The Depot for Prisoners of War at Norman Cross, Huntingdonshire. 1796 to 1816
“This man was brought in by an escort of the Anglesea Militia from Peterborough; never been here before.—Ideot.”
The reader must decide for himself, without any assistance from the author, whether the word spelt “Ideot” was intended as a description of the supposed escaped PRISONER, or as that of the officer who had sent him in.
Norman Cross was not one of the prisons to which Americans were consigned in any numbers, and was not affected by the positive order against any natives of America being allowed to enter the British Service, or being exchanged on any account whatever. The surgeons captured were allowed special privileges in consideration of their devoting their professional skill to the service of their fellow prisoners.
The registers are sufficient to indicate the nationality and the social position of the population of the prison. The large number of the Dutch who joined the English service shows that their hatred of imprisonment was stronger than their hatred of the enemy who had captured them. As to the nationality of the prisoners, they were in the first period of the war, from 1797 to 1802, almost all French or Dutch; in the second period, 1803 to 1814, they were almost all French, and for those eleven years, although there were representatives of various nationalities who had been fighting on the side of the French, either as allies or actually serving in the French ranks, the captives were always spoken of in the neighbourhood as the French prisoners. There were published, in a recent issue of the Peterborough Advertiser, extracts from newspapers contemporary with the period of the Norman Cross Depot, the following paragraph from a newspaper, the name of which is not given, is included:
“March 25th, 1814, Yarmouth. Yesterday morning the Dutch Volunteers from Yaxley Barracks, who were organised, and have been in training here about ten weeks, embarked in two divisions for the Dutch Coast. They amounted to over 1,000 men. They were completely armed and clothed, and made a soldier-like appearance. Their uniform was blue jackets, faced with red, white trimmings, orange sash, and white star on the caps. The cry of Orange Bonon, just after starting from the Jetty, was universal.”
We have found no record of any numbers of Dutch prisoners being at Norman Cross in this or any other year of the second period of the war. The great bulk of this contingent, going out to serve against Napoleon, were probably not Dutch, but men of various nationalities, who had gained their freedom by volunteering for service under the allies, who were, on the 25th March, within five days’ march of Paris. This Dutch contingent was doubtless destined to join the army of Bernadotte.
The consideration of the prison life of our captives at the close of the eighteenth century will serve to accentuate the difference between their surroundings, their life, and their fate, and that of the prisoners taken one hundred years later by either side in the South African War; and the picture of the French and Dutch prisoners in the hulks or even in the Depots in 1800, contrasted with that of the Boers in St. Helena and Ceylon in 1900, must fill us with thankfulness for what the century’s advance inhumanity, together with the altered conditions in which we live, have enabled us and other nations to do to mitigate the miseries of prisoners of war—woes which have existed from time immemorial, and which are recognised in the prayer in the Litany, which has been offered up for nearly two thousand years, invoking God’s pity “for all prisoners and captives.”
In 1900, steam navigation, telegraphic communication, and Britain’s command of the sea made it possible for her to place her prisoners hors de combat in islands whence escape was almost impossible, and where the conditions of life were comparatively comfortable. In the war in which we were engaged one hundred years before, there is abundant documentary evidence to show that, although the conditions of that time made close confinement within prison walls a cruel necessity, nevertheless, in the treatment of our captives, the dictates of humanity were carried out, as far as was possible, without defeating the main object of our Government—the termination of the war with peace, safety, and honour for England.
In December 1795, M. Charretie, who had resided for some time in England, was appointed the commissary for France to look after the interests of his countrymen in captivity in this country, and he still occupied the post sixteen months later, when the first prisoners arrived at Norman Cross, Mr. Swinburne being the agent for the British Government in France.
At the time that the Norman Cross Prison was opened, the French and British Governments were mutually accusing one another of inhumanity and neglect in the treatment of their captives; the consideration of the facts which led to these charges must be left until the internal arrangements of the prison, disciplinary and economical, have been described.
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 30s. 6d. per week, and on March 1st 1806, as Steward, at an additional wage of 3s. 6d. 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.” 31
“Con. Connell, entered 4th September 1804, as Agent’s clerk at 30s. 6d. per week, and on March 13th, 1810, as Steward at an additional wage of 3s. 6d. 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 3s. 6d. 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 5s. 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 15s. 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 3s. 4d. 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 32 the following selections from the records of the “Cachot” at that Depot:
1812“February 24th.—Louis Constant and Olivier de Camp, for striking a sentinel on duty.”
“May 20th.—Jean Delchambre, for throwing a stone at a sentinel and severely cutting his head.”
“June 14th.—F. Rousseau, for striking Mr. Bennet, the store-keeper, when visiting the prisoners.”
“June 14th.—C. Lambourg, for striking and cutting open the head of a sentinel, and causing him dangerous injuries.”
“August 19th.—F. Lebot, for throwing a stone at the postman, as he was returning from Tavistock.”
“August 15th.—A. Creville, for drawing a knife on the hospital turnkey.”
“August 25th.—A. Hourra, for attempting to stab William Norris, one of the turnkeys, with a knife.”
“September 4th.—Jean Swan, for drawing a knife on the hospital turnkey.”
“September 4th.—F. Champs, for striking R. Arnold, one of the turnkeys, with a stone and cutting his head.”
“September 24th.—S. Schamond, for throwing down a sentinel and attempting to take away his bayonet.”
“September 30th.—A. Normand, for striking Mr. Arnold, the steward.”
“October 16th.—G. Massieu, for attempting to stab one of the turnkeys.”
“October 16th.—Pierre Fabre, for throwing a stone at a sentinel and cutting his face.”
“October 20th.—W. Johnson, for throwing stones at a sentinel.”
“October 23rd.—B. Marie, for knocking down a turnkey and attempting to seize the arms of a sentinel.” (See March 23rd, below.)
“November 30th.—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 13th.—P. Boissard, for striking a turnkey and threatening to murder him on the first opportunity.”
“March 23rd.—F. Bilat, for striking a prisoner named B. Marie, who died shortly afterwards, and taking away his provisions by force.”
“March 28th.—J. Beauclere, for threatening to stab Mr. Moore, because he could not procure employment for him on the Buildings.”
“April 6th.—F. Le Jeune, for being one of the principal provision buyers in the prison, and for repeatedly writing blood-thirsty and threatening letters.”
“April 10th.—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. 33
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:
[70] When Greens are issued in lieu of Pease, one pound stripped of the outer leaves and fit for the copper shall be issued to each prisoner.
Each prisoner shall receive two ounces of Soap per week.
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.