The Fleet. Its Rivers, Prison, and Marriages 30

The Fleet. Its Rivers, Prison, and Marriages 30

It is impossible to give a list of all the prisoners of note who were

committed to the Fleet, and they must only be glanced at, but with the

accession of Mary, some illustrious and historical names appear. First,

and foremost, and almost immediately after her accession to the throne,

we read, thanks to the preservation and collation, of State Papers,[96]

that on the 29th of July, 1553, a letter from the Privy Council was

sent to the "Wardene of the Flete, for the apprehensyone and commyttyng

of the Lord Russell, Anthonye Browne of Essex, and John Lucas." All

these prisoners seem to have been treated with great leniency, for

there is a letter (July 31) to the Warden of the Fleet bidding him to

give Mr. Lucas and Mr. Cooke _the libertye of his Garden_, so that there

must have been a garden then attached to the Fleet prison--and a

postscript orders that "he shall delyuer Mr. Anthonye Browne, and

suffer hym to goo to his awne Howse."

 

Nor were the others kept long in durance, for on the 3rd of Aug., 1553,

the Council wrote to the Warden willing him "To set at libertye John

Lucas, and John Cocke, Esquiers, giueing them Commaundement withall

to repaire to their Mancion Howses and their to make theire aboode

vntill they shall here further of the Queene's Pleasure." And even the

incarceration of Lord Russell was mollified, for a letter was written

on 9th Aug. to Mr. Garret, one of the Sheriffs of London, "whereby

the Countesse of Bedforde is licensed to have free access twise or

thrise in the week, unto the Lord Russell, her son, remayning in the

said sheriff's custodie, so the sheriff be present at their Talke and

Conference."

 

I give the above so as not to spoil the continuity of the story,

but there is mention of the Fleet prison long before; for instance,

in 1355, Edward III. wrote "to his well-beloved and trusty, Simon

Fraunceys Mayor of the City of London, Hugh de Appleby, and Robert de

Charwaltone, greeting. Whereas we have been given to understand that

the Foss[97] by which the mansion of our Prison of Flete is surrounded,

and which, for safety of the said prison was lately made, is now

obstructed and choked up by filth from latrines built thereon, and

divers others refuse thrown therein, that there is cause to fear for

the abiding there of the persons therein detained, by reason of the

same; and because that, by reason of the infection of the air, and the

abominable stench which there prevails, many of those there imprisoned

are often affected with various diseases and grievous maladies, not

without serious peril unto themselves. We, wishing a befitting remedy

to be applied thereto, and that the said Foss may be restored to its

former state, in which it was when it was first made, and so improved;

and, for making provision thereon, desiring upon the matters aforesaid

more fully to be informed, have assigned you, and any two of you, to

survey the Foss aforesaid, &c."

 

This warrant was followed by an Inquest held at the Church of St.

Brigid in Fleet Street on Tuesday, the 9th of January, 1356, on the

oath of Richard le Cok, (Cook) Nicholas le Sporière (Spurrier), and

Thomas le Glaswrighte (Glassblower) and nine others. From it we learn

that the "Foss of Flete" ought to be ten feet in breadth all round the

Prison; that it ought to be so full of water that a boat laden with one

tun of wine might easily float round it; and that the shelving banks of

the Foss were then covered with trees. Also that it was quite choked up

with the filth of laystalls and sewers discharging into it; and that

no less than eleven necessary houses (or _wardrobes_, as they seem

very generally to have been called in the thirteenth and fourteenth

centuries) had been illegally built over it "to the corruption of the

Water in the Foss aforesaid; and to such an extent is the flow of

water obstructed and impeded thereby, that the said Foss can no longer

surround the Prison with its waters, as it should do."[98]

 

The Acts of the Privy Council throw some light on the Fleet, giving

several instances of Committals thereto, one of the first being 9 Hen.

V. Oct. 14, 1421.[99] Wherein Hugo Annesley, who probably was then

Warden of the Fleet, was directed to incarcerate therein one Grey

de Codenore, who had been exiled, and having received his passport,

remained in England, notwithstanding.

 

In 1 Henry VI.,[100] 19 May, 1423, the "gardein de notre prisone de

Flete" was commanded to bring before the King some prisoners whom

he had in custody, namely Huguelyn de Chalons, Johan Billy, Johan

de Cheviers, Regnault de Graincourt, Hellyn de Bassiers, Pierre de

Mombreham, and Pierre de Pauniers "noz prisoniers prisez a la reddicion

de notre ville de Harefleu."

 

In the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries are many notices of committals

to the Fleet, so numerous that I can only mention a few, one only of

which I give in the original spelling. 32 Hen. VIII. Sept. 9, 1540.

 

"L[~r]es was also brought from the Lord P^ivey Seale, declaring a

certayn affray to be made by S^r Geoffrey Poole in Hampshyre upon one

Mr. Gunter a justice of peax, for that (as Poole sayd) one of Gunter's

srvants had spoken evill of hym, and for that also that hymself Gunter

had disclosed to the King's Counsail in the tyme of Poole's trouble

certain secret conference which Poole had w^t hym. And answer was made

to the sayd Lord P^ivy Seale that calling the complaynt eftesones

before hym the lordes and others the gen[~t] and justices of peax in

the c[=u]trey to thentent the cryme of S^r Geffrey might be notorious

to all the C[=u]trey there he should c[=o]mytt the said S^r Geffrey

to the Flette to remayne there until further knowledge of the Kings

pleas^r."

 

Evidently great interest was made for this naughty Sir Geoffrey, for we

learn on Sept. 24th that "It was declared to the Lady Poole, the wife

of Sir Geoffrey Poole, that the King's higness had pardoned her husband

of his imprisonment," and the Lord Privy Seal was directed to release

him. But he seems to have been a very cantankerous knight, for we find

him in hot water again next year. April 8, 1541, "Whereas Sir Geoffrey

Poole, Knight, had violently and contrary to the King's Highness' peace

assaulted and hurt[101] Sir John Mychaill clerk, parson of Racton in

the County of Sussex," and he had to put in sureties to keep the peace

towards the said parson, and to answer the bill preferred against him.

But it seems that he had some provocation, for a letter was written to

him requiring him to remember, as far as he could, the "haynous and

traytorous woords spoken by S^r John Michaell."

 

On Nov. 7, 1540, Browne, the son and heir of Sir Matthew Browne

of Surrey, was committed to the Fleet, together with some of his

servants, for burning a certain stack of wood in Surrey. On Jan. 8,

1541, John Gough of London, printer, was sent to the Fleet for printing

and selling a seditious book. On March 18, 1541, there seems to have

been a riot among some of the servants of the Gentlemen of the Privy

Chamber, and three of them were committed to the Fleet. On April

24, 1541, a smuggler was put into ward here, one Giles Hasebarde of

Southampton, a "berebruer," who had put on board "a ship of Holland,

named the Mary of Dordroyt," five pockets of wool, without a licence,

intending to send them to Flanders. For this he was sent to the Fleet,

the wool confiscated to the King's use, and the Master of the ship was

mulcted in half the value of his vessel; but Hasebarde was not long in

durance, as he was liberated on April 30th. To thoroughly understand

the reason of this man's imprisonment in the Fleet, we must remember

that he was sent there as being a _Debtor_ to the King, and in the

fifteenth century it was a very common practice for delinquents who

were confined in other London prisons to confess themselves, by a legal

fiction, debtors to the King, in order to get into the Fleet prison,

which was more comfortable. But to show the variety of so-called

crimes, or misdemeanours, which were punishable by imprisonment here,

there is the case of John Barkley of Canterbury, innholder, who was

committed to the Fleet for having molested the King's Highness with

sundry troublous supplications, and it was found that he "appered

manyfestly to be a c[=o]men barrater[102] and a malicious [=p]moter

of false and injust mattiers to the gret vexa[=c]on of the Kings

faithfull subjects."

 

It was also used as a house of detention, for we find Oct. 17, 1541,

that Cowley the Master of the Rolls in Ireland, was examined, but

because the time was too short to do it thoroughly, the Lord Chancellor

sent him to the Fleet "untill syche tyme as the King sholde co[=m] to

London." It seems to have been a refuge for misdemeanants, for April 3,

1542, John Bulmer Esquire, for his wilful disobeying of an order taken

between him and his wife by the Council, was committed to the Fleet.

And does not Shakespeare make Sir John Falstaff a denizen of this

prison? (Second Part _King Henry the Fourth_, last scene).

 

"_Chief Justice._ Go, carry Sir _Iohn Falstaffe_ to the Fleete

Take all his Company along with him.

 

_Falstaffe._ My Lord, my Lord.

 

_Chief Justice._ I cannot now speake, I will heare you soone:

Take them away."

 

Sir Rd. Empson, so well known in Henry the Seventh's time, was indicted

for sending, without process, persons accused of murder, and other

crimes, "to the late King's Prisons, to wit the Fleet, the Compter, and

the Tower of London." And, from the Articles of Impeachment against

Cardinal Wolsey, it would seem that he was in the habit of committing

to the Fleet, those who thwarted him in his demands. One case (Article

38) is: "Also that the said Lord Cardinal did call before him Sir John

Stanley K^{nt} which had taken a Farm by C[=o]vent Seal of the Abbot

and C[=o]vent of Chester, and afterw^{ds} by his Power and Might,

contrary to Right, committed the said Sir John Stanley to the Prison of

the Fleet by the space of a Year, unto such time as he compelled the

said Sir John to release his C[=o]vent Seal to one Leghe of Adlington,

which married one Lark's daughter, which woman the said Lord Cardinal

kept, and had with her two Children; whereupon the said Sir John made

himself Monk in Westminster, and there died."

 

Here is another example of the Cardinal's highhanded method of dealing

with those who did not exactly bend to his will, in Article 41 of his

Impeachment: "Also where one Sir Edward Jones, Clerk, parson of Orewly

in the County of Bucks, in the 18th year of your most noble reign, let

his s^d parsonage with all tithes and other profits of the same to one

William Johnson, for certain years; within which years, the Dean of the

s^{'d} Cardinal's College in[103] Oxenford pretended title to a certain

portion of Tithes within the s^d parsonage, supposing the s^d portion

to belong to the parsonage of Chichley, which was appointed to the

Priory of Tykeford, lately suppressed, where (of truth) the Parsons of

Orewly have been peaceably possessed of the s^{'d} portion _out of the

time of mind_: Where upon a Subpoena was directed to the said Johnson

to appear before the Lord Cardinal at Hampton Court, out of any term,

with an injunction to suffer the said Dean to occupy the said portion.

Whereupon the said Johnson appeared before the said Lord Cardinal at

Hampton Court, where without _any_ Bill the said Lord Cardinal

committed him to the Fleet, where he remained by the space of twelve

weeks, because he would not depart with the said Portion: and at last,

upon a Recognizance made, that he should appear before the said Lord

Cardinal, whensoever he was commanded, he was delivered out of the

Fleet. Howbeit, as yet, the said Portion is so kept from him that he dare not deal with it."