^{page iv note a} Madox, , Hist. of the Exchequer, p. 356Google Scholar. (Folio.)

^{page v note b} Liberate Rolls, p. 25. Rot. Lit. Pat. Hardy p. 4.Google Scholar

^{page v note a} Rot. Cancell. 30 Jo. f. 100.

^{page v note b} Close Rolls, 60 Jo. f. 33.

^{page v note c} Close Rolls, 20 Hen. III. f. 346.

^{page v note d} Rot. Parl. vol. i. p. 47.

^{page vi note a} u. s. vol. ii. p. 91.

^{page vi note b} u. s. p. 196.

^{page vi note c} u. s. vol. iii. p. 286 B.

^{page vi note d} Thos. Hardyng, committed for false accusation, 15 Ric. II. and John Shodwell, for slander (vol. iii. p. 288 B.) The Sheriff of Rutland, 5 Hen. IV. for making a false return (u. s. p. 530). In the instance of Sir Henry de Medbourne, who is accused in the 50th Ed. III. of throwing several persons into the Fleet by the mere exercise of oppression, it seems probable that he did so under colour of their being his debtors (u.s. vol. ii. p. 329). The committal of William de Buret, in 1214, seems to have been for contempt of court (Rot. Lit. Pat. p. 123Google Scholar). John de Beauney, in 1207, was evidently in the Fleet already for debt, and removed therefrom when the capital charge was brought against him (u.s. p. 68 B.)

^{page vii note a} Rolls of Parl. vol. iii. p. 469.

^{page vii note b} Rolls of Parl. vol. iii. p. 593 A.

^{page viii note a} The curious practice of giving leave of absence to prisoners seems to date from very early times. In the 10 Ric. II. we meet with a complaint that the Warden of the Fleet, “sometimes by mainprise or by bail, and sometimes without any mainprise, with a Baston of the Fleet,” had been in the habit of suffering his prisoners to go at large, “even into the country.” (Stat. at Large, 10 Ric. II. c. 12.) Notwithstanding the legislation mentioned in the text, and a great deal more of the same kind, it is quite clear that the practice went on for centuries, and was not finally abolished till 1697, when it was enacted that “every such going or being out of the said rules should be adjudged and be deemed, and is hereby declared to be, an escape.” (Stat. at Large, 80 and 90 Will. III. c. 27.) In Harris's time things must have got almost to their worst point. He says that the Warden had about twenty officials whose sole duty was to attend upon prisoners on leave of absence (p. 77, 103–105). These men were allowed to remain with their prisoners in the country for a month at a time (p. 52, 1.10), being in the meantime responsible for their safe custody. Of course the Warden had taken care to protect himself against the possibility of a prisoner giving him the slip, by obtaining security to the amount of the judgment debt from relatives and friends. The extent to which the system of giving leave of absence was carried is very surprising. The Warden (p. 77, 1. 28) estimates the cost to him at 80l. a year, which at 20d. a day would give an aggregate of nearly 1000 absences, or—assuming that there were even 100 of the prisoners who could afford to pay for the luxury of occasional ‘exeats’—an average to this privileged class of ten days' absence annually.

^{page ix note a} By the Abbrev. Rot. Orig. Ed. III. it appears that the service imposed was that “custodiendi omnes prisones ibidem et eciam ad reparandum pontem de Flete quotiescunque necesse fuerit,” f. 130.

^{page ix note b} Gains, i. 141.

^{page x note a} The earliest instance I have met with is in the Cal. Rot. Patent, 310Google Scholar Ed. III. “Rex in auxilium paupernm prispnorum en le Flete concessit eis denarioa yocatos Godspence collecturos de certis custmniis.” F. 167A.

^{page xi note a} The Leathersellers' Company alone still enjoys no less than ten such benefactions, which were left to the Company in trust for the relief of poor prisoners between 1470 and 1638.

^{page xii note a} The State of the Prisons in England and Wales, with Preliminary Observations, and an Account of some Foreign Prisons and Hospitals. 4to.

^{page xii note b} But the eighteenth-century building was very unlike that which the following pages tell us of. As Howard's work is by no means rare, it will suffice here to refer to it without troubling the reader with quotations.

^{page xii note c} Dom. Eliz. vol. lxxxv. n. 25.

^{page xii note d} See p. 56, 1.30 et seq. In the fifteenth century delinquents who were confined in the other London prisons were in the habit of practising a ruse for getting removed into the Fleet. By a legal fiction they confessed themselves debtors to the King, and on this pretence they were transferred to what was regarded as the prison for King's debtors. This practice was restrained by statute of 10 Ric. II. c. 12.

^{page xii note e} See p. 36, 1. 34, et seq.

^{page xiii note a} Pp. 9, 27, 65, 66.

^{page xiii note b} MS. A.

^{page xiii note c} P. 73, 1. 18; p. 102, 1.10.

^{page xiii note d} P. 62, 1. 15.

^{page xiii note e} Pp. 84, 93, 59, 72, 141.

^{page xiv note a} P. 86.

^{page xiv note b} P. 17, 1. 10.

^{page xiv note c} P. 86.

^{page xiv note d} P.89.

^{page xv note a} P. 88,89.

^{page xv note b} MS. (B) and Bainbridge.

^{page xv note c} “Cry of the Oppressed,” p. 89Google Scholar; copy, pp. 130–35.

^{page xvi note a} Two in a bed was the best accommodation that a prisoner could expect, p. 82, 1. 7. p. 84, 1.10.

^{page xvi note b} P. 90, 1.14.

^{page xvii note a} P. 88.

^{page xvii note b} Pp. 73, 74, 151, 1. 36.

^{page xviii note a} Pp. 93–96.

^{page xviii note b} P. 119.

^{page xviii note c} P. 93.

^{page xviii note d} P. 92.

^{page xviii note e} Pp. 43, 65, 72, 94.

^{page xix note a} A long list of complaints against the Wardens of the Fleet for extortion, persecution, and actual torture, might be made out from the Records in the State Paper Office if it were worth while to pursue so painful a subject. In the Appendix will be found the case of Joachim Newton, Warden (or Deputy Warden?), in 1597; and the barbarities of Richard Manlove, Warden in 1690, became the subject of judicial inquiry (Cry of the Oppressed, p. 84). The case of Thomas Bainbridge, dismissed from the Wardenship in 1729, may be read in the Statutes at Large, 20 Geo. II. c. 32, and in the State Trials. It is certain that if matters did not much improve between the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries they could not hare got worse. Harris's summary of the past history of the Fleet, at p. 9, 1. 24, &c. speaks for itself.

^{page xix note b} Down to Howard's days, and long after, the fees for the chaplain charged to the prisoners are conspicuous.

^{page xix note c} The play was acted in 1605.

^{page xx note a} P. 136.

^{page xx note b} Pp. 48, 50, 1. 32.

^{page xx note c} P. 43.

^{page xxi note a} See Appendix III.

^{page xxii note a} In the Guildhall Library the printed plans and specifications, &c. of the sale may still be seen. In the same collection is a “Plan and Section of the Interior, and Perspective views of the Fleet Prison, by Rotaldé;” it has no date, but it must represent the Fleet as it appeared after the fire in 1755.