it could hardly be expected that a uniform standard of good and submissive behaviour would be attained by a large body of fighting men, the greater part of whom were in vigorous youth or in the prime of life, although, on the whole, the conduct of those who honourably observed their parole seems to have been admirable—a fact which no doubt had a great deal to do with the very general display of sympathy for them latterly. in some places more than others they seem to have brought upon themselves by their own behaviour local odium, and these are the places in which were quartered captured privateer officers, wild, reckless sea-dogs whom, naturally, restraint galled far more deeply than it did the drilled and disciplined officers of the regular army and navy.
in 1797, for instance, the inhabitants of tavistock complained that the prisoners went about the town in female garb, after bell-ringing, and that they were associated in these masquerades with women of their own nation. so they were threatened with the mill prison at plymouth.
in 1807 complaints from chesterfield about the improper conduct of the prisoners brought a transport office order to the agent that the strictest observation of regulations was necessary, and that the mere removal of a prisoner to another parole town was no punishment, and was to be discontinued. in 1808 there was a serious riot between the prisoners and the townsfolk in the same place, in which bludgeons were freely used and heads freely broken, and from lichfield came complaints of the outrageous and insubordinate behaviour of the prisoners.
in 1807 mr. p. wykeham of thame park complained of the prisoners trespassing therein; from bath came protests against the conduct of general rouget and his a.d.c.; and in 1809 the behaviour of one wislawski at odiham (possibly the ‘wysilaski’ already mentioned as at sanquhar) was reported as being so atrocious that he was at once packed off to a prison-ship.
396in 1810, at oswestry, lieutenant julien complained that the agent, tozer, had insulted him by threatening him with his cane, and accusing him of drunkenness in the public-houses. tozer, on the other hand, declared that julien and others were rioting in the streets, that he tried to restore order, and raised his cane in emphasis, whereupon julien raised his with offensive intent.
occasionally we find complaints sent up by local professionals and tradesmen that the prisoners on parole unfairly compete with them. here it may be remarked that the following of trades and professions by prisoners of war was by no means confined to the inmates of prisons and prison-ships, and that there were hundreds of poor officers on parole who not only worked at their professions (as garneray the painter did at bishop’s waltham) and at specific trades, but who were glad to eke out their scanty subsistence-money by the manufacture of models, toys, ornaments, &c.
in 1812 a baker at thame complained that the prisoners on parole in that town baked bread, to which the transport office replied that there was no objection to their doing it for their own consumption, but not for public sale. it is to be hoped the baker was satisfied with this very academic reply!
so also the bootmakers of portsmouth complained that the prisoners on parole in the neighbourhood made boots for sale at lower than the current rates. the transport office replied that orders were strict against this, and that the master bootmakers were to blame for encouraging this ‘clandestine trade.’
in 1813 the doctors at welshpool complained that the doctors among the french parole prisoners there inoculated private families for small-pox. the transport office forbade it.
in the same year complaints came from whitchurch in shropshire of the defiant treatment of the limit-rules by the prisoners there; to which the transport office replied that they had ordered posts to be set up at the extremities of the mile-limits, and printed regulations to be posted in public places; that they were fully sensible of the mischief done by so many prisoners being on parole, but that they were unable to stop it.
still in 1813, the transport office commented very severely upon the case of a danish officer at reading who had been found 397guilty of forging a ‘certificate of succession’, which i take to be a list of prisoners in their order for being exchanged. i quote this case, as crimes of this calibre were hardly known among parole prisoners; for other instances, see pages 320 and 439.
many complaints were made from the parole towns about the debts left behind them by absconded prisoners. the transport office invariably replied that such debts being private matters, the only remedy was at civil law.
when we come to deal with the complaints made by the prisoners—be they merely general complaints, or complaints against the people of the country—the number is so great that the task set is to select those of the most importance and interest.
complaints against fellow prisoners are not common.
in 1758 a french doctor, prisoner on parole at wye in kent, complains that ten of his countrymen, fellow prisoners, wanted him to pay for drinks to the extent of twenty-seven shillings. he refused, so they attacked him, tore his clothes, stole thirty-six shillings, a handkerchief, and two medals. he brought his assailants before the magistrates, and they were made to refund twenty-five shillings. this so enraged them that they made his life a burden to him, and he prayed to be removed elsewhere.
in 1758 a prisoner on parole at chippenham complained that he was subjected to ill treatment by his fellow prisoners. the letter is ear-marked:
‘mr. trevanion (the local agent) is directed to publish to all the prisoners that if any are guilty of misbehaviour to each other, the offenders will immediately be sent to the prison, and particularly that if any one molests or insults the writer of this letter, he shall instantly be confined upon its being proved.’
later, however, the writer complains that the bullying is worse than ever, and that the other prisoners swear that they will cut him in pieces, so that he dare not leave his lodgings, and has been besieged there for days.
in the same year dingart, captain of the deux amis privateer, writes from confinement on the royal oak prison-ship at plymouth that he had been treated unjustly. he had, he 398says, a difference with feraud, captain of le moras privateer, at tavistock, during which the latter struck him, ran away, and kept out of sight for a fortnight. upon his reappearance, the complainant returned him the blow with a stick, whereupon feraud brought him up for assault before the agent, willesford, who sent him to a prison-ship.
at penryn in the same year, chevalier, a naval lieutenant, complained of being insulted and attacked by another prisoner with a stick, who, ‘although only a privateer sailor, is evidently favoured by loyll’ (lloyd?) the agent.
in 1810 one savart was removed from wincanton to stapleton prison at the request of french superior officers who complained of his very violent conduct.
these complaints were largely due to the tactless government system of placing parole prisoners of widely different ranks together. there are many letters during the seven years’ war period from officers requesting to be removed to places where they would be only among people of their own rank, and not among those ‘qui imaginent que la condition de prisonnier de guerre peut nous rendre tous égaux.’
nor was this complaint confined to prisoners on parole, but even more closely affected officers who, for breaches of parole, were sent to prisons or to prison-ships. there are strong complaints in 1758 by ‘broke-paroles’, as they were termed, of the brutal class of prisoners at sissinghurst with whom they were condemned to herd; and in one case the officer prisoners actually petitioned that a prison official who had been dismissed and punished for cutting and wounding an ordinary prisoner should be reinstated, as the latter richly deserved the treatment he had received.
latterly the authorities remedied this by setting apart prison-ships for officers, and by providing separate quarters in prisons. still, in dealing with the complaints, they had to be constantly on their guard against artifice and fraud, and if the perusal of government replies to complaints makes us sometimes think that the complainants were harshly and even brutally dealt with, we may be sure that as a rule the authorities had very sufficient grounds for their decisions. for example, in 1804, delormant, an officer on parole at tiverton, was sent 399to a plymouth hulk for some breach of parole. he complained to admiral colpoys that he was obliged there to herd with the common men. colpoys wrote to the transport board that he had thought right to have a separate ship fitted for prisoner officers, and had sent delormant to it. whereupon the board replied that if admiral colpoys had taken the trouble to find out what sort of a man delormant really was, he would have left him where he was, but that for the present he might remain on the special ship.
one of the commonest forms of complaint from prisoners was against the custom of punishing a whole community for the sins of a few, or even of a single man. in 1758 a round-robin signed by seventy-five prisoners at sissinghurst protested that the whole of the inmates of the castle were put upon half rations for the faults of a few ‘impertinents’.
at okehampton in the same year, upon a paroled officer being sent to a local prison for some offence, and escaping therefrom, the whole of the other prisoners in the place were confined to their lodgings for some days. when set free they held an indignation meeting, during which one of the orators waved a stick, as the mayor said, threateningly at him. whereupon he was arrested and imprisoned at ‘coxade’, the ‘cockside’ prison near mill bay, plymouth.
we see an almost pathetic fanning and fluttering of that old french aristocratic plumage, which thirty years later was to be bedraggled in the bloody dust, in the complaints of two highborn prisoners of war in 1756 and 1758. in the former year monsieur de béthune strongly resented being sent on parole from bristol into the country:
‘ayant appris de mr. surgunnes (?) que vous lui mandé par votre lettre du 13 courant si messire de béthune, chevalier de st. simon, marquis d’arbest, baron de sainte lucie, seigneur haut, et bas justicier des paroisses de chateauvieux, corvilac, laneau, pontmartin, neung et autres lieux, étoit admis à la parole avec les autres officiers pour lesquels il s’intéresse, j’aurai l’avantage de vous répondre, qu’un grand de la trempe de messire de béthune, qui vous adresse la présente, n’est point fait pour peupler un endroit aussi désert que la campagne, attendu qu’allié du costé paternel et maternel à un des plus puissans rois que jamais terre ait porté, londres, comme 400bristol ou autre séjour qu’il voudra choisir, est capable de contenir celui qui est tout à vous.
‘de bristol; le 15 xbre. 1756.’
later he writes that he hears indirectly that this letter has given offence to the gentlemen at the ‘sick and hurt’ office on tower hill, but maintains that it is excusable from one who is allied to several kings and sovereign princes, and he expects to have his passport for london.
the prince de rohan, on parole at romsey, not adapting himself easily to life in the little hampshire town, although he had the most rare privilege of a six-mile limit around it, wrote on july 4, 1758, requesting permission for self and three or four officers to go to southampton once a week to make purchases, as romsey market is so indifferent, and to pass the night there. the six-mile limit, he says, does not enable him to avail himself of the hospitality of the people of quality, and he wants leave to go further with his suite. he adds a panegyric on the high birth and the honour of french naval officers, which made parole-breaking an impossibility, and he resents their being placed in the same category with privateer and merchant-ship captains.
however, the commissioners reply that no exceptions can be made in his favour, and that as southampton is a sea-port, leave to visit it cannot be thought of.
in 1756 twenty-two officers on parole at cranbrook in kent prayed to be sent to maidstone, on the plea that there were no lodgings to be had in cranbrook except at exorbitant rates; that the bakers only baked once or twice a week, and that sometimes the supply of bread ran short if it was not ordered beforehand and an extra price paid for it; that vegetables were hardly to be obtained; and that, finally, they were ill-treated by the inhabitants. no notice was taken of this petition.
in 1757 a prisoner writes from tenterden:
‘s’il faut que je reste en angleterre, permettez-moi encore de vous prier de vouloir bien m’envoier dans une meilleure place, n’ayant pas déjà lieu de me louer du peuple de ce village. sur des plaintes que plusieurs fran?ais ont portées au maire depuis que je suis ici, il a fait afficher de ne point insulter aux fran?ais, l’affiche a été le même jour arrachée. on a remis une autre. il est bien désagréable d’être dans une ville où l’on est 401obligé de défendre aux peuples d’insulter les prisonniers. j’ai ou? dire aux fran?ais qui ont été à maidstone que c’était très bien et qu’ils n’ont jamais été insultés ... ce qui me fait vous demander une autre place, c’est qu’on déjà faillit d’être jeté dans la boue en passant dans les chemins, ayant eu cependant l’intention de céder le pavé.’
in reply, the commissioners of the ‘sick and hurt’ office ask the agent at tenterden why, when he heard complaints, he did not inform the board. the complainant, however, was not to be moved, as he had previously been sent to sissinghurst for punishment.
in 1758, twenty officers at tenterden prayed for removal elsewhere, saying that as the neighbourhood was a residential one for extremely rich people, lodgings at moderate prices were not to be had, and that the townspeople cared so little to take in foreign guests of their description, that if they were taken ill the landlords turned them out. this application was ear-marked for inquiry.
no doubt the poor fellows received but scanty courtesy from the rank and file of their captors, and the foreigner then, far more than now, was deemed fair game for oppression and robbery. in support of this i will quote some remarks by colonel thierry, whose case certainly appears to be a particularly hard one.
colonel thierry had been sent to stapleton prison in 1812 for having violated his parole by writing from oswestry to his niece, the comtesse de la frotté, without having submitted the letter, according to parole rule, to the agent. he asks for humane treatment, a separate room, a servant, and liberty to go to market.
‘les vexations dont on m’a accablé en route sont révoltantes. les scélérats que vos lois envoyent à tyburn ne sont pas plus mal traités; une semblable conduite envers un colonel, prisonnier de guerre, est une horreur de plus que j’aurai le droit de reprocher aux anglais pour lesquels j’ai eu tant de bontés lorsqu’ils sont tombés en mon pouvoir. si le gouvernement fran?ais f?t instruit des mauvais traitements dont on accable les fran?ais de touts grades, et donnait des ordres pour user de représailles envers les anglais détenus en france ... le gouvernement anglais ordonnerait-il à ses agents de traiter avec plus d’égards, de modération, d’humanité ses prisonniers.’
402in a postscript the colonel adds that his nephew, the comte de la frotté, is with wellington, that another is in the royal navy, and that all are english born. one is glad to know that the colonel’s prayer was heard, and that he was released from stapleton.
in 1758 a prisoner writes from tenterden:
‘last thursday, march 16th, towards half-past eight at night, i was going to supper, and passed in front of a butcher’s shop where there is a bench fixed near the door on which three or four youths were sitting, and at the end one who is a marine drummer leaning against a wall projecting two feet on to the street. when i came near them i guessed they were talking about us frenchmen, for i heard one of them say: “here comes one of them,” and when i was a few paces beyond them one of them hit me on the right cheek with something soft and cold. as i entered my lodging i turned round and said: “you had better be careful!” last sunday at half-past eight, as i was going to supper, being between the same butcher’s shop and the churchyard gate, some one threw at me a stick quite three feet long and heavy enough to wound me severely....’
also at tenterden, a prisoner named d’helincourt, going home one night with a doctor chomel, met at the door of the latter’s lodging a youth and two girls, one of whom was the daughter of chomel’s landlord, ‘avec laquelle il avait plusieurs fois poussé la plaisanterie jusqu’à l’embrasser sans qu’elle l’e?t jamais trouvé mauvais, et ayant engagé m. chomel à l’embrasser aussi.’ but the other girl, whom they would also kiss, played the prude; the youth with her misunderstood what d’helincourt said, and hit him under the chin with his fist, which made d’helincourt hit him back with his cane on the arm, and all seemed at an end. not long after, d’helincourt was in the market, when about thirty youths came along. one of them went up to him and asked him if he remembered him, and hit him on the chest. d’helincourt collared him, to take him to the mayor, but the others set on him, and he certainly would have been killed had not some dragoons come up and rescued him.
apparently the agents and magistrates were too much afraid of offending the people to grant justice to these poor strangers.
403at cranbrook a french officer was assaulted by a local ruffian and hit him back, for which he was sent to sissinghurst.
in 1808 and 1809 many complaints from officers were received that their applications to be allowed to go to places like bath and cheltenham for the benefit of their health were too often met with the stereotyped reply that ‘your complaint is evidently not of such a nature as to be cured by the waters of bath or cheltenham’. of course, the transport office knew well enough that the complaints were not curable by the waters of those places, but by their life and gaiety: by the change from the monotonous country town with its narrow, gauche society, its wretched inns, and its mile limit, to the fashionable world of gaming, and dancing, and music, and flirting; but they also knew that to permit french officers to gather at these places in numbers would be to encourage plotting and planning, and to bring together gentlemen whom it was desirable to keep apart.
so in the latter year the mayor of bath received an order from the earl of liverpool that all prisoners of war were to be removed from the city except those who could produce certificates from two respectable doctors of the necessity of their remaining, ‘which must be done with such caution as, if required, the same may be verified on oath.’ the officers affected by this order were to go to bishop’s waltham, odiham, wincanton, and tiverton.
of complaints by prisoners on parole against the country people there must be many hundreds, the greater number of them dating from the period of the seven years’ war. during this time the prisoners were largely distributed in kent, a county which, from its proximity to france, and its consequent continuous memory of wrongs, fancied and real, suffered at the hands of frenchmen during the many centuries of warfare between the two countries, when kent bore the brunt of invasion and fighting, may be understood to have entertained no particular affection for frenchmen, despite the ceaseless commerce of a particular kind which the bitterest of wars could not interrupt.
a few instances will suffice to exemplify the unhappy relationship which existed, not in kent alone, but everywhere, 404between the country people and the unfortunate foreigners thrust among them.
in 1757 a prisoner on parole at basingstoke complained that he was in bed at 11 p.m., when there came ‘7 ou 8 dr?les qui les défièrent de sortir en les accablant d’injures atroces, et frappant aux portes et aux fenêtres comme s’ils avoient voulu jeter la maison en bas.’ another prisoner here had stones thrown at him ‘d’une telle force qu’elles faisoient feu sur le pavé,’ whilst another lot of youths broke windows and almost uprooted the garden.
from wye in kent is a whole batch of letters of complaint against the people. one of them is a round-robin signed by eighty prisoners complaining of bad and dear lodgings, and praying to be sent to ashford, which was four times the size of wye, and where there were only forty-five prisoners, and lodgings were better and cheaper.
at tonbridge, in the same year, two parole officers dropped some milk for fun on the hat of a milk-woman at the door below their window. some chaff ensued which a certain officious and mischief-making man named miles heard, who threatened he would report the frenchmen for improper conduct, and get them sent to sissinghurst! the authors of the ‘fun’ wrote to the authorities informing them of the circumstances, and asking for forgiveness, knowing well that men had been sent to sissinghurst for less. whether the authorities saw the joke or not does not appear.
the rabble of the parole towns had recourse to all sorts of devices to make the prisoners break their paroles so that they could claim the usual reward of ten shillings. at helston, on august 1, 1757, hingston, the parole agent, sent to dyer, the agent at penryn, a prisoner named channazast, for being out of his lodgings all night. at the examination, tonken, in whose house the man was, and who was liable to punishment for harbouring him, said, and wrote later:
‘i having been sent for by the mayor of our town this day to answer for i cannot tell what, however i’ll describe it to you in the best manner i am able. you must know that last friday evening, i asked monsieur channazast to supper at my house who came according to my request. now i have two frenchmen 405boarded at my house, so they sat down together till most ten o’clock. at which time i had intelligence brought me that there was a soldier and another man waiting in the street for him to come out in order to get the ten shillings that was orders given by the mayor for taking up all frenchmen who was seen out of their quarters after 9 o’clock. so, to prevent this rascally imposition i desired the man to go to bed with his two countrymen which he did accordingly altho’ he was not out of my house for the night——’
reply: ‘make enquiries into this.’
from torrington in the same year eighteen prisoners pray to be sent elsewhere:
‘insultés à chaque instant par mille et millions d’injures ou menaces, estre souvent poursuivis par la popullace jusqu’à nos portes à coups de roches et coups de batons. en outre encore, monseigneur, avant hier il fut tirré un coup de fusil à plomb à cinque heures apres midy n’etant distant de notre logement que d’une portée de pistolet, heureusement celuy qui nous l’envoyoit ne nous avoit point assez bien ajusté . . . qu’il est dans tous les villages des hommes proposés pour rendre justice tres surrement bien judiscieux mais il est une cause qui l’empeche de nous prouver son equité comme la crainte de detourner la populasce adverse . . . nous avons été obligés de commettre à tous moments à suporter sans rien dire ce surcrois de malheurs. . . .’
two more letters, each signed by the same eighteen prisoners, follow to the same intent. the man who fired the shot was brought up, and punishment promised, but nothing was done. also it was promised that a notice forbidding the insulting of prisoners should be posted up, but neither was this done. the same letters complain also of robbery by lodging keepers, for the usual rate of 4s. a week was raised to 4s. 6d., and a month later to 5s. one prisoner refused to pay this. the woman who let the lodging complained to ‘enjolace,’ the agent, who tells the prisoner he must either pay what is demanded, or go to prison.
a prisoner at odiham in the same year complained that a country girl encouraged him to address her, and that when he did, summoned him for violently assaulting her. he was fined twelve guineas, complains that his defence was not heard, and 406that ever since he had been insulted and persecuted by the country people.
in 1758 a letter, signed by fifty-six prisoners at sevenoaks, bitterly complains that the behaviour of the country people is so bad that they dare not go out. in the same year a doctor, a prisoner in sissinghurst castle, complains of a grave injustice. he says that when on parole at sevenoaks he was called in by a fellow countryman, cured him, and was paid his fee, but that ‘nache’, the agent at sevenoaks, demanded half the fee, and upon the prisoner’s refusal to pay him, reported the case to the admiralty, and got him committed to sissinghurst.
a disgraceful and successful plot to ruin a prisoner is told from petersfield in 1758.
fifteen officers on parole appealed on behalf of one of their number named morriset. he was in bed on december 22, at 8 a.m., in his lodging at one ‘schollers’, a saddler, when mrs. ‘schollers’ came into the room on the pretext of looking for a slipper, and sat herself on the end of the bed. suddenly, in came her husband, and, finding his wife there, attacked morriset cruelly. morriset to defend himself seized a knife from a waistcoat hanging on the bed, and ‘schollers’ dropped his hold of him, but took from the waistcoat three guineas and some ‘chelins’, then called in a constable, accused morriset of behaving improperly with his wife, and claimed a hundred pounds, or he would summons him. morriset was brought up before the magistrates, and, despite his protestations of innocence, was sent to winchester jail. in reply to the appeal, the commissioners said that they could not interfere in what was a private matter.
in the same year a prisoner wrote from callington:
‘lundy passé je fus attaqué dans mon logement par thomas, gar?on de mr. avis qui, après m’avoir dit toutes les sottises imaginables, ne s’en contenta pas, sans que je luy répondis à aucune de ses mauvaises parolles, il sauta sur moy, et me frapa, et je fus obligé de m’en défendre. dimance dernier venant de me promener à 8 heures du soir, je rancontray dans la rue près de mon logement une quarantaine d’anglois armés de batons pour me fraper si je n’avois peu me sauver à la faveur de mes jambes. mardy sur les 7 heures de soir je fus attaqué en pleine place par les anglois qui me donnèrent beaucoup de 407coups et m’étant défait d’eux je me sauvai à l’oberge du soleil ou j’ai été obligé de coucher par ordre de mr. ordon, veu qu’il y avoit des anglois qui m’attendoient pour me maltraiter.’
but even in 1756, when the persecution of prisoners by the rural riff-raff was very bad, we find a testimony from the officers on parole at sodbury in gloucestershire to the kindly behaviour of the inhabitants, saying that only on holidays are they sometimes jeered at, and asking to be kept there until exchanged.
yet the next year, eighteen officers at the same place formulate to the commissioners of the sick and wounded the following complaints:
1. three englishmen attacked two prisoners with sticks.
2. a naval doctor was struck in the face by a butcher.
3. a captain and a lieutenant were attacked with stones, bricks, and sticks, knocked down, and had to fly for safety to the house of ludlow the agent.
4. a second-captain, returning home, was attacked and knocked down in front of the bell inn by a crowd, and would have been killed but for the intervention of some townspeople.
5. two captains were at supper at the bell. on leaving the house they were set on by four men who had been waiting for them, but with the help of some townspeople they made a fight and got away.
6. between 10 and 11 p.m. a lieutenant had a terrible attack made on his lodging by a gang of men who broke in, and left him half dead. after which they went to an inn where some french prisoners lodged, and tried to break in ‘jusqu’au point, pour ainsy dire, de le demolir,’ swearing they would kill every frenchman they found.
from crediton a complaint signed by nearly fifty prisoners spoke of frequent attacks and insults, not only by low ruffians and loafers, but by people of social position, who, so far from doing their best to dissuade the lower classes, rather encouraged them. even mr. david, a man of apparently superior position, put a prisoner, a captain gazeau, into prison, took the keys himself, and kept them for a day in spite of the portreeve’s remonstrance, but was made to pay damages by the effort of another man of local prominence.
the men selected as agents in the parole towns too 408often seem to have been socially unfitted for their positions as the ‘guides, philosophers, and friends’ of officers and gentlemen. at crediton, for instance, the appointment of a mr. harvey called forth a remonstrance signed by sixty prisoners, one of whom thus described him:
‘mr. harvey à son arrivée de londres, glorieux d’être exaucé, n’eut rien de plus pressé que de faire voir dans toutes les oberges et dans les rues les ordres dont il était revetu de la part des honorables commissaires; ce qui ne pourra que nous faire un très mauvais effet, veu que le commun peuple qui habite ce pays-ci est beaucoup irrité contre les fran?ais, à cause de la nation et sans jusqu’au présent qu’aucun fran?ais n’est donné aucun sujet de plainte.’
again, in 1756 the aumonier of the comte de gramont, after complaining that the inhabitants of ashburton are ‘un peuple sans règle et sans éducation’, by whom he was insulted, hissed, and stoned, and when he represented this to the authorities was ‘garrotté’ and taken to exeter prison, ridicules the status of the agents—here a shoemaker, here a tailor, here an apothecary, who dare not, for business reasons, take the part of the prisoners. he says he offered his services to well-to-do people in the neighbourhood, but they were declined—deceit on his part perhaps being feared.
from ashford, kent, a complainant writes, in 1758, that he was rather drunk one evening and went out for a walk to pick himself up. he met a mounted servant of lord winchilsea with a dog. he touched the dog, whereupon the servant dismounted and hit him in the face. a crowd then assembled, armed with sticks, and one man with a gun, and ill-treated him until he was unconscious, tied his hands behind him, emptied his pockets, and took him before mr. tritton. knowing english fairly well, the prisoner justified himself, but he was committed to the cachot. he was then accused of having ill-treated a woman who, out of pity, had sent for her husband to help him. he handed in a certificate of injuries received, signed by dr. charles fagg. his name was marc layne.
complaints from goudhurst in kent relate that on one occasion three men left their hop-dressing to attack passing prisoners. upon another, the french officers were, mirabile 409dictu, playing ‘criquet’, and told a boy of ten to get out of the way and not interfere with them, whereupon the boy called his companions, and there ensued a disturbance. a magistrate came up, and the result was that a captain lamoise had to pay ￡1 1s. or go to maidstone jail.
that the decent members of the community reprobated these attacks on defenceless foreigners, although they rarely seem to have taken any steps to stop them, is evident from the following story. at goudhurst, some french prisoners, coming out of an inn, were attacked by a mob. thirty-seven paroled officers there signed a petition and accompanied it with this testimony from inhabitants, dated november 9, 1757:
‘we, the inhabitants of the parish of goudhurst, certifie that we never was insulted in any respect by the french gentlemen, nor to their knowledge have they caused any riot except when they have been drawn in by a parcel of drunken, ignorant, and scandalous men who make it their business to ensnare them for the sake of a little money.
(signed.)
stephen osbourne. thos. ballard. john savage.
jasper sprang. richard royse. j. dickinson.
w. hunt. john bunnell. zach. sims.’
the complainants made declaration:
1. that the bad man rastly exclaimed he would knock down the first frenchman he met.
2. two french prisoners were sounding horns and hautboys in the fields. the servant of the owner ordered them to go. they went quietly, but the man followed them and struck them. they complained to tarith, the agent, but he said that it did not concern him.
3. this servant assembled fifteen men with sticks, and stopped all exit from bunnell’s inn, where five french prisoners were drinking. the prisoners were warned not to leave, and, although ‘remplis de boisson’, they kept in. nine o’clock, ten o’clock came; they resolved to go out, one of them being drunk; they were attacked and brutally ill-used.
the agent assured them that they should have justice, but they did not get it.
as physical resistance to attacks and insults would have 410made matters worse for the frenchmen, besides being hopeless in the face of great odds of numbers, it was resolved in one place at any rate, the name of which i cannot find, to resort to boycotting as a means of reprisal. i give the circulated notice of this in its original quaint and illiterate french:
‘en conséquence de la délibération faite et teneu par le corps de fran?ois deteneus en cette ville il a esté ordonné qu’après qu’il aura cette notoire, que quelque marchand, fabriquant, boutiquier etcetera de cette ville aurons insulté, injurié, ou comis quelque aiesais (?) au vis à vis de quelque fran?ois tel que puis être, et que le fait aura été averée, il sera mis une affiche dans les lieus les plus aparants portant proscription de sa maison, boutique, fabrique etcetera, et ordonné et defendeu à tout fran?ois quelque qualité, condition qu’il soy sous paine d’être regardé et déclaré traité à la patrie et de subire plus grande punition suivent l’exsigence du cas et qu’il en sera decidé.
‘la france.’
the above is dated 1758.
in 1779 the parole prisoners at alresford complained of being constantly molested and insulted by the inhabitants, and asked to be sent elsewhere. later, however, the local gentry and principal people guarantee a cessation of this, and the prisoners pray to be allowed to stay. the officer prisoners asked to be allowed to accept invitations at winchester, but were refused. in the same year prisoners at redruth complained of daily insults at the hands of an uncivilized populace, and from chippenham twenty-nine officers signed a complaint about insults and attacks, and stated that as a result one of them was obliged to keep his room for eight days.
on the other hand, prisoners under orders to leave tavistock for another parole town petition to be allowed to remain there, as the agent has been so good to them; and as a sign that even in kent matters were changing for the better, the prayer of some parole prisoners at tenterden to be sent to cranbrook on account of the insults by the people, is counterbalanced by a petition of other prisoners in the same town who assert that only a few soldiers have insulted them, and asking that no change be made, as the inhabitants are hospitable and kindly, and the agent very just and lenient.
411much quiet, unostentatious kindness was shown towards the prisoners which has not been recorded, but in the memoir of william pearce of launceston, in 1810, it is written that he made the parole prisoners in that town the objects of his special attention; that he gave them religious instruction, circulated tracts among them in their own language, and relieved their necessities, with the result that many reformed and attended his services. one prisoner came back after the peace of 1815, lived in the service of the chapel, and was buried in its grave-yard. en parenthèse the writer adds that the boys of launceston got quite into the habit of ejaculating ‘morbleu!’ from hearing it so constantly on the lips of the french prisoners.
in the life of hannah more, written by william roberts, we read:
‘some french officers of cultivated minds and polished manners being on their parole in the neighbourhood of bristol, were frequent guests at mr. more’s house, and always fixed upon hannah as their interpreter, and her intercourse with their society is said to have laid the ground of that free and elegant use of their language for which she was afterwards distinguished.’
