the prisoners ashore. general
during the progress of the seven years’ war, from 1756 to 1763, it became absolutely necessary, from the large annual increase in the number of prisoners of war brought to england, that some systematic accommodation for prisoners on land should be provided. some idea of the increase may be formed when we find that the number of prisoners of war in england at the end of 1756 was 7,261, and that in 1763, the last year of the war, it was 40,000.
the poor wretches for whom there was no room in the already overcrowded hulks were herded together wherever space could be found or made for them.
they were in borough jails—veritable hells on earth even when filled with native debtors and felons: they were in common prisons such as the savoy and wellclose square in london: they were in hired and adapted strong houses such as the wool house at southampton, and the old pottery works in liverpool, or in adapted country houses such as sissinghurst in kent, or in adapted farms like roscrow and kergilliack in cornwall; or in barracks as at winchester, tynemouth and edinburgh. portchester castle was but an adaptation, so was forton, near gosport, and the only place of confinement built as a prison, and kept exclusively for prisoners of war, was for a long time the millbay prison at plymouth.
in 1760 public attention was drawn to the ‘dangerous spirit’ among the french prisoners in england. escapes were frequent, were carried out by large bodies of men, and in many cases were characterized by open acts of defiance and violence. inquiries were made about places which could be prepared to accommodate, between them, from fifteen to twenty thousand prisoners of war. no place was too sacred for the prison-hunters. a 116report upon the suitability of kenilworth castle was drawn up by a dr. palmer, who concluded, ‘if the buildings are completed, some thousands of prisoners will be so accommodated as i flatter myself will reflect honour on the british nation.’
general simon, we shall see later, was confined in dumbarton castle. the royal palace at linlithgow only escaped conversion into a war prison by the exertions of viscount dundas, lord of the admiralty—a fact to which sir walter scott thus alludes in waverley:
‘they halted at linlithgow, distinguished by its ancient palace, which, sixty years since, was entire and habitable, and whose venerable ruins, not quite sixty years since, very narrowly escaped the unworthy fate of being converted into a barrack for french prisoners. may repose and blessings attend the ashes of the patriotic statesman, who, amongst his last services to scotland, interposed to prevent this profanation!’
so the business of searching for suitable places and of adaptation of unsuitable went on, the prisoners being of course the chief sufferers, which in that hard, merciless age was not a matter of much concern, and it was not until 1782 that a move in the right direction seemed to be made by the abandonment of the old evil place of confinement at knowle, near bristol (visited and commented on by wesley in 1759 and 1760, and by howard in 1779), and the transfer of the prisoners to the ‘fish ponds’ prison, better known later as stapleton.
in 1779 howard says, in his general report upon the prisons on land, ‘the french government made an allowance of 3d. per diem to captains, mates, sailing masters and surgeons; 2d. per diem to boatswains, carpenters, and petty officers generally, and 1d. per diem to all below these ratings (which is almost exactly the same as the allowances made by the british government to its prisoners abroad). there is, besides, a supply from the same court of clothes, linen, and shoes to those who are destitute of these articles; a noble and exemplary provision much to the honour of those who at present conduct public affairs in france.’
howard found the american prisoners, except at pembroke, clean and well clothed, thanks to liberal supplies from their 117own country as well as from england. he noted the care and assiduity of the ‘sick and hurt’ office in london, and decided that england and france treated foreign prisoners very much alike on the whole.
in 1794 charles townshend wrote to the earl of ailesbury: ‘the french prisoners have their quarters in hillsea barracks (portsmouth), find our biscuit and beef much better than their own, and are astonished at the good treatment they meet with. most of them are very young, and were driven on board by the bayonet.’
i quote this as i am only too glad when i come across any record or evidence which can serve to brighten the dark dreary record of these chapters in our national history.
in 1795 there were 13,666 prisoners of war in britain, of whom 1,357 were officers on parole; of the remainder the largest number, 4,769, were at portchester castle.
in 1796–7 the great dép?t at norman cross near peterborough, to contain 7,000 prisoners, was built and occupied. in 1798, further inquiries were made by the government for prison accommodation, as the inflow of prisoners was unceasing and ever increasing, the total for this year being 35,000. the advertised specifications give us an idea of the space then considered sufficient for prisoners. besides accommodation for a garrison calculated at the proportion of one guard for every twenty prisoners, cells were required measuring eight feet by seven, and eleven feet high, for four or five prisoners, or rooms twenty-four feet by twenty-two to be divided into nine cells, and replies were received from coldbath fields, london, liverpool, manchester, preston, lancaster castle, shrewsbury, and dorchester.
in 1799 stapleton prison, near bristol, was to be enlarged so as to be ready in june 1800, for twice its then complement of prisoners.
in 1803 a very general impression was prevalent in high places that an invasion of england was imminent from ireland with which the prisoners of war all over the country, but especially the western counties, were to be associated, and so, at the request of sir rupert george of the transport office, a detailed report was drawn up by mr. yorke of the best means 118to be taken to guard against this. to this was appended a memorandum of the capacity and condition of various inland prisons, such as manchester, stafford, shrewsbury, dorchester, gloucester, coldbath fields in london, and liverpool.
in 1806 the great prison at dartmoor, built to hold 6,000 prisoners, and thus relieve the dangerous congestion at plymouth, was founded, but the first prisoners did not enter it until 1809. in 1811 a large dép?t was formed at valleyfield near penicuik on the esk, about nine miles south of edinburgh, which was gradually enlarged until at the peace of 1814 it contained 10,000 prisoners.
so by this time, 1814, there were nine large prisons at dartmoor, norman cross, millbay, stapleton, valleyfield, forton, portchester, chatham (where the present st. mary’s barracks were first used as a war-prison), and perth, holding about 45,000 prisoners; there were about 2,000 officers on parole; the hulks at portsmouth, plymouth, and chatham—about fifty ships—would hold nearly 35,000 prisoners, and the grand total would be well in excess of the largest number of war prisoners in britain in one year, that is, 72,000 in 1814.
in 1812 the following notification was sent to the admiralty, who evidently treated it seriously, as a copy of it was sent to the agents of all the war prisons in the country:
‘extra secret intelligence.
‘the large fleet here (boulogne) remain perfectly inactive, but the flotilla are only waiting for orders. i was yesterday told by one of the captains that 6,000 men would soon be embarked, that the place of landing was to be as near as possible to stilton prison (norman cross) and that every man was to carry two complete sets of arms, &c., in order to equip the prisoners they may release.’
three men, named la ferre, denisham, and de mussy, were to land as american gentlemen, and to take charge quietly and unobtrusively. the head-quarters were to be near liverpool, hull, and between portsmouth and plymouth, whence these emissaries were to gain access to all the prisons, and prepare the minds of the inmates for the great event.
nothing came of this, but the correspondence of the transport office reveals the fact that by one means or another a more 119or less regular correspondence was kept up between france and the prisons, and that there were concerned in it some very well known officers on parole, and even some englishmen.
the captaincy of a war prison was no sinecure, and if history shows that one or two of the officers occupying the position were ill-fitted for it, assuredly they had no reason to complain of a lack of rules, regulations, and instructions from head-quarters, and they were called to order in no measured terms.
the care of the prisoners themselves, desperate, restless, cunning rascals as many of them were, seems to have bothered the agent much less than the care of those who were in any way associated with the working of the prison—the big and little officials, the officers and soldiers of the garrison, the contractors, the tradesmen, the workmen, the servants, the innkeepers, farmers, post-office officials, even the stage coachmen and guards, not to mention the neighbouring gentry, parsons and old ladies who, of course, knew very much better how to run a war-prison than did captain pressland, or captain cotgrave, or captain draper, or any other selected man.
another fact which contributed to the irksomeness of the post was that although a naval captain was always the head of a war prison, and his turnkeys were generally of the same service, and he was the responsible head of the establishment, the guardianship of the prisoners was absolutely in the hands of the military authorities, who were therefore responsible for the safe-keeping of the prisoners. any difference therefore between the naval captain and the military colonel as to the arrangement and disposal of the guards—and such differences were frequent—was sure to betray itself in the condition of the prison.
it may be easily understood that although it was the naval captain in charge of a prison who was held responsible for every escape of a prisoner, he would be pretty sure to put the onus of it on to the military commander, who, in turn, would be ready to attribute the mishap to anything but deficiency in the arrangement of sentries or to any slackness on the part of his men.
take again the position of the war prisoner agent, as he was called, with regard to the numberless appeals to his humanity with which he was assailed. the period of the great 120wars was not characterized by hyper-sensitiveness on the score of human suffering and want, although i thoroughly believe that the men selected for the position of war prisoner agents were generally as kindly disposed and as sympathetic, as refined and well-bred englishmen as could be in an age not remarkable for gentleness. it must be remembered that they had ever to be on their guard against ruse and stratagem.
a forcible illustration is afforded by the much vexed question of the religious condition of the prisoners. in 1798 the bishop of léon asked that french priests should be allowed to minister to the prisoners at portchester and stapleton, and, although it was notorious that by far the greater number of frenchmen were not merely indifferent to religion, but avowed preachers of atheism, the permission was given, and the abbés de la marc and pasquier were told off for duty. later on, however, it would seem that the privilege thus accorded had been grossly abused, and the permission cancelled, for the transport office writes:
‘the t. o. regrets that it is not in their power to permit the émigré priests to visit war prisons. we feel it our duty, however, to say that in the present difficult times when pretended friends are not always distinguishable from real foes, we feel it our duty to be on our guard respecting intercourse with all prisoners of war under our charge, and though we have a sincere desire to promote the interests of the christian religion under any denomination, yet where it has been, and is uniformly, if not universally, insulted by the republicans of your nation who constitute the bulk of our captives, we must be cautious of every species of introduction to men so generally unprincipled, and who are at best the dupes of an ignorant and insidious philosophy. we allow much when we grant permission to your priests upon the express desire of the parties, and we appeal to you whether it be not an indulgence which would not be conceded to protestant divines under similar circumstances in any roman catholic country, and particularly in france itself under its ancient government.’
the bishop also applies to have a priest at deal. the transport office refuses, saying that deal is not a dép?t for prisoners, but only a receiving place, and there are no turnkeys and clerks, such ‘as the admission of an ecclesiastic might render necessary’.
121in 1801, the same bishop of léon had the assurance to request the release of a french priest taken under arms. to this the transport office replied:
‘the board is rather surprised that you should apply to them on behalf of such a person, as they conceive it to be against the spirit of all religion that men in holy orders should be found in military array, and they are more convinced that they should not comply with such a request, as no assurance can be given or be relied on that so unprincipled a man may not put off his function for his own purposes a second time and repeat his enormity.’
in 1808, the bishop of moulins was chaplain to the prisoners at norman cross, and, according to the rev. arthur brown, author of a little book about this prison, devoted his life to the spiritual regeneration of the poor fellows in captivity, although dr. walker, of peterborough, estimates the bishop somewhat differently.
at any rate, his boy attendant, a prisoner, was found guilty of breaking one of the prison rules by selling straw hats clandestinely made by the prisoners, and was ordered back into confinement. the bishop, who did not live in the prison, but was staying at the bell, in stilton, applied for another prisoner attendant, but was refused.
again, in 1814, the british and foreign bible society asked that the transport office agents should be allowed to distribute new testaments among the prisoners at stapleton and norman cross. the office replied:
‘we cannot impress such a duty on our agents, as they consider it an impossibility to prevent the prisoners from selling them, as all the vigilance exercised by the officers of the department is insufficient to prevent the prisoners from making away with the most necessary articles of clothing and bedding.’
that the transport office were justified in their refusal is confirmed by an incident at the final embarkation of the french prisoners from the perth dép?t in july of the same year, 1814. a considerable number of french testaments were sent from edinburgh to be distributed among the prisoners leaving for france. the distribution was duly made, but by the time the 122prisoners had reached the waterside, almost every man had sold his testament for a trifling sum.
it cannot be doubted, i think, that the hardships endured by the prisoners in the war prisons were very much exaggerated, and also that to a very large extent the prisoners brought them upon themselves. especially was this the case in the matter of insufficient food and clothing. gambling was the besetting sin of the prisons, and to get the wherewithal to gamble the prisoners sold clothing, bedding, and not only their rations for the day, but for days to come. at dartmoor the evil occasioned by the existence of the sale of rations by prisoners to ‘brokers’, who resold them at a profit, was so great that captain cotgrave, the governor, in february 1813, sent a number of the ‘brokers’ to the cachot. to their remonstrance he replied, in writing, much as a sailor man he would have spoken:
‘to the prisoners in the cachot for purchasing provisions. the orders to put you on short allowance (2/3rds) from the commissioners of his majesty’s transport board is for purchasing the provisions of your fellow prisoners, by which means numbers have died from want of food, and the hospital is filled with sick not likely to recover. the number of deaths occasioned by this inhuman practise occasions considerable expense to the government, not only in coffins, but the hospital is filled with these poor, unhappy wretches so far reduced from want of food that they linger a considerable time in the hospital at the government’s expense, and then fall a victim to the cruelty of those who have purchased their provisions, to the disgrace of christians and whatever nation they belong to.
‘the testimony of the surgeons and your countrymen prove the fact.’
the appeal was useless, and he issued a proclamation a month later, threatening to stop the markets if the practice was persisted in. this was equally fruitless. charitable people pitied the poor half-naked prisoners in winter, and supplied them abundantly with clothing; but when the same men were pointed out to them a few days later as naked as before, and it was represented to them that by their well-meant benevolence they were actually encouraging that which it was most desirable to check, they refused to believe it. hence it became necessary to punish severely. the most efficacious form of punishment 123was to put an offender’s name at the bottom of the list for being exchanged against british prisoners to be sent from france or whatever country we happened to be at war with. but even this had no deterrent effect upon some, and the frenzy for gain was so remarkable that in all the prisons there was a regular market for the purchase and sale of places on the exchange list, until the government stopped the practice. the most common form of punishment was putting offenders on short allowance. for making away with hammock, bed, or blanket, the prisoner was put on short allowance for ten days; for making away with any two of these articles he was docked for fourteen days; for cutting or damaging bedding or clothes, he had half rations for five days and had to make the damage good.
acts of violence brought confinement in the cachot or black hole. a prisoner who wounded a turnkey was to be kept handcuffed, with his hands behind him, for not less than twelve hours, and for not more than twenty-four!
for murder and forgery the prisoners came under the civil law; death was the penalty for both, but until 1810 no prisoner-forgers, although convicted, had been punished with death in england, owing to a doubt in the minds of judges whether prisoners of war were answerable to municipal tribunals for this sort of offence, which is not against the law of nations.
prisoners who were not mentally or physically gifted enough to earn money by the exercise of their talents or employment in handicraft, had other opportunities of doing so. for working about the prisons as carpenters, gardeners, washermen, they were paid threepence a day. as helpers in the infirmaries—one to every ten patients—they received sixpence a day. officers recaptured after breaking their parole or sent to prison for serious offences were glad, if they had means, to pay prisoners threepence a day to act as their servants, and do their dirty work generally. at the same rate sweepers were engaged at the ratio of one to every hundred men; cooks, in the proportion of one for every 400 men, received 4?d. a day, and barbers earned 3d. a day. at dartmoor some five hundred prisoners were employed in these and other ways, each man wearing on his cap a tin plate with the nature of his calling thereon inscribed. a necessarily rough estimate showed that nearly half of the 124inmates of the war prisons made honest money in one way or another; the remainder were gamblers and nothing else. still, a very large number of the wage-earners were gamblers also. of these various professions and trades much will be said in the accounts of the prison life which follow, and when comparisons are instituted between the versatility, the deftness, the ingenuity, the artistic feeling, and the industry of the french prisoners in britain, and the helpless indolence of the british prisoners abroad, testimony is unconsciously given in favour of that national system by which men of all social grades, of all professions, and of all trades, are compelled to serve in the defence of their country, as contrasted with that which, until late years, deemed only the scum of the population as properly liable to military service.
