The Cornhill Magazine (Vol. I, No. 5, May 1860)Various
General
The Cornhill Magazine (Vol. I, No. 5, May 1860)
Various
England -- Periodicals; English literature -- Periodicals; Short stories, English -- Periodicals
A sterner subject, the prologue to a dismal drama of human life, was now
to engross the pencil of this painter, who was now making his presence
known and felt among his contemporaries. I speak of the strange solemn
picture of the _Committee of the House of Commons_ taking evidence
of the enormities wreaked on the wretched prisoners in the Fleet by
Huggins and Bambridge. Let us drag these mouldering scoundrels from
their dishonoured graves, and hang them up here on Cornhill, for all
the world to gaze at, even as the government of the Restoration (but
with less reason) hung the carcases of Cromwell and Bradshaw on Tyburn
gibbet. Huggins—save the mark!—was of gentle birth, and wrote himself
“Armiger.” He had bought the patent of the wardenship of the Fleet from
a great court lord, and when the trade of torturing began, through
usance, to tend towards satiety, he sold his right to one Bambridge, a
twin demon. The atrocities committed by the pair may very rapidly be
glanced at. Huggins’s chief delight was to starve his prisoners, unless
they were rich enough to bribe him. Bambridge’s genius lay more towards
confining his victims charged with fetters in underground dungeons,
with the occasional recreation of attempting to pistol and stab them.
The moneyed debtors both rascals smiled upon. Smugglers were let out
through a yard in which dogs were kept; ran their cargoes; defrauded the
revenue, and came back to “college.” One, who owed 10,000_l._ to the
crown, was permitted to make his escape altogether. A certain T. Dumay
went several times to France, being all the time in the “custody,” as
the sham was facetiously termed, of the Warden of the Fleet. What was
such a fraud in an age when the highest legal authorities (who would not
take the fetters off Christopher Layer) gravely doubted whether the rules
of the King’s Bench might not extend to Bombay, in the East Indies?[6]
These surreptitiously enlarged prisoners were called “pigeons.” They had
bill transactions with the tipstaves; they drew on Huggins, and then
pleaded their insolvency. On the other hand, the poor debtors were very
differently treated. A broken-down baronet, Sir William Rich, on refusing
to pay the “baronet’s fee,” or “garnish,” of five pounds, was heavily
fettered, kept for months in a species of subterranean dog-kennel; the
vivacious Bambridge sometimes enlivening his captivity by threatening
to run a red-hot poker through his body. This cheerful philanthropist,
who was wont to range about the prison with a select gang of turnkeys,
armed with halberts and firelocks, ordered one of his myrmidons to fire
on “Captain Mackpheadris”—(what a name for a captain in difficulties!
Lieutenant Lismahago is nothing to it). As, however, even these callous
bravoes hesitated to obey so savage a behest, and as there was absolutely
nothing to be squeezed in the way of garnish out of this lackpenny
Captain Mackpheadris, Bambridge locked the poor wretch out of his room,
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account