In the latter part of the same year a party of 150 were removed from Verdun to Valenciennes. “The march took eight days. The real gentlemen were allowed on parole; the négociants, or merchants, were confined.” The best account is from the portfolio of a détenu, published in 1810. One quotation must suffice:
“The number of prisoners of war at Verdun has generally amounted to 400, consisting chiefly of naval officers and masters of merchant-ships, and including a few officers of the Army, who had been shipwrecked on the French coast, and some passengers who had been taken on their voyage from the East Indies. Add to these some common seamen, who, instead of being sent to Givet or Saarlouis, the usual depots for sailors, were permitted to remain at Verdun at the intercession of any persons of respectability who would take them into their service.”
There is another brief account by James Forbes, a member of the Society of Antiquaries, who was detained for some months. Beyond the fact that he was a prisoner in the town, and had to answer the daily roll-call, his lot was not a hard one. By the interest of Sir Joseph Banks, the “Savant Anglais” was released.
His book is valuable as giving the text of the release forms, etc. As throwing light on the lot of the rank and file of the army and the ordinary seamen, information has been culled from the article, “Prisoners of War,” published in Chambers’ Journal, 1854. This article deals shortly with the treatment and conduct of the British prisoners in France. The writer says that on the long march into the interior they were often treated cruelly and harshly, occasionally handcuffed; they were escorted by soldiers of the line, the character of their treatment depending, naturally, greatly upon the officer in command. This writer confirms the dietary mentioned already. The prisoners were paid by the French Government a sou and a half (not quite three farthings) a day; this was supplemented by a penny a day from a fund raised by public subscription in England, the masters and mates of merchantmen participating in this small but welcome addition to their subsistence. In accordance with the directions of Othello quoted on our title page, we must quote from the article the remarks on the conduct of our countrymen in captivity.
“Brandy and spirits being cheap, the Britishers often got intoxicated and gave endless troubles to the incensed officials. Their conduct was that of the proverbial, reckless British seaman. They did no work, but spent their time in playing rough games of every description, singing, speechifying, fighting, drinking, and taunting and defying the French, Frog-eating Mounseers, all and sundry, who, by the way, often made them rue their rough pranks. Insubordination was commonly punished by separate confinement with bread and water, and worst of all, and unendurable to English Jack, a total deprivation of tobacco. . . . Any personal assault on the soldiers or the gendarmes was a most serious offence, the punishment of death being assigned to the striking a gendarme. In some instances this terrible and outrageous penalty was actually carried into effect.”
It will be in the recollection of the reader that the British Government provided the clothing of their subjects who were captives in a foreign prison of war. The dress is described by the author of the article in Chambers’ Journal as a gray jacket and trousers and a straw hat; it contrasted favourably with the suit of many colours in which our Government clad their French prisoners.
In the paragraphs in which the article deals with the British prisoners in Denmark, the anonymous writer shows a sympathy with Denmark which may account for the severe language in which he deals with the British prisoners in that country. In describing their gambling propensities and consequent moral depravity he uses almost the actual words used by Captain Woodriff and others when they described Les Misérables and their class in the English prisons.
Possibly some future searcher in the bypaths of history may take up the subject of British prisoners of war in the countries of their captors, and we may hope that the result of his researches will form a picture of our countrymen more agreeable to the British eye than that depicted by the writer in Chambers’ Journal. [238]
CHAPTER XII
THE TRUCE AND THE PEACE—PRISON EVACUATED, 1802—FINALLY CLEARED, 1814—DEMOLISHED, 1816