own expence, he and his heirs were wardens as long as they lived. The Office of Warden of the Fleet was formerly of such consequence, that a brother of one of the Edwards is said to have been in the list of Wardens."

In this illustration we find the prisoners by no means moody, but playing at rackets and skittles. The Racket ground was under the superintendence of a Racket Master, who was elected by the Collegians, annually at Christmas. This post was eagerly sought after, as it was one to which some pecuniary profit was attached, a small fee being demanded from each person, the Racket Master having to find bats and balls. I have before me three printed handbills of aspirants for the post in 1841. One bases his claim on the fact that he is already Racket Master, and says, "I feel the situation is one that requires attention and unceasing exertion, not so much from the individual position, as from the circumstance that the amusement, and (what is more vitally important) the health of my fellow inmates is in some measure placed in the hands of the person appointed." Another candidate pleads as a qualification, that he has served as Watchman for Seven years, and at last election for Racket Master, he only lost the appointment by five votes. And the third publishes the caution "Collegians, Remember! All Promises that have been (sic) before the Vacancy, are Null and Void!!!" This gentleman was determined to secure, if possible, some of the good things going about, for, at this very same Annual Election, he issues another circular, "Having had many years experience in the Tavern Department and Eating House Business, I beg leave to offer myself for the Situation in the Public Kitchen, now about to become vacant." He, too, had an opponent, who had been engaged for nine years as a baker, and was, by profession, a Cook. The Office of Skittle Master was also contested in that year; the holder of the place being opposed by one whose claim to the position seems to be that he had a wife and one child.

They made themselves merry enough in the Fleet, as we read in Egan's "Life in London," where Jerry Hawthorn, and Corinthian Tom, visit Bob Logic, who was detained in the Fleet. Among other places there, they went to a Whistling Shop—of which the brothers Robert and George Cruikshank have given a faithful representation. Here at a table, screened off from the draught of the door we see, Tom, Jerry, and the unfortunate Logic, whilst the other frequenters of the place are excellently depicted. Spirits were not allowed in the prison, under any circumstances, other than by the doctor's order; but it is needless to say, the regulation was a dead letter. Of course it was not sold openly, but there were rooms, known to the initiated where it could be procured. It was never asked for, and if it were the applicant would not have received it, but if you whistled, it would be at once forthcoming.

Says Logic to his Corinthian friends, "'In the evening I will introduce you both to my friend the Haberdasher. He is a good whistler; and his shop always abounds with some prime articles which you will like to look at.' The Trio was again complete; and a fine dinner, which the Corinthian had previously ordered from a Coffee house, improved their feelings: a glass or two of wine made them as gay as larks; and a hint from Jerry to Logic about the Whistler, brought them into the shop of the latter in a twinkling. Hawthorn, with great surprise, said, 'Where are we? this is no haberdasher's. It is a ——' 'No nosing, Jerry,' replied Logic, with a grin. 'You are wrong. The man is a dealer in tape.'" [151]

There was a class in the Fleet, who acted, as far as in their power lay, up to the Epicurean "dum vivimus vivamus," and among them the prison, however inconvenient it might have been, was made the best of, and the door of the Cupboard which contained the skeleton was shut as far as it would go. We have an exemplification of this in Robert Cruikshank's water colour drawing of "The Evening after a Mock Election in the Fleet Prison," June, 1835. In this drawing, which I have simply outlined (see previous page), we get a graphic glimpse at the uproarious fun that obtained among a certain set. The gradations in Society of this singular mixture is well shown in the following key to the picture:

1. Bennett the Candidate.

2. Mr. Fellowes of the Crown P. H. Fleet Street.

3. Mr. Houston, alias Jack in the Green.

4. Mr. Perkins, alias Harlequin Billy (Architect), who tried to sink a
shaft at Spithead to supply the Navy with Water.

5. Mr. Shackleford (Linen Draper).

6. Mr. Bennett, the Watchman.

7. Geo. Weston, Esqr. (Banker, of the Boro').

8. Mr. Hutchinson (Dr. at Liverpool).

9. L. Goldsmith, Esqre.

10. Mr. Thompson (Irishman).

11. Robert Barnjum alias Rough Robin (Hammersmith Ghost).

12. Robert Ball, alias Manchester Bob (wore a Murderer's Cap).

13. Captain Wilde, R.N.

14. Mr. Hales, the Cook.

15. Mr. Walker.

16. Captain McDonnough, 11th Hussars (real gentleman).

17. Mr. Halliday (Manchester Merchant).

18. Harry Holt the Prize Fighter.

19. Captain Penniment (Trading Vessel, Yorkshire).

20. Mr. Palmer, Cutler to Geo. III., near the Haymarket Theatre.

21. Mr. Scrivener (Landlord of the Tap).

22. Captain Oliver, Smuggler and Tapster. Capias, £117,000.

23. Mr. Goldsbury, alias Jailsbury, driver of omnibus all round the Fleet.

24. Mr. George Kent.

As a souvenir of the talented Isaac Robert Cruikshank, I append a facsimile of his autograph, which was written in the Parlour, No. 16, Hall, in the Fleet Prison, June 24, 1842. His method of utilizing the blot of Ink is unique.

The remaining Notices of the Fleet must be taken as they come, as far as possible, chronologically—and first of all let us look at the enormous quantity of people who were imprisoned for debt. In the Mirror, No. 615, vol. xxii. July 20, 1833, is a cutting from the Times: "By the return of persons imprisoned for debt in 1832, in England and Wales, just printed by order of the House of Commons, it appears that the gross number was 16,470: of whom maintained themselves 4,093, so that three fourths of the whole were too poor to provide themselves with bread."

The terrible destitution to which some prisoners were reduced is shown in an extract from the Morning Herald of August 12, 1833.

"Guild hall. A Gentleman complained that the Overseers of St. Bride's had refused to relieve a distressed prisoner in the Fleet. The Prisoner was Mr. Timothy Sheldvake, who had been well known for his skill in treating deformities of the body. He once kept his carriage, and obtained £4,000 a year by his practice, but he was now quite destitute. He was eighty years of Age, and of that temper that he would rather starve than make a complaint. When applicant saw him he had actually fasted forty-eight hours. St. Bride's Parish had assisted the unfortunate Gentleman, but they denied that he was legally entitled to such relief. The Applicant contended that, as the Prison was in St. Bride's parish, and was rated at £70 a year, St. Bride's was bound to afford casual relief to those within the walls of the prison, and to recover it from the respective parishes to which those who have been relieved belonged.

AUTOGRAPH DONE AT THE PARLOUR NO 1, PALAIS DE LA FLETE, THIS 24 DAY JUNE.

AUTOGRAPH DONE AT THE PARLOUR NO 1, PALAIS DE LA FLETE, THIS 24 DAY JUNE.

"The Vestry Clerk said, relief must be given out of the County rate.

"Sir C. Marshall said he would take time to consider the Point, but he thought a sufficient relief should be afforded out of the County rate."

CHAPTER XXV.

IN a Return of the number of persons in the several Gaols of England, confined for Debt, ordered by the House of Commons to be printed, May 13, 1835, we have an "Account of the Number of Persons confined for Debt in the Fleet Prison during the following Years:

And the amount of the debt and costs for which each party was so charged varied from £2 to £18,017.

I look in vain in the Times for the paragraph to which the Warden alludes in the following letter:

"The Warden presents his compliments to the Editor of the Times, and begs to state, that a paragraph having appeared in the paper of this morning, stating that the Fleet Prison is very full, and that a guinea and a half a week is paid for a single room, and that four, five, and six persons are obliged to live in a small apartment.

"The Warden, not being aware of this, should it in any case exist, and which is contrary to the established regulations against any person so offending, the prison not being so full as in former years, there being considerably less, on an average, than two prisoners to each Room, and being also exceedingly healthy.

"The Warden has also to add, that the rest of the paragraph relating to the Fleet is totally without foundation.

"Fleet Prison, March 7, 1836."

In the outside sheet of the Times, February 21, 1838, occurs the following advertisement: "One Hundred Pounds Reward.—Escape.—Escaped from the Fleet Prison, on the evening of Wednesday the 14th day of February instant. Alfred Morris, late of 22 Dean Street, Tooley Street, Southwark. The said Alfred Morris is about 30 years of Age, about 5 feet 6 inches high, dark complexion, and of a Jewish Caste, prominent Nose, somewhat flat pointed, dark, irregular whiskers, stout figure, and rather bow legged," &c., &c.

Anent this escape, the Times of February 16th has a paragraph such as we can hardly imagine ever could have appeared in a paper so steady and sober, as the Times now is: "The Warden of the Fleet—(From a Correspondent). Yesterday a gentleman of some misfortune and of great appearance, for he wore a wig, moustaches, and a Spanish Cloak, was introduced as an inmate of Brown's Hotel, so called from the Warden having a license to sell wines, beer, and ale to his prisoners, through the 'patent never ending always improving Juddery spigot and fawcet tap,' &c. In about half an hour the said bewhiskered gentleman leaves cloak, wig, and moustaches in the room of a Mister Abrahams, a prisoner, and walks quietly out, very politely bidding the turnkey 'good morning.' At night the excellent crier of the Prison, Mr. Ellis, made the galleries echo, and the rooms re-echo, with his sometimes very cheering voice (when he announces to those who wish such things as a discharge, for it is not all who do), in calling, altissimo voce, 'Mr. Alfred Morrison! Mr. Alfred Morrison! Mr. Alfred Morrison!' but as no Mr. Alfred Morrison answered to the interesting call, every room was searched in the due performance of the crier's duty, but no Mr. Alfred Morrison was to be found. And the Worthy and excellent warder, the keeper of so many others in, is himself let in to the tune of £2,600; some say more, none say less.

In a leading article in the Times of November 13, 1838, upon juvenile crime, and the incitors thereto, we read the following: "The Traders in crime do not wholly confine their seductions to the young; they often find apt scholars among the unfortunates of riper years, especially in the debtor's prison. Mr. Wakefield[152] says he knows many such victims; and he particularizes one 'Who was not indeed executed, because he took poison the night before he was to have been executed, who told me he had been, (and who I firmly believe was) first incited to crime when a Prisoner in the Fleet for debt. The crime into which he was seduced was that of passing forged Bank of England Notes. He was a Man of very showy appearance, and he had been a Captain in the Army; a man of good family. He said this crime was first suggested to him by persons who were Prisoners in the Fleet; but he afterwards discovered, having been a Prisoner there more than once, that one of a gang of Utterers of forged Notes lived constantly in the Fleet, and for no other purpose but that of inducing reckless young men of good appearance, who could easily pass notes, to take Notes from them, and to dispose of them in transactions. I could hardly believe that that was true, and I got some inquiries to be made for the person whom he had pointed out to me as one of a Gang, and I found that that person was constantly in the Fleet. The Gang committed a robbery upon a Bank in Cornwall, and they were entirely broken up, and from that time forth the Person who had resided in the Fleet disappeared, though he was not one of the persons convicted, or suspected of that particular Crime. I never heard of him since, but the inquiries which I then made, convinced me that it was a fact that one of the Gang of what are termed 'family men,' that is, rich thieves and receivers of stolen goods, did reside continually in the Fleet, for the purpose of seducing young men into the commission of Crime. He was in and out of the Prison, but a Prisoner on a friendly arrest."

The time was coming, when imprisonment for debt was to be abolished. An Act of 1 & 2 Vict. cap. 110 had already abolished Arrest on Mesne Process in Civil Actions, so that no prisoners could be committed to the Fleet from the Courts of Chancery, Exchequer, and Common Pleas, and the Debtors and Bankrupts might as well be in the Queen's Bench. The Demolition of the Fleet was therefore confidently anticipated, as we find by the following paragraph from the Times, March 3, 1841. "Removal of Prisoners. On Saturday a deputation from the Woods and Forests, attended by the Marshal, visited the Queen's Bench Prison, preparatory to moving over the Debtors from the Fleet, which prison is about to be pulled down. By this arrangement the Country will save about £15,000 per annum, besides getting rid of an ugly object, and room being made for other contemplated improvements. It is supposed the Judges will find some difficulty in removing the Prisoners from the Fleet by Habeas Corpus, and that a short Bill will be necessary for that purpose. The expenses of the Queen's Bench Prison in its present profitless employment, is about £30,000 per annum to the Country."

This announcement was slightly premature, for the Act for its demolition (5 & 6 VictoriÆ, cap. 22) was not passed until May 31, 1842. The Prisoners objected to the Transfer to the Queen's Bench, preferring their comparative liberty as they were, to the more stringent rules of the other prison: one clause in the new Act being: "And be it enacted, That after the passing of this Act, no Prisoner in the Queen's Prison shall be allowed to send for, or to have any Beer, Ale, Victuals or other Food, or to send for, have or use any Bedding, Linen, or other Things, except such as shall be allowed to be brought by them respectively under such Rules, to be made in the Manner directed by this Act, as may be reasonable and expedient to prevent Extravagance and Luxury, and for enforcing due Order and Discipline within the Prison."

I have before me the Original Subscription list of a scheme of

The author of the Letter of "Fleta to the Lords, calling upon them individually to Oppose the Bill for transferring the Debtors in the Fleet to the Queen's Prison, respectfully calls upon all Parties interested in an Opposition to the said Bill, to render him such pecuniary assistance in forwarding his Object, as may be consistent with their Views or Convenience." A list of Subscriptions follows, but although 25/- was promised, only 15/- appears to be paid. They held meetings, a notice calling one of which is facsimiled; but it was of no avail, and they had to go.

One Philip Ball, a Chancery Prisoner, composed

The Last Days of the Fleet!
A melancholy Chaunt,
Written by a Collegian, on the occasion of the Queen's
Prison Bill receiving the Royal Assent.
Air. 'The Fine Old English Gentleman.'

Much, however, as the prisoners might grieve, it was of no use kicking against an Act of Parliament, and those prisoners who did not take advantage of the Insolvent Debtors Act, were transferred to the Queen's Prison, which in its turn ceased to be a debtor's prison, and was used by Military offenders, until it was sold on Oct. 30, 1879, and pulled down in that and the following year. Now, legally speaking, there is no imprisonment for debt, but people are only committed for Contempt of Court.

The Commissioners of Woods and Forests invited Tenders for the site and buildings of the late Fleet Prison, the estate of which contained above One Acre, with a frontage of about 251 feet, towards Farringdon Street, and a depth of about 230 feet. The tenders were returnable on Oct. 22, 1844, and the Corporation of the City of London became the owners of the property at a sum variously stated at £25,000 to £29,000, and the sale of its building materials commenced on April 5, 1845. Its exterior was not particularly attractive.

And so it passed away, and half the present inhabitants of London the Great do not even know its site, which was not finally cleared until 1846. As a guide to those who wish to know its locality I may mention that the Congregational Memorial Hall and Library, in Farringdon Street, stands on a portion of its site.

Before quitting the subject of the Fleet prison I cannot help referring to "the grate." Like Ludgate, it had a room open to the street, but furnished with a strong iron grating, behind which sat a prisoner, who called the attention of the passers-by monotonously chanting, "Pray Remember the poor Prisoners." A box was presented for the reception of contributions, but very little money was thus obtained.

The begging grate was served by poor prisoners who had to swear that they were not worth £5 in the world. He was then entitled to share the contents of the begging box, and also be a partaker of the charities and donations to the Prison, which amounted to the magnificent sum of £39 19s., besides meat, coals, and bread.

Prisoners of all sorts and conditions met here, on one common basis, one of the last of any mark being Richard Oastler, who was the leader of the Ten Hours' Bill Movement, and from this prison he issued a series of "Fleet Papers" about Free Trade, Factories Acts, and the Amalgamation of the Prisons. He died in 1861, and a memorial to him was erected at Leeds.