The Fleet. Its Rivers, Prison, and Marriages 31

The Fleet. Its Rivers, Prison, and Marriages 31

CHAPTER XX.

 

 

The Fleet was, evidently, a handy prison, elastic enough to suit all

cases, for on Aug. 19, 1553, at the Star Chamber, "Roger Erthe, alias

Kinge, servaunt to Therle of Pembroke, and William Ferror, servaunt to

the Lord Sturton, were, for making of a Fraye, committed to the Charge

of Warden of the Fleete."

 

In September, 1553, the Fleet received a prisoner whose name is

historical wherever the English language is read, for the Privy Council

being held at Richmond, on the 1st of Sept. "This day appered before

the Lordes, John Hooper, Bishop of Gloucester, and Miles Coverdale,

Bishop of Exon. And the said Hooper, for Considerations the Councell

moving, was sent to the Fleete."

 

Turning from Mary's reign to that of Elizabeth, we find equal religious

intolerance, for we read in Strype's "Annals of the Reformation, A.D.

1582," that Fleetwood, the Recorder of London, sent a letter to the

Lord Treasurer, informing him that one Osborn, a priest and Franciscan

friar, had been examined, and confessed that "_in crastino Epiphaniæ_,

he said Mass in the Fleet (where many recusants were committed) in the

Lord Vaux's Chamber, (to whom he was related) before that Lord, Mr.

Tresham, Mr. Tyrwhit, and others," which three, at the London Sessions,

in Guildhall, were convicted on Osborn's evidence.

 

Fleet parsons were evidently an institution in the sixteenth century,

for besides the above-mentioned Osborn, there was another committed

to the Fleet, on May 27, 1584, one Sir R. Stapleton. His fault seems

to have been that he had preached against the Archbishop of York, for

which he was arraigned in the Star Chamber, and was, with others,

ordered to read an apology--which he did--but in such a contemptuous

manner, that he was sent to the Fleet.

 

In the seventeenth century, many Puritans were incarcerated here,

especially after the Restoration, when their gloomy fanaticism ill

accorded with the ideas of the age. The bow had been strung too tightly

during the Commonwealth, and when it was unstrung the reaction was

great. So many were put into prison for conscience' sake. Even in

Elizabeth's reign there were many in prison, and we can hardly wonder

at it when we consider it was an age of religious intolerance, and

the religion professed by these devotees was of a most unattractive

character. Strype, writing of A.D. 1588, says of them:

 

"In the Summer Time they meet together in the Fields, a Mile or

more.[104] There they sit down upon a Bank. And divers of them

expound out of the Bible, so long as they are there assembled.

 

"In the Winter Time they assemble themselves by five of the

Clock in the Morning to the House where they make their

Conventicle for the Sabbath Day, Men and Women together. There

they continue in their kind of Prayers, and Exposition of

scriptures, all the Day. They Dine together. After Dinner make

Collections to pay for their Diet. And what money is left, some

of them carryeth to the Prisons, where any of their sort be

committed.

 

"In their prayers, one speaketh, and the rest do groan and sob,

and sithe,[105] as if they could wring out Tears. But say not

after him that prayeth. Their Prayer is _Extemporal_."

 

In January, 1600, Lord Grey of Wilton was committed to the Fleet, by

Queen Elizabeth's order, for assaulting the Earl of Southampton, on

horseback, in the public street.

 

There is a fair bibliography of the Fleet prison in the seventeenth

century. In 1620-1 there was a broadsheet published "A briefe

collection of the exactions, extortions, oppressions, tyrannies,

and excesses towards the liues, bodies and goods of prisoners, done

by _Alexander Harris_, Warden of the Fleete, in his foure yeares

misgouernment, ready to be proued by oath and other testimonies." This

was answered by Harris, and his MS., which is in the possession of the

Duke of Westminster, was published by the Camden Society in 1879,

entitled the "[OE]conomy of the Fleete; or an Apologeticall Answeare

of Alexander Harris (late Warden there) unto XIX Articles set forth

against him by the prisoners." Of which book more anon.

 

Then there was a "Petition to Parliament of the distressed prisoners

in the King's Bench, Fleet and other prisons"--but this has no date.

In 1647 was published "A Whip for the Marshal's Court by Robert Robins

Gent, being his Petition to the House of Commons." The preface to

the Reader, is dated from the Author's "Iron Cage in the Fleet." In

1653 there was "A Schedule; or, List of the Prisoners in the Fleet

remaining in custody May 25, 1653." Some of them were very bad cases,

as "_William Gregory_ committed February 7, 1651, one Outlawry after

Judgment, severall other Outlawries and Trespasses, no sums mentioned;"

or "_Hustwayte Wright_ committed June 29, 1650, for £31 1s., Execution,

besides Outlawries, Latitats and Cap. no sum appearing." "_Thomas

Keneston_ committed Nov. 4, 1646, for 51,000 Actions, and severall

Orders of the Exchequer." In 1669 appeared "A Companion for Debtors and

Prisoners, and advice to Creditors, with a description of Newgate, the

Marshalsea, the two Counties, Ludgate, _the Fleet_, and King's Bench

prison." In 1671 was published "A Short Narrative, or Anatomie of the

Fleet Prison &c.," by John Knap, M.D. In 1690 there was "A plea for the

City Orphans and Prisoners for Debt." In 1691 appeared a soul-harrowing

little book, called "The Cry of the Oppressed, a tragicall Account of

the unparalleled Sufferings of the poor imprisoned Debtors and Tyranny

of their Gaolers, with the case of the Publisher (Moses Pitt)." Here

the interest is much heightened by numerous engravings showing how

prisoners were beaten, made to feed with hogs, were covered with boils

and blains, the females outraged by their gaolers, and many other

enormities. I would fain quote at length from this book, but space will

not admit of it. In 1699 we find "An Argument that it is impossible for

the nation to be rid of the grievances occasioned by the Marshal of the

King's Bench and Warden of the Fleet, without an utter extirpation of

their present Offices."

 

The Case as made out by the prisoners against the Warden, Alexander

Harris, in 1620-1, was, if it could have been thoroughly substantiated,

most damaging to him, but they overreached themselves by their manifest

exaggeration. A few examples will suffice. There were nineteen counts

against him all of grievous weight, but we will only take four as

a fair sample. (1) Murder; (2) Felony; (3) Robbery; (4) Excessive

Rates for Chambers. First, as to the Charge of Murder, this is the

accusation: "After knowne quarrels and fightings between two prisoners,

lodging them in one chamber, where, quarrelling and fighting againe,

and notice to him thereof giuen, and of likely further mischiefe; this

notwithstanding, continuance of them together, vntil the one murthered

the other."

 

This referred to two prisoners, Sir John Whitbrooke and another named

Boughton. According to the Warden's account Whitbrooke did not deserve

much pity. In July, 1618, he was given into the Warden's Custody, by

the order of two Courts, to be kept a close prisoner, but he soon

developed "dangerous energy," for on the 10th of the same month, almost

immediately after his committal, he "came into the Warden's studdy

where the Warden (in his gowne) was wryteing, and fashioned his speech,

sayeing that he came to speake with the Warden about his lodging, who

answeared that he would willingly speake about that, and money for it,

whereupon the Warden putting dust[106] upon the wryteings and turneing

his back to lay them aside, Sir John Whitbrooke strooke him on the

head with the sharpe ende of a hammer, whereof one Cleft was before

broken off, and the other cleft newly whett, giveing fower wounds to

the scull, and some bruses before the Warden could close with him; but

then the Warden thrusting him out of the studdy, did throwe Whitbrooke

on the back, and took away the hammer, Whitbrooke (being undermost) did

hould the forepart of the Warden's gowne soe as he could not rise; att

which tyme the Warden's blood abundantly gushed downe upon Whitbrooke,

and the Warden could have beaten out Whitbrooke's braynes with the

hammer, but that he was neither wrothfull nor daunted.

 

"Then after, two maydes servants (heareing the noyse) came into the

roome, and one loosed Whitbrooke's hands from the Warden's gowne, or

ells the Warden must have killed him to acquitt himselfe. Soe soone

as the maydes came the Warden shewed them the hammer all bloody,

telling them that Whitbrooke had wounded him therewith; the butler of

the howse then alsoe comeing upp to cover the table, the Warden bidd

him and others (which followed) to laye hands upon Whitbrooke etc.; but

to take heed they hurt him not; soe they letting him rise and rest

himselfe, he took a stiletto out of his pockett and stabbed the

Warden's deputie cleane through the middle of his hand, which

(notwithstanding it was presently dressed by a good chirurgion) did

rankle upp to his shoulder, and was like to have killed him; he also

stabbed the porter of the howse directly against the heart, and drewe

blood, but it pierced not: he stabbed the gaoler into the hand and twice

through the sleeve of his dublett, so as then they lay violent hands

upon him, put on irons and carryed him to the strongest warde of the

prison (called Bolton's warde)."

 

And a perfectly proper punishment for any one who ran _amuk_ like

Whitbrooke because there was an organized mutiny. "And upon this some

three score prisoners breake upp all the strongest prisons and dores

of the wards and Tower chamber, assaulting the Warden and his servants

with weapons &c., according to a plott and purpose before resolved upon, as appeares by depositions."