to the general reader some of the most interesting episodes of the lives of the paroled prisoners of war in britain are those which are associated with their escapes and attempts to escape. now, although, as has been already remarked, the feeling of the country people was almost unanimously against the prisoners during the early years of the parole system, that is, during the seven years’ war, from 1756 to 1763, during the more tremendous struggles which followed that feeling was apparently quite as much in their favour, and the authorities found the co-operation of the inhabitants far more troublous to combat than the ingenuity and daring of the prisoners. if the principle governing this feeling among the upper classes of english society was one of chivalrous sympathy with brave men in misfortune, the object of the lower classes—those most nearly concerned with the escapes—was merely gain.
there were scores of country squires and gentlemen who treated the paroled officers as guests and friends, and who no doubt secretly rejoiced when they heard of their escapes, but they could not forget that every escape meant a breach of solemnly-pledged honour, and i have met with very few instances of english ladies and gentlemen aiding and abetting in the escapes of paroled prisoners.
so profitable an affair was the aiding of a prisoner to escape that it soon became as regular a profession as that of smuggling, with which it was so intimately allied. the first instance i have seen recorded was in 1759, when william scullard, a collar-maker at liphook, hampshire, was brought before the justices at the guildford quarter sessions, charged with providing horses and acting as guide to assist two french prisoners of distinction to escape—whence is not mentioned. after 366a long examination he was ordered to be secured for a future hearing, and was at length committed to the new jail in southwark, and ordered to be fettered. the man was a reputed smuggler, could speak french, and had in his pocket a list of all the cross-roads from liphook round by dorking to london.
in 1812 charles jones, solicitor to the admiralty, describes the various methods by which the escapes of paroled prisoners are effected. they are of two kinds, he says:
‘1. by means of the smugglers and those connected with them on the coast, who proceed with horses and covered carriages to the dép?ts and by arrangement rendezvous about the hour of the evening when the prisoners ought to be within doors, about the mile limit, and thus carry them off, travelling through the night and in daytime hiding in woods and coverts. the horses they use are excellent, and the carriages constructed for the purpose. the prisoners are conveyed to the coast, where they are delivered over to the smugglers, and concealed until the boat is ready. they embark at night, and before morning are in france. these escapes are generally in pursuance of orders received from france.
‘2. by means of persons of profligate lives who, residing in or near the parole towns, act as conductors to such of the prisoners as choose to form their own plan of escape. these prisoners generally travel in post-chaises, and the conductor’s business is to pay the expenses and give orders on the road to the innkeepers, drivers, &c., to prevent discovery or suspicion as to the quality of the travellers. when once a prisoner reaches a public-house or inn near the coast, he is considered safe. but there are cases when the prisoners, having one among themselves who can speak good english, travel without conductors. in these cases the innkeepers and post-boys alone are to blame, and it is certain that if this description of persons could be compelled to do their duty many escapes would be prevented.... the landlord of the fountain at canterbury has been known to furnish chaises towards the coast for six french prisoners at a time without a conductor.’
the writer suggested that it should be made felony to assist a prisoner to escape, but the difficulty in the way of this was that juries were well known to lean towards the accused. in the same year, 1812, however, this came about. a bill passed the commons, the proposition being made by castlereagh that to aid in the escape of a prisoner should cease to be misdemeanour, 367and become a felony, punishable by transportation for seven or fourteen years, or life. parole, he said, was a mere farce; bribery was rampant and could do anything, and an organized system existed for furthering the escape of prisoners of rank. within the last three years 464 officers on parole had escaped, but abroad not one british officer had broken his parole. the chief cause, he continued, was the want of an agent between the two countries for the exchange of prisoners, and it was an extraordinary feature of the war that the common rules about the exchange of prisoners were not observed.
the most famous escape agent was thomas feast moore, alias maitland, alias herbert, but known to french prisoners as captain richard harman of folkestone. he was always flush of money, and, although he was known to be able to speak french very fluently, he never used that language in the presence of englishmen. he kept a complete account of all the dép?ts and parole places, with the ranks of the principal prisoners thereat, and had an agent at each, a poor man who was glad for a consideration to place well-to-do prisoners in communication with harman, and so on the road to escape. harman’s charge was usually ￡100 for four prisoners. as a rule he got letters of recommendation from the officers whose escapes he safely negotiated, and he had the confidence of some of the principal prisoners in england and scotland. he was generally in the neighbourhood of whitstable and canterbury, but, for obvious reasons, owned to no fixed residence. he seems to have been on the whole straight in his dealings, but once or twice he sailed very closely in the track of rascally agents who took money from prisoners, and either did nothing for them, or actually betrayed them, or even murdered them.
on march 22, 1810, general pillet, ‘adjudant commandant, chef de l’état-major of the first division of the army of portugal,’ and paolucci, commander of the friedland, taken by h.m.s. standard and active in 1808, left their quarters at alresford, and were met half a mile out by harman with a post-chaise, into which they got and drove to winchester, alighting in a back street while harman went to get another chaise. thence they drove circuitously to hastings via croydon, sevenoaks, tunbridge, robertsbridge, and battle, 368harman saying that this route was necessary for safety, and that he would get them over, as he had general osten, in thirty-four hours.
they arrived at hastings at 7 p.m. on march 23, and alighted outside the town, while harman went to get lodgings. he returned and took them to the house of mrs. akers, a one-eyed woman; they waited there four days for fair weather, and then removed to the house of one paine, for better concealment as the hue and cry was after them. they hid here two days, whilst the house was searched, but their room was locked as an empty lumber room. pillet was disgusted at the delays, and that evening wanted to go to the mayor’s house to give himself up, but the landlord brought them sailor clothes, and said that two women were waiting to take them where they pleased. they refused the clothes, went out, met rachael hutchinson and elizabeth akers, and supposed they would be taken to the mayor’s house, but were at once surrounded and arrested. all this time harman, who evidently saw that the delay caused by the foul weather was fatal to the chance that the prisoners could get off, had disappeared, but was arrested very shortly at the inn at hollington corner, three miles from hastings. he swore that he did not know them to be escaped prisoners, but thought they were guernsey lace-merchants.
during the examination which followed, the hastings town crier said that he had announced the escape of the prisoners at forty-three different points of the eight streets which composed hastings.
pillet and paolucci were sent to norman cross, and harman to horsham jail.
at the next examination it came out that harman had bought a boat for the escape from a man who understood that it was to be used for smuggling purposes by two guernsey lace men. the mayor of hastings gave it as his opinion that no hastings petty jury would commit the prisoners for trial, although a grand jury might, such was the local interest in the escape-cum-smuggling business. however, they were committed. at horsham, harman showed to jones, the solicitor to the admiralty, an iron crown which he said had been given him by the french government for services rendered, but 369which proved to have been stolen from paolucci’s trunk, of which he had the key.
harman, on condition of being set free, offered to make important disclosures to the government respecting the escape business and its connexion with the smugglers, but his offer was declined, and, much to his disgust, he was sent to serve in the navy. ‘he could not have been disposed of in a way less expected or more objectionable to himself,’ wrote the admiralty solicitor, jones, to mcleay, the secretary.
but harman’s career was by no means ended. after serving on the enterprise, he was sent to the namur, guardship at the nore, but for a year or more a cloud of mystery enveloped him, and not until 1813 did it come out that he must have escaped from the namur very shortly after his transfer, and that during the very next year, 1811, he was back at his old calling.
a man giving the name of nicholas trelawney, but obviously a frenchman, was captured on august 24, 1811, on the whitstable smack elizabeth, lying in broadstairs roads, by the lion cutter. at his examination he confessed that he was a prisoner who had broken parole from tiverton, and got as far as whitstable on july 4. here he lodged at an inn where he met mr. ‘feast’ of the hoy whitstable. in conversation the frenchman, not knowing, of course, who mr. ‘feast’ really was, described himself as a jerseyman who had a licence to take his boat to france, but she had been seized by the customs, as she had some english goods in her. he told ‘feast’ that he much wanted to get to france, and ‘feast’ promised to help him, but without leading the frenchman to suppose that he knew him to be an escaped prisoner of war.
he paid ‘feast’ ￡10 10s., and went on board the elizabeth to get to deal, as being a more convenient port for france. ‘feast’ warned him that he would be searched, and persuaded him to hand over his watch and ￡18 for safe keeping. he saw nothing more of mr. ‘feast’ and was captured.
when the above affair made it clear that harman, alias feast moore, was at work again, a keen servant of the transport office, mantell, the agent at dover, was instructed to get on to his track. mantell found that harman had been at broadstairs, to france, and in dover, at which place his well-known 370boat, the two sisters, was discovered, untenanted and with her name obliterated. mantell further learned that on the very night previous to his visit harman had actually been landed by lieutenant peace of the armed cutter decoy, saying that he bore important dispatches from france for croker at the admiralty. the lieutenant had brought him ashore, and had gone with him to an inn whence he would get a mail-coach to london. mantell afterwards heard that harman went no farther than canterbury.
mantell described harman’s usual mode of procedure: how, the french prisoners having been duly approached, the terms agreed upon, and the horses, chaises, boats with sails, oars, charts and provisions arranged for, he would meet them at a little distance outside their place of confinement after dark, travel all night, and with good luck get them off within two days at the outside. mantell found out that in august 1811 harman got four prisoners away from crediton; he lived at mr. parnell’s, the white lion, st. sidwell’s, under the name of herbert, bought a boat of mr. owen of topsham, and actually saw his clients safe over exmouth bar.
his manner, said mantell, was free and open; he generally represented his clients to be guernseymen, or émigrés, or portuguese, and he always got them to sign a paper of recommendation.
in july 1813 news came that harman was at work in kelso, scotland. a stranger in that town had been seen furtively carrying a trunk to the cross keys inn, from which he presently went in a post-chaise to lauder. he was not recognized, but frequent recent escapes from the town had awakened the vigilance of the agent, and the suspicious behaviour of this stranger at the inn determined that official to pursue and arrest him. the trunk was found to belong to dagues, a french officer, and contained the clothes of three other officers on parole, and from the fact that the stranger had made inquiries about a coach for edinburgh, it was clear that an arrangement was nipped in the bud by which the officers were to follow, pick up the trunk at edinburgh, and get off from leith.
harman was disguised, but the next morning the kelso agent saw at once that he answered the description of him 371which had been circulated throughout the kingdom, and sent him to jedburgh jail, while he communicated with london.
the result of harman’s affair was that the solicitor-general gave it as his opinion that it was better he should be detained as a deserter from the navy than as an aider of prisoners to escape, on the ground that there were no sufficiently overt acts on the parts of the french prisoners to show an intention to escape! what became of harman i cannot trace, but at any rate he ceased to lead the fraternity of escape agents.
waddell, a dymchurch smuggler, was second only to harman as an extensive and successful escape agent. in 1812 he came to moreton-hampstead, ‘on business’, and meeting one robins, asked him if he was inclined to take part in a lucrative job, introducing himself, when in liquor afterwards at the inn, as the author of the escape of general lefebvre-desnouettes and wife from cheltenham, for which he got ￡210, saying that while in france he engaged to get general reynaud and his aide-de-camp away from moreton-hampstead for ￡300 or 300 guineas, which was the reason of his presence there. he added that he was now out on bail for ￡400 about the affair of lefebvre-desnouettes, and was bound to appear at maidstone for trial. if convicted he would only be heavily fined, so he was anxious to put this affair through.
robins agreed, but informed the agent, and waddell was arrested. as regards general reynaud, above alluded to, that officer wrote to the transport office to say that the report of his intention to abscond was untrue. the office replied that it was glad to hear so, but added, ‘in consequence of the very disgraceful conduct of other french officers of high rank, such reports cannot fail to be believed by many.’
as a rule the prisoners made their way to london, whence they went by hoy to whitstable and across the channel, but the route from dymchurch to wimereux was also much favoured. spicer of folkestone, tom gittens (known as pork pie tom), james king, who worked the western ports; kite, hornet, cullen, old stanley, hall, waddle, and stevenson of folkestone; yates, norris, smith, hell fire jack, old jarvis and bates of deal; piper and allen of dover; jimmy whather and tom scraggs of whitstable, were all reported to be ‘deep 372in the business’, and deal was described as the ‘focus of mischief’. the usual charge of these men was ￡80 per head, but, as has been already said, the fugitives ere they fairly set foot on their native soil were usually relieved of every penny they possessed.
an ugly feature about the practice of parole-breaking is that the most distinguished french officers did not seem to regard it seriously. in 1812 general simon escaped from odiham and corresponded with france; he was recaptured, and sent to tothill fields prison in london, and thence to dumbarton castle, where two rooms were furnished for him exactly on the scale of a british field officer’s barrack apartment; he was placed on the usual parole allowance, eighteenpence per day for himself, and one shilling and threepence per day for a servant, and he resented very much having to give up a poniard in his possession. from dumbarton he appears to have carried on a regular business as an agent for the escape of paroled prisoners, for, at his request, the transport office had given permission for two of his subalterns, also prisoners on parole, raymond and boutony by name, to take positions in london banks as french correspondents, and it was discovered that these men were actually acting as simon’s london agents for the escape of prisoners on parole. it was no doubt in consequence of this discovery that in 1813 orders were sent to dumbarton that not only was simon to be deprived of newspapers, but that he was not to be allowed pens and ink, ‘as he makes such a scandalous and unbecoming use of them.’
in may 1814 simon, although he was still in close confinement, was exchanged for major-general coke, it being evidently considered by the government that he could do less harm fighting against britain than he did as a prisoner.
the frequent breaches of parole by officers of distinction led to severe comments thereon by the transport board, especially with regard to escapes. in a reply to general privé, who had complained of being watched with unnecessary rigour, it was said: ‘with reference to the “eternal vigilance” with which the officers on parole are watched, i am directed to observe that there was a little necessity for this, as a great many persons who style themselves men of honour, and some of them members 373of the legion of honour, have abandoned all honour and integrity by running from parole, and by bribing unprincipled men to assist in their escape.’
again:
‘certain measures have been regarded as expedient in consequence of the very frequent desertions of late of french officers, not even excepting those of the highest rank, so that their parole of honour has become of little dependence for their security as prisoners of war. particularly do we select general lefebvre-desnouettes, an officer of the legion of honour, a general of division, colonel commanding the chasseurs à cheval de la garde. he was allowed unusually great privileges on parole—to reside at cheltenham, to go thence to malvern and back to cheltenham as often as he liked; his wife was allowed to reside with him, and he was allowed to have two imperial guardsmen as servants. yet he absconded, may 1, 1812, with his servants and naval lieutenant armand le duc, who had been allowed as a special favour to live with him at cheltenham.’
lord wellington requested that certain french officers should be given their parole, but in reply the transport office declined to consent, and as a reason sent him a list of 310 french officers who had broken their parole during the current year, 1812.
the moniteur of august 9, 1812, attempted to justify these breaches of parole, saying that frenchmen only surrendered on the condition of retaining their arms, and that we had broken that condition.
at the exeter assizes, in the summer of 1812, richard tapper of moreton-hampstead, carrier, thomas and william vinnacombe of cheriton bishop, smugglers, were convicted and sentenced to transportation for life for aiding in the attempted escape of two merchant captains, a second captain of a privateer, and a midshipman from moreton-hampstead, from whom they had received ￡25 down and a promise of ￡150. they went under tapper’s guidance on horseback from moreton to topsham, where they found the vinnacombes waiting with a large boat. they started, but grounded on the bar at exmouth, and were captured.
in the same year, acting upon information, the government 374officers slipped quietly down to deal, folkestone, and sandgate, and seized a number of galleys built specially for the cross-channel traffic of escaped prisoners. they were beautifully constructed, forty feet long, eight-oared, and painted so as to be almost invisible. it was said that in calm weather they could be rowed across in two hours!
the pillory was an additional punishment for escape-aiders. russel, in his history of maidstone, says that ‘the last persons who are remembered to have stood in the pillory were two men, who in the first decade of the present (nineteenth) century, had assisted french prisoners of war to escape while on parole’.
but i find that in 1812, seven men were condemned at maidstone, in addition to two years’ imprisonment, to stand in the pillory on every market-day for a month, for the same offence. in this year, hughes, landlord of the red lion and postmaster at rye, hatter, a fisherman, and robinson, of oswestry, were sentenced to two years in horsham jail, and in the first month to be pilloried on rye coast, as near france as possible, for aiding in the escape of general phillipon and lieutenant garnier.
men, not regular escape agents, as well as the latter, often victimized the poor frenchmen under pretence of friendship.
one whithair, of tiverton, was accused, at the exeter summer assizes of 1812, by french prisoners of having cheated them. he had obtained ￡200 from six officers on parole at okehampton—he said to purchase a boat to get them off, and horses to carry them to the coast—through the medium of madame riccord, the english wife of one of the french officers. whithair had also persuaded them to send their trunks to tiverton in readiness. they waited four months, and then suspected that whithair was tricking them, and informed the agent. whithair was arrested, and condemned to pay ￡200, and to be imprisoned until he did so. later, whithair humbly petitioned to be released from newgate on the plea that during his imprisonment he would have no chance of paying the fine, and the superintendent recommended it.
it may be imagined that the profession of escape-aiding had much the same fascination for adventurous spirits as had what our forefathers called ‘the highway’. so we read of 375a young gentleman of rye, who, having run through a fortune, determined to make a trial of this career as a means of restoring his exchequer, but he was evidently too much of an amateur in a craft which required the exercise of a great many qualities not often found in one man’s composition. his very first venture was to get off two officers of high rank from reading, for which he was to receive three hundred guineas, half paid down. he got them in a post-chaise as far as the inn at johns cross, mountfield, about fourteen miles from hastings, but here the excise officers dropped upon them, and there was an end of things.
at ashbourne in derbyshire, a young woman was brought up on march 13, 1812, charged with aiding prisoners on parole to escape, and evidently there had been hints about improper relationship between her and the frenchmen, for she published the following:
‘to the christian impartial reader.
‘i the undernamed susanna cotton declares she has had nothing to do with the escape of the french prisoners, although she has been remanded at stafford, and that there has been no improper relationship as rumoured.
‘judge not that ye be not judged. parents of female children should not readily believe a slander of their sex, nor should a male parent listen to the vulgar aggravation that too often attends the jocular whispering report of a crime so important. for it is not known what time, a year or a day, may bring forth.
‘misses lomas and cotton take this opportunity (tho’ an unpleasant one) of returning their grateful acknowledgement of public and individual favours conferred on them in their business of millinery, and hope for a continuance of them, and that they will not be withheld by reason of any prejudices which may have arisen from the slander above alluded to.’
the prosecution was withdrawn, although miss cotton’s denials were found to be untrue.
