1. sissinghurst castle
about the sissinghurst one looks on to-day there is little indeed to remind us that here stood, one hundred and fifty years ago, a famous war prison, and it is hard to realize that in this tranquil, picturesque, out-of-the-way nook of kent, for seven long years, more than three thousand captive fighting men dragged out a weary existence.
originally the splendid seat of the baker family, and in the heyday of its grandeur one of the kentish halting-places of queen elizabeth during her famous progress in 1571, it had far fallen from its high estate when, in 1756, government, hard pressed to find accommodation for the annually increasing numbers of prisoners of war, leased it.
of the ‘castle’, as it came to be called, of this period, the gate-house, a line of outbuildings which were partially used as barracks for the troops on guard, and a few memories, alone survive. the great quadrangle has disappeared, but the line of the ancient moat, in parts still filled with water, in part incorporated with garden ground, still enables the visitor to trace the original extent of the buildings. part of the line of ivy-clad buildings which face the approach are said to have been used as a small-pox hospital, and the name fran?ois may still be seen carved on the brick; the field known as the ‘horse race’ was the prison cemetery, and human remains have sometimes within living memory been disturbed therein.
otherwise, legends of the prison linger but faintly in the neighbourhood; but from some of these it would seem that officer-prisoners at sissinghurst were allowed out on parole. the place-name ‘three chimneys’, at a point where three roads meet, exactly one mile from sissinghurst, is said to be a 126corruption of ‘trois chemins’, so called by the french prisoners whose limit it marked.
wilsley house, just out of cranbrook, a fine old residence, formerly belonging to a merchant prince of the kentish cloth trade, now occupied by colonel alexander, is said to have been tenanted by french officers on parole, and some panel paintings in one of the rooms are said to have been their work, but i think they are of earlier date. the neighbouring barrack farm is said to have been the prison garrison officers’ quarters, and the house next to the sissinghurst post office is by tradition the old garrison canteen.
the only individual from whom i could gather any recollections of the french prisoner days was an old farm labourer named gurr, living at goford. he told me that his great-grandfather, ploughing one day near the prison, suddenly saw three men creeping along a hedgerow close to him. recognizing them to be sissinghurst prisoners, he armed himself with the coulter of his plough and went up to them. the poor fellows seemed exhausted and bewildered, and went with him back to the castle without offering any resistance, telling him on the way that they had got out by tunnelling under the moat with small mattocks. gurr said that he had often dug up human bones in the meadow opposite the castle entrance.
the following letter, i think, was written from sissinghurst, but it may be from portchester. i insert it here as in all contemporary correspondence ‘le chateau’ means sissinghurst.
‘le chateau, 30me mai, 1756.
‘monsieur:
‘la présente est pour vous prier de nous donner de délargissement, attendu que nous ne sommes point obligés pour une personne de nous voir detenus commes nous sommes. nous vous avertisons que si nous n’avons pas l’élargissement nous minerons le chateau, et nous sommes résolus de nous battre contre nos ennemis. nous ne sommes point obligés de souffrir par raport d’un joli qui ne nous veu que de la peine. nous avons des armes, de la poudre blanche et des bales (balles?) pour nous défendre. nous vous prions de nous donner la liberté le plus t?t possible, attendu que nous sommes tout prêst a suivre notre dessein. on nous a déjà tué un homme dans le prison, et nous aurons la vengeance.
‘nous avons été tranquille jusqu’aujourdui, mais présentement nous allons jouer à la fran?oise des rigodons sans violons attendu que nous sommes tous d’un accord.
‘jugez de reste,
‘votre très affectionné et
‘fran?ois en général.’
sissinghurst castle
from an old print
127on june 24, 1758, the following complaint was sent up:
‘nosseigneurs:
‘nous avons eu l’honneur de vous envoyer un placet en date du 17me de ce mois, et nous là vous tenus [sic] entre les mains de mr. paxton, secretaire de mr. cook [cooke] le 18me nous y faisions de justes plaintes touchant le gouvernement de mr. cook qui n’est rien moins que tyrannique et capricieuse, et nous vous le posions tout au long sa dernière injustice. craignans qu’on ne vous ait pas mis celuy la, nous avons pris la liberté de vous faire cette lettre pour vous prier de nous rendre justice. si mr. cook n’avoit rien à se reprocher il ne retiendrait pas les lettres que nous vous addressons. tout le monde scait ce que mérite celuy qui détourne des oreilles de justice, les cris de ceux qui la réclame et qui n’ont d’autre crime que d’être infortunés, nous espérons nosseigneurs que vous y aurez egarder que vous nous ferez justice, nous vous aurons à jamais l’obligation.
‘vos humbles et très obeisans serviteurs
‘pour tous les prisonniers en général.’
at about the same date twenty-seven paroled naval officers at cranbrook signed a complaint that they were not allowed by the one-mile limit of their parole to visit their crews, prisoners at sissinghurst, two miles away, to help them in their distress and to prevent them being robbed by the english who have the monopoly of getting things for sale into the prison, notably the jailers and the canteen man, not to mention others. also that the prisoners at sissinghurst had no chance of ventilating their grievances, which were heavy and many:
‘de remédier à une injustice, ou plut?t à une cruauté que les nations les plus barbares n’exercisions. en effet c’est une tiranie audieuse que de vouloir forcer des pauvres prisonniers à n’acheter d’autre marchandises que celles venant des mains de leurs gardiens, et d’empécher leurs parens et amis de leur envoyer à beaucoup meilleur marché aussy bien.’
many of the letters from relations in france to prisoners at sissinghurst are preserved at the record office. it is only 128from acquaintance with these poor tattered, blotted ebullitions of affection and despair that the modern englishman can glean a notion of what confinement in an english prison of husbands, fathers, brothers, and lovers meant to hundreds of poor, simple peasant and fisher women of france. the breath of most of them is religious resignation: in a few, a very few, a spirit of resentment and antagonism to britain is prominent; most of them are humble domestic chronicles blended with prayers for a speedy liberation and for courage in the meanwhile. there is nothing quite like these mid-eighteenth century letters in the correspondence of the succeeding great struggle, when the principles of the revolution had penetrated to the homes of the lowliest. one sees reflected in it the simplicity, the childish confidence in the rightness and fitness of all in authority, and, above all, the deep sense of religion, which invested the peasantry of france with a great and peculiar charm.
during this year, 1758, the letters of complaint are many and pitiful, the chief subject being the non-delivery to prisoners of their letters, and the undue surveillance exercised over correspondence of the tenderest private nature. in 1760 the occupants of sissinghurst received their share of the clothes provided by english compassion. many of them were accused of selling these clothes, to which they replied that it was to buy necessaries or tobacco, or for postage, and added that they had been for a long time on half-rations.
on october 14 a desperate attempt to escape was made, and frustrated in an unnecessarily brutal manner. a prisoner named artus, his brother, and other prisoners discovered a disused latrine. into this they crept, broke through a brick wall by a drain, and reached the edge of the moat, and crossed it to the opposite bank close to the first of the three sentries on duty along it. this was at ten o’clock on a moonlight night. two of the prisoners passed the first and second sentries and got some way into the fields. artus and his brother were to follow, and were crawling on hands and knees to avoid being seen. the first sentry, who was close by, did nothing, having probably been bribed; but the other two sentries, being alarmed by a fourth sentry, who was on the right hand of the first, ran up and challenged artus, who cried: ‘don’t fire! 129surrender!’ but the sentry disregarded this, wounded him in two places on the arm, tearing his waistcoat, and then fired at him point blank, blowing off half his head. artus’s brother, three yards behind, was secured by a drummer who was armed with nothing but a drumstick, thus proving the utterly unnecessary killing of artus. two other prisoners were captured later in the drain, ready to come out.
in the annual register we read that on saturday, july 16, 1760, the alarm was given that a thousand prisoners had broken out of the castle and were abroad in the country. ‘to arms’ was beaten immediately. ‘you would have been pleased to see with what readiness and alacrity the surrey militia here, universally, officers and men, advanced towards the place of danger’, says the correspondent, ‘i say, “towards,” because when they got as far as milkhouse street, the alarm was discovered to be a mistake. many of the townspeople and countrymen joined them.’
on one sunday morning in 1761 the good people of cranbrook were sent flying out of church by the news that the sissinghurst prisoners had broken out and were scouring the country fully armed, but this also was a false alarm.
it was from the top of the still standing gatehouse-tower that the deed was perpetrated which caused the following entry in the cranbrook register:
‘1761. william bassuck: killed by a french prisoner.’ bassuck was on sentry-go below, and the frenchman dropped a pail on him.
in 1762 the misery of the prisoners at sissinghurst culminated in a petition to the admiralty, signed by almost all of them, of so forcible and circumstantial a character, that in common justice it could not be overlooked, and so dr. maxwell was sent down to examine the charges against cooke, the agent.
the complaints and their replies were as follows:
(1) that the provisions were bad in quality, of short measure and badly served.
reply: not proved.
(2) that cheese had been stopped four ‘maigre’ days in succession to make good damage done by prisoners.
reply: only upon two days.
130(3) that prisoners had been put upon half allowance in the cachot or black hole for staying in the wards on account of not having sufficient clothing to leave them.
reply: they were not put in the cachot, but upon half allowance for remaining in the wards during the day contrary to the regulations. there was no need for them to lack ‘cloaths’.
(4) that they were put upon half allowance for appearing at a sudden muster without clothes.
reply: this muster was ordered by the agent, cooke, because he suspected the prisoners of embezzling clothes and of gambling them away.
(5) that the prisoners had been threatened with being deprived of their turn of exchange for signing this petition to the board of admiralty.
reply: there was no foundation for this statement.
(6) that cooke had refused to pay them for more than eighteen days’ work in carrying coals, although they were twenty-eight days.
reply: in reality they had only worked for parts of these days, and had been paid for the work actually done.
(7) that cooke showed no zeal for the welfare of the prisoners.
reply: that there is no foundation for this statement.
(8) that they were ill-treated by the militia guards.
this last complaint was the most serious of all, and the examination into it revealed a state of affairs by no means creditable to the authorities. here it should be stated that on account of the great and constant demand made by the war upon the regular troops, the task of guarding the prisons was universally performed by the militia—undesirable men from more than one point of view, especially from their lack of self-restraint and their accessibility to bribery. the following cases were cited. on november 28, 1757, ferdinand brehost, or gratez, was shot dead by a sentry of general amherst’s regiment. the sentry in defence said that he had had orders to fire upon any prisoners who did not take down the clothes they hung upon the palisades when ordered to.
it was adjudged that the sentry fired too precipitately.
131on the night of october 29, 1759, the prisoner jacobus loffe was shot dead in his hammock by a sentry.
in defence the sentry said that he called out several times for the prisoners to put out their lights. they refused and bid him fire and be damned. the evidence showed that all the prisoners were asleep, and that the light seen by the sentry was the reflection on the window of a lamp outside the building.
the same judgement as in the other case was given.
on july 11, 1760, two prisoners were shot by a sentry. john bramston, the sentry, said in defence that a prisoner came too near the forbidden barrier, refused to keep off when ordered to, with the result that bramston fired, killed him, and another prisoner further away.
bramston was tried at maidstone and acquitted, the jury finding that he did no more than his duty in accordance with the general orders at the castle. still, it came out in evidence that orders had been issued that sentries were not to fire if the object could be secured by the turnkey. colonel fairfax indeed ordered that sentries were not to fire at all. he had found out that bramston was sometimes out of his senses, and he had discharged him from the service, but he was actually on duty after this affair, was found to have loaded his piece with two balls, and after the murder on the 11th had threatened to kill more prisoners.
on the same day two other prisoners were stabbed by sentries. in one case, however, a prisoner gave evidence in favour of the sentry, saying that he did not believe there was any intention to kill, but that the sentry being surrounded by a crowd of prisoners, pushed his bayonet to keep them at a distance for fear that they intended mischief.
it also came out that the soldiers were allowed to strike the prisoners with the flats of their sabres. this was now forbidden. also that the soldiers abused the power they had of taking away the prisoners’ knives when they made improper use of them, and actually sold the knives thus confiscated to other prisoners. also that the soldiers wilfully damaged forms and tables so that the prisoners should be punished.
the commissioners of the ‘sick and hurt’ office, in their summing up of dr. maxwell’s evidence, said that, while there 132was no doubt much exaggeration by the petitioners, there was too much reason for complaint, and found that the person in charge was not so much to blame, but the ‘common centinels’, whose understanding did not enable them to distinguish between the letter and the meaning of their orders, and that this arose from the lack of printed standing orders. the officers of the guard had arbitrary powers independent of the agent, and the latter said when asked why he did not complain to the board, that he did not care to dispute with the officers.
it will be noted that this inquiry was not held until 1762, that is to say, until seven years of tyranny had been practised upon these unfortunate foreigners, and seven years of nameless horrors suffered in forced silence. small wonder that throughout the correspondence of this period sissinghurst is spoken of with disgust and loathing.
the record of only one sissinghurst prisoner marrying an englishwoman exists—that, in 1762, of laurence calberte, ‘a prisoner among the french at sissinghurst house’, to mary pepper.
i have to thank mr. neve of the castle house, sissinghurst, for his kindness in allowing me to have the photograph taken of some exquisite little articles made in wood by sissinghurst prisoners, and also to reproduce a picture of the ‘castle’, as it was when used as a prison.
after its evacuation at the peace of paris, in 1763, sissinghurst castle became a workhouse, and when it ceased to be used for this purpose gradually fell into ruin and was pulled down.
articles in wood made by the prisoners at sissinghurst castle, 1763
