This prison was of great antiquity, and its genealogy, like all
respectable ones, dates back to William the Conqueror, at least;
for we find, under date 1197,[84] "Natanael de Leveland & Robertus
filius suus r.c. de LX marcis, Pro habenda Custodia Domorum Regis de
Westmonasterio, & Gaiolæ de Ponte de Fliete, quæ est hæreditas eorum a
Conquestu Angliæ; ita quod non remaneat propter Finem Osberto de Longo
Campo." Or, in English, "_Nathaniel de Leveland and his son Robert,
fined in sixty marks, to have the Custody of the King's Houses at
Westminster, and the Prison at Fleet-bridge, which had been their
inheritance ever since the Conquest of England; and that they may not
be hindered therein by the Counterfine of Osbert de Longchamp._"
There seems to have been some double dealing in this transaction, in
which, as was only natural in those days, money went into the King's
pocket.[85] "And Osbert de Longchamp fined in five hundred marks,
to have the King's favour, and seizin of all his lands and chatels
whereof he was disseised by the King's Command, and to have seisin of
the Custody of the Gaol of London, with the Appurtenances, and of the
Custody of the King's Houses of Westminster: provided that Right be
done therein in the King's Court, in case any one would implead him for
the same."[86]
Robert de Leveland, the son of the foregoing Nathaniel, was bitten by
the then fashionable craze for Crusading, for he is found, in 1201,
petitioning King John for leave to delegate the care of the King's
Houses at Westminster, and the Fleet Prison, to Simon FitzRobert,
Archdeacon of Wells, for the space of three years, during which time
he should be in the Holy Land. His prayer seems to have been granted;
but he evidently drew a little money before he went away, for, in the
Chancery Rolls of the same year, he was paid £15 10s. by the City of
London, on account of the King's Prison of Flete, and he also received
other sums of £10 12s. 10d. for the Custody of the King's Houses at
Westminster, and £7 12s. 1d. for the Custody of the Gaol of
_London_.[87] By which, and also by the foregoing notice of Osbert de
Longchamps, it is evident that, at that time, the Fleet prison was the
principal, if not the only, prison in London.
Robert de Leveland re-entered upon his duties after his three years'
leave, and a document is extant[88] in which he is excused payment
of £10 he had borrowed; but (possibly in lieu) he was bound to serve
beyond the seas--_i.e._, in foreign parts--with horses and arms.
When he died is not known, but his widow evidently succeeded him as
custodian, for in December, 1217,[89] his wife Margaret has the same
allowance given her in regard of the King's Houses at Westminster "as
the said Robert had been accustomed to during his life." Thus she was
the first female Warden of the Fleet; there were others, as we shall
see by and by.
It is a moot question, and I put it forward with all reserve, as to
whether there was not even an earlier mention of the Fleet before the
very authentic case of Nathaniel de Leveland; but as it is open to
objection that there were more Fleets than one, I only give the cases,
and make no comment.[90] 1189: "William de Flete gave a Mark to have
his plea in the King's Court touching a hyde of land, versus Randolph
de Broy." And again,[91] in 1193: "Richard de Flet fined in one hundred
Marks, that his daughter might be delivered from Ralf de Candos, who
said he had espoused her."
In the Rolls are many cases which mention the Fleet, but, although it
was a House of Detention, for debtors, especially to the King, and
persons committing minor crimes, it never seems to have been degraded
into what we should now term "a Gaol." No felons seem to have been
incarcerated there, and there is no mention of gyves or chains, but
they were used in after years.
It would seem that another "lady" Warden of the Fleet existed in
Edward II.'s time, for, in 1316, "Johanne, late Wife of John Schench
deceased, who held of the King in chief the Serjeanties of the Custody
of the King's Palace of Westminster, and of his Prison of Flete,
married Edmund de Cheney, without licence obtained from the King,
in that behalf. Whereupon the said serjeanties were taken into the
King's hands, and straitway the Treasurer and the Barons committed the
Custody of the Palace of Richard Abbot, who was sworn _de fideliter_,
&c., and the Custody of the Flete Prison to John Dymmok, Usher of
the Exchequer, who was sworn in the like manner. Afterwards the said
Edmund made Fine for the said Trespass, and the said serjeanties were
restored." By which we see that thus early "women's rights" were fully
recognized, and "employment for females" in occupations hitherto
enjoyed exclusively by men, seems to have been in force.
Although not in Chronological Order, I may as well add another, and the
only other mention that has come under my notice of a female Warden
(1677):[92] "A Woman Guardian of the Fleet, marries her Prisoner in
Execution; he is immediately out of Execution; for the Husband cannot
be Prisoner to his Wife, it being repugnant that she, as jaylor, should
have custody of him, and he, as husband, the custody of her."
Without some effective supervision, as is the case with our Prison
Commissioners, abuses were bound to creep in, and the Governor
or Warden of any Prison, (who doubtless had paid heavily for the
appointment) had to recoup himself by squeezing the unfortunate
prisoners, and we shall find several examples of this in the Fleet. The
earliest seems to have been in the second year of Henry IV. (1400) when
a petition was presented to Parliament[93] which prays, in its quaint
Norman French that "les fees de Gardien de Flete sorént mys en certain"
that the fees might be settled.
It is possible that extra fees were taken for a certain amount of
liberty allowed to the prisoners by the Warden, who would allow him
to go out of gaol on certain conditions, and we may be certain, for a
_consideration_ also. The Warden was answerable for his Prisoner, and
if he escaped, he had to pay the debt, so that we may be certain that
his ephemeral liberty was highly purchased. That this was the case we
find in 7 and 8 Hen. IV. (1406)[94] "que si ascun Gaoler lesseroit tiel
Prisoner aler a large par mainprise[95] ou en baile, que adonques le
persone envers qi le dit Prisoner estoit condempne aureoit sa action et
recoverir envers le dit Gaoler." Or in English, "_That if any Gaoler
allowed such Prisoner to go at large, either by mainprize or bail, that,
then, the Person to whom the Prisoner was indebted might have his
action, and recover against the said Gaoler._" Yet, notwithstanding
this, there were many actions brought against the Wardens for allowing
their prisoners to escape. A relic of this power of the Wardens to
accord a certain amount of liberty to their prisoners, obtained till
the last hours of the Fleet. There was, in the _Rules_, a defined
district surrounding the Prison, in which prisoners, on providing
approved sureties for the amount of their debt, and paying some fee,
might reside, on condition that they did not overstep the boundaries.
That this custom of granting temporary _exeats_ was very ancient, is
indisputable, for, in the 1 Richard II. (1377) a complaint was made
that the Warden of the Fleet "sometimes by mainprize, or by bail, and
sometimes without any mainprize, with a Baston of the Fleet," _i.e._,
accompanied by a prison official, would allow his charges to go abroad,
"even into the country."
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."
[Footnote 84: Mag. Rot. 9 Ric. I. _Rot. 2a, Lond. & Midd._]
[Footnote 85: Mag. Rot. 9 Ric. I. _Rot. 14b, Kent._]
[Footnote 86: Liberate Rolls, p. 25. _Rot. Lit. Pat. Hardy_,
p. 4.]
[Footnote 87: Rot. Cancell. 3 John, f. 100.]
[Footnote 88: Close Rolls, 6 John, f. 33.]
[Footnote 89: Close Rolls, 2 Hen. III., f. 346.]
[Footnote 90: Mag. Rot. 1 Ric. I. _Rot. 2b, Bedef._ Til de
Oblatis Curiæ.]
[Footnote 91: Mag. Rot. 5 Ric. I. _Rot. 2a_, Nordfolch and
Sudfolch.]
[Footnote 92: See Platt's Case cited Vaughan's Reports 1677,
p. 243.]
[Footnote 93: Rolls of Parl. vol. iii. p. 469.]
[Footnote 94: Ibid. vol iii. p. 593a.]
[Footnote 95: Allowing a prisoner to go at liberty on finding
sureties.]
[Footnote 96: Hayne's State Papers, vol. i.]
[Footnote 97: The moat or ditch fed by the Fleet, which washed
the walls of the prison.]
[Footnote 98: See "Memorials of London and London Life in the
Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Centuries," by H. T.
Riley, 1847, pp. 279, 280.]
[Footnote 99: "Proceedings and Ordinances of the Privy Council of
England," edited by Sir H. Nicholas, 1834, vol. ii. p. 303.]
[Footnote 100: Ibid. vol. iii. p. 93.]
[Footnote 101: Beneficed Clergy were given the title of Dominus or
Sir--as Sir Hugh Evans, in the _Merry Wives of Windsor_.]
[Footnote 102: A vexatious and litigious person--one who stirs up
strife.]
[Footnote 103: Christ Church, Oxford.]
[Illustration]
[Illustration]