Chapter IV: Administration and Discipline

Wherever a Government knows when to _show_ the rod, it will not often
be put to _use_ it.

SIR GEORGE SAVILE.

EXCELLENT organisation was necessary in order to keep these 6,000 foreign soldiers and sailors in safe custody, in a good state of discipline, and at the same time in the best health and greatest comfort compatible with the circumstances.

To the heads of departments mentioned at the close of the second chapter should be added the surgeon appointed by the Government. He was responsible for the sick and wounded, to a separate department of the Admiralty, and not to the Transport Board. He lodged in the hospital, until in the early part of the nineteenth century the house was built for him in the hospital quadrangle.

The subordinate officials were comparatively few in number—clerks, interpreters, storekeepers, stewards, and turnkeys. These last had sleeping accommodation in their lodges; the others had lodging money, and slept in the neighbouring villages, with the exception of the chief clerk and interpreter, the head storekeeper, the hospital officials, and a few others.

A few selections from the appointments, which are recorded in official documents among the thousands of papers which have been searched by Mr. Rhodes for information, will show the status of these employés; they are taken from lists referring to the second period of the war, when the records are more numerous than before the Peace of Amiens. The officials enumerated were all in the establishment at Norman Cross when the prison was finally emptied.

“Mr. Todd, appointed, 27th June 1803, as French Interpreter at £30
per annum, was, on 1st July 1813, appointed Agent’s first Clerk and
Principal Storekeeper at a salary of £118 per annum with no abatement
for taxes.”

“J. A. Delapoux, entered, 19th August 1803, as Agent’s Clerk at
30_s._ 6_d._ per week, and on March 1st 1806, as Steward, at an
additional wage of 3_s._ 6_d._ per day, was a Roman Catholic, and
probably of French birth, as it is recorded that it was necessary to
satisfy his mind that the laws anent Aliens would not affect him.”
{59}

“Con. Connell, entered 4th September 1804, as Agent’s clerk at 30_s._
6_d._ per week, and on March 13th, 1810, as Steward at an additional
wage of 3_s._ 6_d._ a day.”

“Geo. Kuse, entered, 22nd June 1813, as Agent’s clerk at £80 per
annum.”

“Wm. Belcher, entered as Steward, 28th June 1803, at 3_s._ 6_d._ a
day.”

“John Bunn, entered as Turnkey, 30th July 1811, at £50 per annum.”

“John Hayward, entered, 12th March 1812, as Turnkey at £50 per
annum.”

“James Parker, 20th April 1812, Turnkey at £50.”

“John Hubbard, 15th September 1813, Turnkey at £50. (Discharged for
misconduct, 17th July 1814.)”

“Wm. Wakelin, 28th December 1813, Turnkey at £50.”

“Samuel Thompson, 17th September 1812, Turnkey at £50, and £10 per
annum as superintending carpenter.”

“In March, J. Hayward received a rise of 5_s._ a week for acting as
Lamplighter as well as labourer.”

“In February 1804, Payne Pressland was added to the clerks. He was
discharged in the following June.”

“In 1811, J. Draper signed on as agent.”

“James Robinette, 10th June 1813, as Mason and labourer at £50 per
annum.”

“Benj. Werth, 22nd October 1813, Messenger at 15_s._ a week.”

“W. Gardiner, 1st July 1813, superannuation £104 per annum. (Paid at
the Head Office, London, after 31st July 1814.)”

“All these were paid off at the end of July 1814, the Board’s Order
for the Abolition of the Establishment at Norman Cross being dated
16th July 1814.”

“There were six labourers put on for a few days, varying from three
to twelve days in July 1814, at 3_s._ 4_d._ a day.”

“The accounts certified by W. Hanwell, Agent.”

For the safe custody of the prisoners, the two regiments of Militia or Regulars were quartered, one in the Eastern, the other in the Western Barracks; they furnished strong guards at each entrance in the prison wall, and cannon were mounted to command the whole area, while sentries were posted in all directions, and lamps were numerous to prevent the opportunity of escape in the darkness. The regiments of the garrison were continually changed, in order, among other reasons, that the soldiers, who came in contact with the prisoners when on guard, might not get too intimate with them, and render them assistance in their efforts to escape—or in the illicit trading which will be described later. For the care of the buildings and the maintenance of all connected with them, there was the barrack master and his assistant; the agent, or superintendent, was responsible to the Transport Board for the care and government of the prisoners; the care of the sick and wounded devolved upon the surgeon, who was assisted by French surgeons appointed from those who had been taken prisoners, the nurses being also men selected from the prisoners, who were paid for their services.

Discipline was maintained in accordance with the following code of regulations laid down for all prisons of war. Those specially affecting the prisoners were posted up in order that they might be familiar with them.

“By the Commissioners for Conducting His Majesty’s Transport Service,
and for the Care and Custody of Prisoners of War. Rules to be
observed by the Prisoners of War in Great Britain, Ireland, &c.:

“1. The Agent’s Orders are to be strictly obeyed by all the
Prisoners; and it is expressly forbidden, that any Prisoners should
insult, threaten, illtreat, and much less strike the Turnkeys, or any
other Person who may be appointed by the Agent to superintend the
Police of the Prison, under Pain of losing Turn of Exchange, of being
closely confined, and deprived of half their Ration of Provisions,
for such time as the Commissioner may direct.

“2. All the Prisoners are to answer to their Names when mustered,
and to point out to the Agent any Errors they may discover in the
Lists, with which he may be furnished, in order to prevent the
Confusion which might result from erroneous Names: and such Prisoners
as shall refuse to comply with this regulation, shall be put on Half
Allowance.

“3. Should any damage be done to the Buildings by the Prisoners,
either through their endeavouring to escape, or otherwise, the
expense of repairing the same shall be made good by a Reduction of
the Rations of Provisions of such as may have been concerned; and
should the Aggressors not be discovered, all the Prisoners confined
in the particular Building so damaged, shall contribute by a similar
Reduction of their Rations towards the expense of the said Repairs.

“4. Such Prisoners as shall escape from Prison, and be re-taken,
shall be put into the Black Hole, and kept on Half Allowance, until
the expenses occasioned by their Escape are made good; and they shall
moreover lose their Turn of Exchange, and all Officers of the Navy or
Army so offending shall, from that time, be considered and treated in
all respects as common men.

“5. Fighting, quarrelling, or exciting the least Disorder is
strictly forbidden, under Pain of a Punishment proportionate to the
Offence.

“6. The Prisons are to be kept clean by the Prisoners in Turns, and
every Person who shall refuse to do that Duty in his Turn, after
having received Notice of the same, shall be deprived of his Rations,
until he shall have complied.

“7. The Prisoners are from Time to Time to inform the Agent of the
Clothing or other Articles which they may stand in need of, and have
Money to purchase; and the Agent shall not only permit them to
purchase such Articles, but also take care that they are not imposed
on in the Price.

“8. The Prisoners in each Prison are to appoint Three or Five, from
among their own number, as a Committee for examining the Quality of
the Provisions supplied by the Contractor; for seeing that their full
Rations, as to Weight and Measure, are conformable to the Scheme of
Victualling at the Foot hereof: and if there should be any cause of
Complaint they are to inform the Agent thereof; and should he find
the Complaint well-founded, he is immediately to remedy the same. If
the Agent should neglect this part of his Duty, the Prisoners are to
give information thereof to the Commissioners, who will not fail to
do them justice in every respect.

“9. All Dealers (excepting such as Trade in Articles not proper to
be admitted into the Prison) are to be allowed to remain at the
principal Gate of the Prison from six o’clock in the morning until
three in the Afternoon, to dispose of the Merchandize to the
Prisoners; but any of the Prisoners who shall be detected in
attempting to introduce into the Prison Spirituous Liquors, or other
improper Articles, or in receiving or delivering any Letter, shall be
punished for the Abuse of this Indulgence, in such Manner as the
Commissioners may direct.”

The punishments inflicted for breach of the regulations and for other offences, were:

1st. Reducing the ration of the offender, and should his messmates
condone his offence, the rations of the whole mess of twelve men, to
which he belonged, were reduced. Thus it became the interest of the
whole mess to prevent any breach of discipline or misconduct by a
member. If a whole mess were insubordinate, and the larger body into
which the messes were grouped condoned the offence, the penalty was
extended to them.

2nd. A more severe punishment was depriving a man of his chance of
exchange by putting him at the bottom of the list; this was a fearful
sentence, for although the actual chance of exchange was small, each
man was daily longing and hoping for the arrival of the day when his
cartel should come.

3rd. Imprisonment in the Black Hole, a veritable abode of misery,
where solitude was added to the ills of imprisonment, was the penalty
for serious offences, such as assaults on the staff, violent assaults
on other prisoners, attempts to escape, and more heinous offences.

4th. Incorrigible prisoners, and those guilty of crimes which were
considered as warranting even more severe punishment than
imprisonment, in the Black Hole, were removed to the hulks, where, in
addition to the discomfort of the crowded ships, they suffered all
the other hardships experienced at that date by all criminals
imprisoned in a gaol civil or military.

In case of heinous offences and obdurate insubordination, these punishments were combined—a man might not only be put into the Black Hole, but also be put on to reduced rations.

Closing the market at the east gate of the prison, either against the whole body of the prisoners or against those of one only of the four courts, was a punishment inflicted for some general malpractice, or in order to compel their fellow prisoners to disclose the names of some miscreants among them.

No record exists of those who were sentenced to confinement in the Black Hole at Norman Cross, but to show the character of the delinquencies for which this punishment was inflicted, we quote from Basil Thomson’s _Story of Dartmoor Prison_ {65} the following selections from the records of the “Cachot” at that Depot:

1812

“_February_ 24_th_.—Louis Constant and Olivier de Camp, for striking
a sentinel on duty.”

“_May_ 20_th_.—Jean Delchambre, for throwing a stone at a sentinel
and severely cutting his head.”

“_June_ 14_th_.—F. Rousseau, for striking Mr. Bennet, the
store-keeper, when visiting the prisoners.”

“_June_ 14_th_.—C. Lambourg, for striking and cutting open the head
of a sentinel, and causing him dangerous injuries.”

“_August_ 19_th_.—F. Lebot, for throwing a stone at the postman, as
he was returning from Tavistock.”

“_August_ 15_th_.—A. Creville, for drawing a knife on the hospital
turnkey.”

“_August_ 25_th_.—A. Hourra, for attempting to stab William Norris,
one of the turnkeys, with a knife.”

“_September_ 4_th_.—Jean Swan, for drawing a knife on the hospital
turnkey.”

“_September_ 4_th_.—F. Champs, for striking R. Arnold, one of the
turnkeys, with a stone and cutting his head.”

“_September_ 24_th_.—S. Schamond, for throwing down a sentinel and
attempting to take away his bayonet.”

“_September_ 30_th_.—A. Normand, for striking Mr. Arnold, the
steward.”

“_October_ 16_th_.—G. Massieu, for attempting to stab one of the
turnkeys.”

“_October_ 16_th_.—Pierre Fabre, for throwing a stone at a sentinel
and cutting his face.”

“_October_ 20_th_.—W. Johnson, for throwing stones at a sentinel.”

“_October_ 23_rd_.—B. Marie, for knocking down a turnkey and
attempting to seize the arms of a sentinel.” (See March 23rd,
below.)

“_November_ 30_th_.—N. Moulle and B. Saluberry, for having daggers
concealed on their persons.”

The cachot records for March and April, 1813, are even more significant:

“_March_ 13_th_.—P. Boissard, for striking a turnkey and threatening
to murder him on the first opportunity.”

“_March_ 23_rd_.—F. Bilat, for striking a prisoner named B. Marie,
who died shortly afterwards, and taking away his provisions by
force.”

“_March_ 28_th_.—J. Beauclere, for threatening to stab Mr. Moore,
because he could not procure employment for him on the Buildings.”

“_April_ 6_th_.—F. Le Jeune, for being one of the principal provision
buyers in the prison, and for repeatedly writing blood-thirsty and
threatening letters.”

“_April_ 10_th_.—M. Girandi and A. Moine, for being guilty of
infamous vices.”

For offences against the laws of the land, more grave than those which could be dealt with by the authorities of the various depots, the prisoners, like British subjects, were liable to be tried at the assizes—thus Nicholas Deschamps and Jean Roubillard were tried at Huntingdon Assizes for forging £1 bank-notes (which they had done most skilfully). This was at that time a capital offence, and they were sentenced to death, but were respited during His Majesty’s pleasure, and remained in Huntingdon Gaol under sentence of death for nine terrible years, until Buonaparte was sent to Elba in 1814; they were then pardoned, and sent back to France with the rest of the liberated prisoners.

On the 9th September 1808, Charles François Marie Bourchier, who had been convicted at Huntingdon Assizes of having, in an attempt to escape, stabbed Alexander Halliday with a knife, was hanged at the prison in the sight of the whole garrison, who were under arms, and of all the prisoners. This is the only recorded civil execution at Norman Cross; there are several recorded instances of summary military justice, prisoners being shot dead in attempts to escape. It must be borne in mind that the prisoners were still our foes, who would, if they could escape, be at once in the ranks of the enemy’s army fighting against us; and to prevent their escape, there was, at Norman Cross, little beyond the muskets and bayonets of the Norman Cross sentries—sixty of them posted round and about the prison.

The cleanliness, sanitary and domestic, of the prison, the inhabitants of which averaged probably about 5,500 men (6,270 being the highest number of prisoners recorded in any official document as confined in Norman Cross on a specified day), was provided for by systematic fatigue parties from the prisoners themselves, one out of each mess of twelve being told off in regular rotation for the duty of sweeping, washing, scraping, and disinfecting the prisons; probably under this system the prison and courts were kept as clean as a man-of-war. Each man on leaving his hammock, doubled it over so that both clews hung on one hook, leaving the floor space clear.

The prisoners lived in the caserns day and night when the weather was too bad for them to live out of doors, but in fair weather they were compelled by the regulations to live outside “in the airing-court” from morning to dusk, except when they were summoned to the casern for their dinner. The quadrangle is in Foulley’s description of his model always called “_pré_,” and probably there was more or less grass on the surface.

Within the stockade fence which enclosed each quadrangle, the prisoners, about 1,800 in each square, were left to themselves, no soldiers, no sentries, no _free_ men, except the turnkeys, whose lodges were, with the cooking-house, storehouses, &c., in a special court cut off from the airing-court by the same unclimbable stockade fence. In each compound the prisoners formed a self-governing community, but all of them subject to the laws which applied to the whole body—viz. the Prison Regulations.

These communities differed from every other community of human beings (except perhaps the inmates of monasteries) in being deprived of any participation in the two essential factors on which the bare existence of every animal race depends—viz. the provision of the actual necessaries of life, food and, in the case of man, clothing, for the preservation of its own generation; and the reproduction of its kind, to insure a future generation. The necessaries of individual life were provided by the Government.

The feeding of the prisoners and the troops in the barracks was an enormous tax on the resources of the country, greatly as it must have benefited the agriculturists, and purveyors of provisions of all kinds in the neighbourhood. A paragraph in the _Times_ of 14th August 1814, states that “about £300,000 a year was spent by the Government in Stilton, Yaxley, Peterborough, and neighbourhood in the necessary provision of stores,” and this was not an exaggerated statement, as a calculation based on the average number of the prisoners and garrison, the dietary, and the price of provisions, shows that bread and meat alone would cost more than half the amount named in the _Times_. {69}

The exact ration appears to have varied:

The contract for victualling commenced on 12th April 1797, when the contractor was called upon to supply beef 1 lb., biscuit 1 lb., beer 2 quarts—as the daily ration of each prisoner.

This must have been a temporary ration on the first opening of the prison. In a later report the following is given as the scheme of victualling for a week:

Days Beer. Bread. Beef. Butter. Cheese. Tease. Salt. {70} quart. lbs. lbs. ounces. ounces. pint. ounces. Sunday 1 1½ ¾ — — ½ ⅓ Monday 1 1½ ¾ — — — ⅓ Tuesday 1 1½ ¾ — — ½ ⅓ Wednesday 1 1½ ¾ — — — ⅓ Thursday 1 1½ ¾ — — ⅓ Friday 1 1½ ¾ — — — ⅓ Saturday 1 1½ ¾ 4 6 ½ ⅓ Total 7 10½ 5¼ 4 6 2 pts. 2¾ or Greens in lieu.

The ration for the greater period appears to have been beef ¾ lb., bread ½ lb., cabbage 1 lb., or a supply of pease; Wednesdays or Fridays, herrings or cod substituted for the meat, and a pound of potatoes.

This change of the diet on Wednesday and Friday, made on account of the religion of the majority of the prisoners, and also as being more in accordance with their national diet, was recommended by the agent of the prison; but there was considerable delay, and some hardship to the prisoners, before the recommendation was granted. The fish when it reached the prison must have been several days old, and was no doubt salted. A new scale later on was fresh beef ½ lb., bread 1 lb., a quart of soup composed of vegetables and pease. The terms of the contracts with those supplying the food were very stringent. The conditions in the first contract at Norman Cross have already been given at p. 43 in chap. ii.

When in November 1797 it was agreed by the French and British Governments that each Government should feed its own countrymen in the enemy’s prisons, and the French took over the feeding of the prisoners in Britain, they made only a slight change in the ration to suit it more to French cookery. The daily allowance per head being, beer 1 qt., beef 8 oz., bread 26 oz., cheese 2 oz. or good salt butter ⅓ oz., pease ½ pt., fresh vegetables 1½ lb. The French also allowed each prisoner ½ lb. of white soap and ¾ lb. of tobacco in leaf, per month.

The diet of hospital patients was on a very liberal scale: 1 pt. of tea morning and evening, 16 oz. of white bread, 16 oz. of beef or mutton, 1 pt. of broth, 16 oz. of greens or good sound potatoes, and 2 qts. of malt beer, and, in the case of patients requiring it, beef, fish, fowls, veal, lamb, and eggs might be substituted.

The diet was investigated by a commissioner sent round to the various prisons, who reported that, “although the amount of meat would seem scarcely enough to an Englishman, the French, by their skill in cookery, made such an excellent soup or broth out of it as to afford ample support for men living without labour, such as our labouring poor rarely have at any time, but certainly not during the present scarcity.” The same commissioner in July 1797 recommended that an alteration should be made in the contracts, so as to insure early delivery, “as the lateness prevents the cookery of the meat as the French desire, which is by boiling it down for four or five hours with a strong and excellent broth, after which the meat is good for but little, and but little regarded by the prisoners.” {71}

The food was prepared by cooks chosen from the prisoners themselves, and paid by the Government. To insure the good quality and proper quantity of the goods supplied, and to eliminate the possibility of the storekeepers being bribed by the contractors to pass inferior goods, the prisoners of each block were ordered by Clause 8 of the Prison Rules to appoint delegates to attend when the food and other goods were delivered, and to see that they were up to the standard specified in the contract.

There were in the various prisons occasional complaints, and if they were justified the contractors were punished. In one instance the defaulting contractor at Plymouth was fined £300 and imprisoned for six months in the County Gaol. Beer at one time was supplied to the prisoners by the Government, and when this allowance ceased, it could, under certain regulations, be obtained on payment. This beer was of a _very light and cheap quality_, as attested by the books of the Oundle Brewery, but half a gallon a day, given in the first ration of which we have found a note, is so large an allowance, even for those bibulous days, that it suggests an error in the memorandum. Tea and coffee in those days were the luxuries of the well-to-do only, and were not for prisoners or for our own poorer countrymen and women. There was no tea or coffee.

There can be no doubt that every possible precaution was taken to insure that the food supplied by the Government was good, and sufficient to maintain an average man in good health, and in the market held in the enclosed space at the east gate, to which the prisoners had access, those who had money could buy additional food and luxuries. But although beyond doubt the allowance of food was sufficient for an average man, there must have been in those twenty years thousands of men with hearty appetites who finished their ration hungry and dissatisfied—and the sequel will show that there were others who actually died of starvation, owing to their own vices.

Each prisoner was allowed a straw palliasse, a bolster, and a blanket or coverlet, the straw being changed as often as was necessary.

The British Government never withdrew its contention that it was the duty of each nation to provide clothing for its subjects in captivity in the country of its enemy, and maintained that this had been the practice of France and England in all previous wars, even in that in which they were engaged up to the Treaty of Versailles in 1783, only ten years before the outbreak in 1793 of the war under discussion; but as an act of humanity, when the French obstinately declined to discharge this duty, the Government clothed a certain number of the naked in a yellow suit, a grey or yellow cap, a yellow jacket, a red waistcoat, yellow trousers, a neckerchief, two shirts, two pairs of stockings, and one pair of shoes.

In M. Foulley’s model the greater number of the prisoners are represented as clad in this uniform, the conspicuous colours of which were selected to facilitate the detection of an escaped prisoner. In the first year of the occupation of Norman Cross an order was issued to the storekeeper to supply such prisoners as were destitute of clothing with the articles enumerated above.

There is every reason to believe that the provisions for the maintenance of the prisoners were carried out with the utmost care and fidelity in Norman Cross and all other prisons, but the complaints of the prisoners gave rise to such prolonged controversy and serious disagreement between the Governments of France and England, that a review of the discussion finds an appropriate place here. The complaints were not confined to one side only, but there is ample documentary evidence that the accusations of the French were greatly exaggerated or absolutely without foundation. Their hatred of the enemy made the captives suspicious, and illness from natural causes was attributed to cruelty and ill-treatment. {74a}

The British Government, according to Mr. Dundas, Secretary of State, on 6th October 1797, attributed many of the complaints to passion, prejudice, and animosity (quotation by M. Niou in his letter to Mr. Dundas, 15th February 1799), {74b} and it is certain that the French Government would not object to the fact that the statements made by the French generals, commissaries, and others, whether the effect was intended or not, undoubtedly increased the anger of their nation against the English, and thus infused greater fighting energy into their troops. The words used by Buonaparte, in his address to his Army on the eve of Waterloo, to stimulate his troops, have already been quoted. As to his reference to the hulks, we must bear in mind that, except under the pressure of the earlier period of the war, when the prison accommodation was insufficient, and again later on occasions when the prisoners had accumulated to a larger number than could be accommodated on land, even though Dartmoor, Perth, and other smaller prisons had been built, the hulks were the place of imprisonment for the _criminal_ prisoners of war only, and that a century since there was no place of confinement for criminals in which the conditions could entail anything but misery.

Of the worst miseries endured by the prisoners at Norman Cross and other depots, the real sources were the vices of the unfortunate men themselves, especially gambling and usury, {75} and to the obstinacy of the French Government in their determination to provide no clothing and their neglect to fulfil their promises. The evidence that this accusation of neglect by the French is well founded, is furnished by M. Charretie, the agent or commissary appointed by the French Directory to look after the prisoners in England, who on the 19th November 1797, in a letter to the Minister of Marine at Paris, after describing the pitiable condition of many of the prisoners, who were half-naked for the want of clothes, proceeds:

“Consolation, Citizen Minister, might be felt by the unfortunate
prisoners, if their want and misery had not reached their height, and
if assistance could reach them in time to give foundation to their
hopes, but, Citizen Minister, after all that I have said to them,
after all that I have had the honour of writing to you, concerning
their horrible situation and that in which I am myself placed,
without resources, at the mercy of a crowd of creditors, scarcely
able to find the means of providing for my own subsistence, what
would you have me say more when I see you are deceived with respect
to the Measures you take in regard to them?

“Five thousand livres have long since been announced to me by your
office—you now make mention of sixty thousand livres, but I have no
intelligence of the arrival of the first farthing of either of these
sums. If promises remain unexecuted with respect to such sacred and
necessary objects in a service which I can no longer continue, when
shall I see those realised which relate to the providing of Funds for
the clothing of Prisoners,” . . . “and if of about 9,000 confined at
Norman Cross near 3,000, sick for want of clothing and an increase of
diet, are already on the eve of perishing, what will be the case some
time hence? And upon whom will the responsibility fall for so many
thousand victims? My correspondence will justify me in the eyes of
my country. However expeditious you may be, Citizen Minister, all
you can hope for is to save the remainder, whom strength of
constitution may have kept longer alive—what then would be the case
if the English Government should order the measure of driving them
all [this must refer to the officers on parole—T. J. W.] into
horrible prisons, and of reducing the allowance to half rations, to
be put into execution.” {76}

The Republic had taken no notice of the propositions of Britain made on the 6th October 1797, “that the prisoners should be furnished in the countries where they were detained with clothing, subsistence, and medicines at the expense of the Government to which they belonged.” The British Government threatened, in order to compel a reply, that they must put the prisoners on a reduced allowance on 1st December 1797.

M. Charretie’s letter _may_ have assisted the French Government to sanction the proposal of the British Minister. What it _certainly did_, by the statement it contained as to the proportion of sick among, and the general condition of, the Norman Cross prisoners, was to enrage the French against the English. The British Government at once took steps to prove the statement false. On the 15th December 1797, Mr. James Perrot, the agent for prisoners of war at Norman Cross, Dr. Higgins, the physician, Mr. James Magennis, surgeon, and Messieurs Chatelin and Savary, the French assistant surgeons, deposed on oath that at no time since the opening of the prison in April had there been more than 5,170 in the prison at one time, that up to that day fifty-nine only had died in the hospital, and that on the 19th November (the date of this letter in which M. Charretie said that out of about 9,000 prisoners near 3,000 were sick) there were only 194 in hospital, in which number were included twenty-four nurses; the doctors in addition certified that, “The prisoners are visited every morning by the chief surgeons or their assistants, and that, whether their disorders are slight or violent, they are admitted into the hospital,” and the French assistant surgeons (themselves prisoners of war) added, “While there, they are treated with humanity and attention, and provided with everything necessary for the re-establishment of their health.” {77}

In evidence before a commission held on the 2nd April 1798, M. Charretie explained that he had received the information inserted in his letter to the Minister of Marine from prisoners confined at Norman Cross; that he had intended communicating with the Transport Board, but that soon after writing to the Minister he had reason to alter his opinion; that he had informed the French Government that he thought he had been too hasty, especially as the Transport Board provided him with lists giving him the number of prisoners in each prison, but, as fresh prisoners were arriving, he thought the number might have increased from 5,000 to 9,000. This is a fair sample of the French complaints, and of how little foundation was found for most of them when they were investigated. The mortality at Norman Cross was exceptionally high during its first occupation, but the majority of the earliest prisoners were those who had been removed from the prisons, the overcrowded and consequent unhealthy condition of which gave rise to the hurried building of Norman Cross; they were therefore specially liable to disease, and unfit to withstand its ravages. The arrangement for maintaining the prisoners, from the outbreak of the war in 1793 to November 1797, was that which had been in force in previous wars between the two nations—viz. that each nation should provide the captives detained in its prisons with food sufficient to maintain life and health, while it clothed its own countrymen in the enemy’s prisons.

To put an end to the complaints and the recriminations continually renewed on both sides, relative to the treatment of the prisoners, our Government had in October 1797 proposed the fresh arrangement “that the Prisoners should be furnished, in the Country where they were detained, with clothing, subsistence, and medicines at the expense of the Government to which they belonged.” The French Government took no notice of this communication, not even acknowledging its receipt, and to enforce its attention to this and other matters connected with the exchange of prisoners (especially of Sir Sidney Smith), the British Government threatened to confine all the officers out on parole, and to reduce the prison ration, which was at that time equal to that of a British soldier, to half—viz. 1 lb. bread, ½ lb. beef, ¼ lb. pease, and ½ lb. cabbage.

This threat, aided possibly by M. Charretie’s letter—the piteous appeal of a servant of the Republic thwarted in the execution of his duties by the neglect of the Directory to fulfil its promises and to discharge its responsibilities—had effect. The new arrangement was adopted, each nation undertaking to provide food, medicine, and other necessaries for its own countrymen. While this arrangement lasted, neither combatant could use the weapon, which Britain had threatened to employ, the reduction of the ration of those of the enemy who were captive in its prisons. M. Gallois, who succeeded M. Charretie as commissary, brought over M. Nettement, to whom the special task of providing the means of subsistence for the prisoners was entrusted, the expense being borne by France.

The contention that the complaints made by the French as to the food, etc., supplied under the old system, were mostly unfounded, is supported by the fact that M. Nettement, except in one instance, employed the same sub-agents, and, in general, the same contractors, who had been serving the British, and that only slight modifications in the dietary were made to adapt it more to French methods of cooking. The new arrangement lasted only two years; it was terminated abruptly by an Arrêté of the French Consuls, dated 29th November 1799 (le Frimaire l’an 8 de la République une et Indivisible). A copy of this edict was sent by M. Niou (the Commissary in England at that date) to Mr. Dundas, Secretary of State for War, with a letter in which he stated that among other reasons why the Consuls did not in any manner feel called upon to continue to observe the arrangement, was the fact “that it was not founded on any authentic stipulation; that the Cartel of Exchange, signed nearly ten months afterwards, took not the least notice of it,” etc.

In consequence of this correspondence on the 15th December 1799, the Duke of Portland, acting in the absence of Mr. Secretary Dundas, communicated to the Admiralty the King’s wishes as to future arrangements. After protesting against the “departure (on the part of the French Government) from the agreement entered into between the two countries, and which tended so materially to mitigate the calamities of war,” he directed, as to the British prisoners in France, that Captain Cotes, the British agent in Paris, should ascertain exactly the daily allowance made to each man by the French Government, and that he should, at the expense of the British Government, make up any deficiency existing between that allowance and the ration supplied by the British Government during the years 1798 and 1799. At the same time the Minister directed the Transport Commissioners to supply the French prisoners in Britain, from the date when the French agent ceased to supply them, with the same rations of provisions as were granted before the arrangement of December 1797, and he adds:

“As no mention is made of Clothing or other necessaries in Captain
Cotes’ letter, I think it right to add that the Commissioners of
Transports and for taking care of Prisoners of War are on no account
to furnish any to the French Prisoners, as this charge has at all
times been supported by the French Government.”

From this time to the termination of the war the arrangement as to the feeding of the prisoners remained the same, but a terrible source of misery to the French prisoners at Norman Cross, and to other French prisoners of war in England, was the firm refusal of the French Government to agree to the clause in Lord Portland’s letter, referring to the clothing of the prisoners.

In another Edict, dated March 1800, signed by Buonaparte as First Consul, Article 1, is “The Ministers of War and of the Marine shall ensure by every possible means, subsistence and clothing to the Russian, Austrian and English Prisoners of War”—“they shall take care that they are treated with all Attention and Indulgence consistent with public safety.” {81} The British Government declined to accept the arrangement implied in this Arrêté, and adhered to what had been the uniform custom in the wars between France and England, and they continued to supply, through their agent in France, all clothing and similar necessaries to the British captives, and even to the Russians who had been serving with them in Holland; while the French, although they were not called upon to clothe the British, refused, notwithstanding the miserable state to which their countrymen in the prisons were reduced by the want of it, to supply them with any clothing.

That the firmness of the two Governments led to terrible suffering in the British prisons cannot be doubted—a suffering which was not shared by the British in France, who were regularly clothed by the agent of their own Government; and it has been already stated that at certain periods of the struggle, including the latter part of 1797, the British Government did provide, in the last extremity, clothing for the neglected subjects of their enemy, protesting, that they did this only as an act of humanity, and not as a duty.

In looking for the apparent unwillingness of the French to meet the British on equal terms, we must remember certain differences in the great principles in which the two nations conducted war. Alison, commenting on the Peninsular Campaign, says:

“The British, according to the established mode of civilised warfare,
at least in modern times, maintained themselves chiefly from
magazines in their rear; and when they were obliged to depend upon
the supplies of the provinces where the war was carried on, they paid
for their food as they would have done in this country.” {82}

The French, on the other hand, by reverting to the old Roman system, of making war maintain war, not only felt no additional burden, but experienced the most sensible relief by their armies carrying on hostilities in foreign states. From the moment that his forces entered a hostile territory, it was a fundamental principle of Napoleon’s that they should “draw nothing from the French Exchequer.” This principle applied to the case of the prisoners of war would certainly never tolerate that France should follow the mode of civilised warfare, at least in modern times, and should maintain her soldiers (varying during the war from 20,000 to 67,000) incarcerated in Britain if, by starving them or leaving them naked, she could thrust the burden of doing so on to the British nation.

The great disparity between the number of the French prisoners in Britain and the British in France must have strongly influenced the First Consul to issue the Edict, which cancelled without ceremony the arrangement in force for the two years 1798–99. A return made in December 1799, when our Government again took over the victualling of the French prisoners, showed their number to be 25,646, of whom 10,128 were at Portsmouth, 7,477 at Forton (Portsmouth), 3,038 at Norman Cross, and the rest in Liverpool, Chatham, Stapleton, Edinburgh, and Yarmouth. The number of English in France was about 5,000. The French therefore, during 1798 and 1799, were feeding and clothing 25,646, while the British had to feed and clothe only a little over 5,000. This disparity in the number of the captives of France and England lasted throughout the war, and, as will be seen, interfered seriously with the exchange of prisoners. With the resumption of the old arrangement, there came again the old complaints; that those of the British were in some degree justified, is clear from words of explanation used by the French Commissary, “_If the situation of the Finances of the Republic did not allow of the prisoners receiving the whole of what the law allowed them_, it was not the less true that they experienced in that respect the benefits of the solicitude of the Government.” The words in italics practically concede the fact that the British prisoners in France were not receiving what the law allowed them.

The French never lost sight of the hope, by one means or another, of getting the prisoners back into the fighting ranks, and when in answer to a complaint of the French, M. Otto the commissary had been told “That the people here are not better fed than the prisoners,” his retort in writing to the Transport Commissioners was, “If the scarcity of Provisions is so notorious that the Government [British], notwithstanding its solicitude, cannot relieve the wants of its own people, why should it unnecessarily increase the consumption by feeding more than 22,000 prisoners?” M. Otto’s solution of all the difficulties was, send us back our soldiers and sailors, and cease to burden yourselves with them.

It may be difficult, even after this long lapse of time, for either a Frenchman or an Englishman to make an impartial summing up of a controversy carried on in hot blood and generating bad feeling which lasted long after Waterloo and the return of the Bourbons. The British did not shrink from publishing at the time all the facts and correspondence relating to these controversial matters, thus enabling their contemporaries of all nationalities to come to a right judgment and, fortunately for us, if exaggerated and even lying accusations came from French sources, their exaggeration and falsehood could usually be proved by French witnesses.

The piteous letter of M. Charretie has been already quoted as evidence of where the fault really lay in November 1797.

In 1815 a work was published in Paris called _L’Angleterre vue à Londres et dans ses Provinces_, _pendant un séjour de dix années_. An English translation was published in America in 1818, to the title being added, “six of them as a prisoner of war.” The author was René Martin Pillet, who, according to his account, was taken prisoner at the Battle of Vimiera, 1808. He was confined at Norman Cross and Bishop’s Waltham, and at Chatham on the Brunswick hulk. Space forbids an examination of all his statements regarding England and English society; his account of the treatment of prisoners of war alone concerns us. The nature of his statements can best be understood by the replies made. There was a pamphlet by some one hailing from Warrington, issued in 1816, with the title _A Defence of our National Character and our Fair Countrywomen_. One paragraph must suffice:

“It has been accurately calculated that not more than one in ten of
the French prisoners died during the last two wars: if therefore
150,000, as you state, died in the prison-ships by torture or
otherwise, the amount of French prisoners in these ships must have
been 1,500,000, to contain which it would have required 2,000 ships
of the line, but as not half of the number of prisoners were confined
in ships, we must have taken during the last twenty years double that
number, namely, 3,000,000! Any further comment would be idle and
superfluous.” (P. 16.)

A detailed examination of Pillet’s book was published in 1816, entitled, _Tableau de la Grande-Bretagne_. The author was Jean Sarrazin, a very remarkable man. He was born in 1770, of humble parentage, and served as a private soldier in the ranks of the French army, but rose very rapidly to high rank, being General of Brigade in the expedition to Ireland in 1798, where he was taken prisoner, and, to use his own words, he was treated as a prisoner of war “with the highest distinction,” and was exchanged for the English Major-General Sir Harry Burral, an ensign, one sergeant, and five privates. He married an English lady, a native of Exeter, who returned with him to France.

His brilliant military services under Napoleon, with whom he was on intimate terms, were varied with literary works of high value on military subjects. Now comes the stain on his character. His subsequent career in England proves that he had a very exaggerated view of his abilities and services, and when holding a high position in the French army assembled at Boulogne, he deserted and came over to this country to sell to the British Government the secrets of the French plan of campaign. In his absence he was condemned to death. The nature of his claims on the English Government were considered extravagant. They comprised:

1. Letters of naturalisation.

2. His wife and son to be considered as prisoners of war in France (thereby entitling them to an allowance from the British Government).

3. That his rank of Lieut.-General be acknowledged in accordance with the cartel of exchange of 1798.

4. A pension of £3,000 a year for life.

5. An indemnity of £10,000 for his losses at Boulogne, to enable him to take a house suitable to his rank, such as he had in France.

6. A sum of £50,000 in payment of his notes and plans (i.e. his treachery).

He also asked to be appointed a Secretary or Aide-de-camp to Lord Wellington. The Government altogether gave him £3,000, and he returned to France at the Restoration. In his book he speaks highly of the English, and defends Captain Woodriff from the charges of embezzlement. But the most scathing exposure was by one of high rank and a long name—Paul Maximilian Casimir de Quellen de Stuer de Caussade de la Vauguyon, Prince de Careney. He was a proscribed Royalist, and his French editor calls him “A Frenchman, as distinguished by birth, as by the nobleness and independence of his character, and who has thoroughly studied the country which these writers have feebly pretended to pourtray, is desirous to evince his gratitude to the generous nation which has provided him an asylum, at the same time that it has preserved to the French their King and their Princes. He has thought it his duty to vindicate the truth which has been wantonly outraged.”

The following short extracts show his method of dealing with M. Pillet’s accusations:

“When he does not fear to state, that ‘a hundred and fifty thousand
Frenchmen have been killed, in the midst of tortures,’ in the British
possessions, he states what is impossible, since the total number of
the prisoners of war did not amount to above one hundred thousand,
and more than eighty thousand Frenchmen were restored to liberty and
to their country after the return of the French King to his
dominions.

“The nourishment of the prisoners of war was neither so scanty nor so
inferior in quality as M. Pillet sets forth, a crowd of Frenchmen,
returned from England, attest this. It is from their authority that
we speak.

“The clothing given to the prisoners was of excellent stuff, many
persons in France wear it to this day; and if some Commissary’s wife
or clerk did turn a few ells of it to their own use, is that any
reason to accuse the Transport Board and all England of robbery, per
fas et per ne fas?”

He also deals with the alleged malpractices of Captain Woodriff, whom Pillet even hints acted with the connivance of the English Government.

“Have we not seen General Warne, at Verdun, in France, blow his
brains out, after having employed the funds, destined for the English
prisoners, to his own private purposes, because he saw it was
impossible to conceal that prevarication, and to account for his
proceedings?”

After dealing in detail with many of Pillet’s reckless assertions, he finishes with the following summary:

“M. Pillet observes a profound silence upon all these occurrences,
yet they are perfectly within his knowledge, and he himself laboured
to _organise_ the general rising of the prisoners! M. Pillet
complains bitterly of the numberless sufferings which he underwent at
Norman Cross and Bishops Waltham; but he does not mention that he
broke his parole of honour; or that placed on board of a pontoon
(hulk), the consequence of this violation of his parole, some English
Officers consented nevertheless to answer for him, and by them he
obtained a security, although he had forfeited his parole.”

A pamphlet—_Aperçu du traitement qu’éprouvent les prisonniers de guerre français en Angleterre_ (_Lettre écrite par le Colonel Lebetre_, _Paris_, 1800)—has been quoted by former writers as evidence of the maltreatment by the English, and on the other hand the assertions have been contradicted. Unfortunately, the copy of the brochure in the British Museum was, with some other French pamphlets, accidentally burned about fifty years ago by a fire in the book-binders’ department, and no other copy is accessible. So that the opinion that Col. Lebetre’s accusations were unjustifiable and self-contradictory can only be given second-hand.

The evidence which is supposed to establish the charges of inhuman treatment of their prisoners by the British, including that of our own countryman George Borrow, breaks down on examination. But, when in April 1797 the Dutch and French victims of the war entered the prison at Norman Cross, and started the community which for nearly twenty years had to carry on its life under such strange conditions, the place was already shrouded in this atmosphere of acrimonious contention—a stormy and pestilent atmosphere which influenced for evil the lot of those within its walls.