Form of Parole Engagement.
“Whereas the Commissioners for conducting His Britannic Majesty’s Transport Service, and for the Care and Custody of Prisoners of War, have been pleased to grant me, the undersigned . . . . . . as described on the back thereof, late . . . . . . and now a Prisoner of War, leave to return to France, upon my entering into an Engagement not to serve against Great Britain, or any of the Powers in Alliance with that Kingdom, until I shall be regularly exchanged for a British Prisoner of War, of equal Rank; and upon my also engaging, that immediately after my Arrival in France, I shall make known the Place of my Residence there, to the British Agent for Prisoners in Paris, and shall not change the same on any account, without first intimating my intention to the said Agent; and moreover, that at the Expiration of every Two Months, until my exchange shall be effected, I shall regularly and punctually transmit to the said Agent, a Certificate of my Residence, signed by the Magistrates or Municipal Officers of the Place.
“Now, in Consideration of my Engagement, I do hereby declare that I have given my Parole of Honour accordingly, and that I will keep it inviolable.
“Given under my Hand at . . . . . . this . . . . . . Day of 17 . . . . . .
“On back, Name, Rank, Age, Stature, Person, Visage, Complexion, Hair, Eyes, Marks or Wounds, etc.”
Further it must be borne in mind that military punishments are more severe than civil; they follow more rapidly the crime. A breach of parole was a military crime as well as a civil offence, for which loss of liberty on a Chatham hulk was perhaps a fitting punishment. By Clause 4 of Rules to be observed by the prisoners of war in Great Britain, Ireland, etc.—rules with which all prisoners, whether in captivity or on parole, were familiar—very severe punishment for any escaped prisoner who was retaken was laid down for every class. In the case of officers escaping, it was enacted that if recaptured they “shall from that time be considered and treated in all respects like common men.” An officer on parole who escapes, not only escapes, but he breaks his word of honour, and he therefore merits a more severe punishment than he who only breaks his prison bars and does nothing dishonourable.
Both the French and British Governments, to their credit, were ever ready to deal generously and even magnanimously in the way of exchange or release as a reward for some uncalled-for act of bravery or kindness on the part of prisoners in connection with their captors. The following are a few out of many such instances: In December 1811, twenty-one English prisoners were released for assisting to extinguish a fire at Auxonne; among these was the mate of an English merchant vessel, and for him the mate of the French vessel Achille was released from Lichfield, he having assisted to put out a fire there. The colonel of the (French) 36th Regiment was allowed to go to France on parole to try to effect the exchange of Colonel Cox, and failing this to return in three months. In December 1810, Captain Bourde, of the French ship Neptune, was released in consequence of his humanity to the officers and crew of the Comet, a ship in the East India Company’s service. A French surgeon detained on the prison ship Assistance, at Portsmouth, was exchanged “in consequence of his attention to the British sick soldiers on board the Spence transport as represented by Lieut. J. W. Lloyd of the 8th King’s Regiment.” A French captain of the land forces being taken prisoner, was allowed to return to France “for his meritorious conduct in saving the life of a British officer in the last war.” Five French officers were released from Andover “for their exertions in extinguishing a fire at that town.” A naval lieutenant was released by Admiralty order “for saving a child’s life from a lion at Oswestry.” In April 1812, Pierre Marie Tong was released from Portsmouth “in consideration of services offered by his father to assist the Conquisador when on shore on the coast of France.” About the same date the second captain and clerk of a privateer obtained their liberty “for saving the lives of seventy-nine British seamen wrecked on the coast.”
Nor were these courtesies confined to officers. A seaman, prisoner at Plymouth, was to be exchanged “for having leaped overboard and saved the life of Alexander Muir on board the Brave, as per letter 3rd June (1810) from Captain Hawkins.” A number of Lascars, prisoners at Dunkirk, were exchanged for seamen at Norman Cross, the second captain for two, and the captain at Chatham was considered worth three Lascars. We have, in Appendix B, alluded to the release of Captain Woodriff. These bright examples serve to illuminate what is otherwise a gloomy episode.
The allowance paid by the British Government to the officers on parole was at first only 1s. a day. This was increased to 1s. 6d.; but even that amount, although more than was paid by the French to the English prisoners on parole in France, was altogether inadequate, owing to the greater expense of living in England. The inferior officers and others received only 1s. 3d. The French scale varied from 7s. a day for a General to 10d. a day for officers of merchantmen. Frequent complaints being made of the insufficiency of the English allowance, M. Riviere, of the French Admiralty, who nine years before denied the right of our Government to inquire into the treatment of British prisoners in France, adding, “that it (the treatment) was the will of the Emperor,” wrote a long letter to the Transport Board on the subject, stating that the cost at which an English officer could live in France was 9d. a day, while for a similar provision in England, a French officer must pay 2s. a day. The Board called upon Lieut. Wallis, who had recently escaped from France, to check each item by the market prices of provisions in France and in England, and he arrived at the following comparison:
An English Gentleman in France will requiredaily: | A French Gentleman in England will requiredaily: | ||||
| s. | d. |
| s. | d. |
1 lb. Bread | 0 | 2 | ⅓ quartern loaf of Bread | 0 | 5 |
1 lb. Beef | 0 | 4 | ¾ lb. of beef, 10d. a lb. at least | 0 | 7½ |
¾ of beer (this measure is not known) | 0 | 1 | 2 quarts of beer | 0 | 6 |
Beer, very bad, is 3d. a bottle, wine7½d.; say they are taken alternately, a bottle aday | 0 | 5¼ | A pot of porter | 0 | 5 |
Vegetables and fruit (vegetables are very cheap) | 0 | 0½ | Vegetables, including apples | 0 | 2 |
Milk | 0 | 0½ | Milk | 0 | 2 |
Expense of cooking | 0 | 1 | Cooking, at least 2d. | 0 | 2 |
Wood (at Verdun very dear, 36 livres a corde) 2d.per day probably | 0 | 2 |
| ||
1 day’s subsistence in France, according to M.Riviere | 0 | 9 | 1 day’s subsistence in England, according to M.Riviere’s information | 2 | 0 |
1 day’s subsistence in France, according to Lieut.Wallis’s price list | 1 | 5¼ | More probably | 2 | 0½ |
Average of the two estimates | 1 | 1¼ [200] |
| ||
It therefore appeared clear that the least an officer could live on was 2s. a day in England and 1s. a day in France. To double the allowance to the French officers in England would, it was estimated, cost the Government £43,823, and ultimately it was decided to increase the allowance to 2s. for the higher ranks, coming down to 1s. 8d. in the lower, at an increased cost of £28,000 a year. When invalided, the prisoners received an extra allowance, and were attended by doctors practising in their neighbourhood selected by, and paid by, the Government. Their allowance was doubled when a nurse was required. These extra charges were borne by the Commissioners for the Care of the Sick and Hurt, not by the Transport Board.
The majority of the officers on parole were not entirely dependent on the allowance received from the British Government, their income being supplemented by remittances sent from France.
Several of the officers of high rank, and other prisoners whose means enabled them to do so, sent for their wives and lived comfortably in lodgings. Judging from the traditions of the Norman Cross district, and from the literature of the period, the presence of the prisoners on parole made but little change in the social life of the towns and villages in which they were quartered, not sufficient to leave an enduring impression. This is strange, for the presence of 100 foreigners of varying social position in and round about a quiet little cathedral city, such as Peterborough was a century ago, must certainly have modified the usual routine of the social life of its citizens, and of the dwellers in the neighbouring villages in which some of the prisoners lodged.
Although the bitter antagonism which existed between the French and the British during this long war would militate against it, there is no doubt that occasionally the prisoners on parole visited and formed friendships, and even attachments, among their neighbours according to their degree. This general statement made to the writer by his parents and other nonagenarians is borne out by the marriages to be mentioned directly, but although the writer has lived in Peterborough, excepting the few years when his education took him away, for three-quarters of a century, he does not recollect ever to have heard of any special instance of the survival of such a friendship in the city or in the immediate neighbourhood of Norman Cross, excepting those to be detailed when the marriages of the prisoners are dealt with.