incapable of paying rent, was thrust out of his
room, to live and starve in a dreary open yard of
the prison, called the Bare. The captain being,
however, a man of resources, and perhaps
accustomed to Flemish campaigns, began, with the true
spider-patience, to build a hut in a corner of the
yard. It was only a shaky, tent-like structure,
fashioned of earth, tiles, and broken bricks, not a
house to be envious of. Bambridge, vexed at
his debtor's subterfuge for a room, had it pulled
down. For other offenders he had "Julius
Cæsar's Chapel" and the "Upper and Lower
Ease," while in the "Lyons' Den" desperate
prisoners were strapped to the ground.

Close to the prison there was a sponging-
house, kept by Corbett, a man entirely at
Bambridge's disposal, who charged every
prisoner an entrance-fee of five pounds sixteen
shillings and fourpence, the "philazer," the
judge's clerk, the tipstaves, and the warden all
pouncing on the tormented wretch for their
dues. Then there were fees to obtain better
rooms and lighter irons, and a six-shilling bowl
of punch to be given as a sort of house-warming.
Corbett was, in fact, a licensed robber,
and there was no law to prevent his theft or his
persecutions.

Between the jailer of the Fleet and this
Corbett there was sometimes sharp practice
in the arrests. On one occasion, a total
stranger, an innocent and uninvolved man, while
stopping at the grate to talk comfort to the
prisoners, and give them charity, was dragged
in by Corbett and Co., and not released till he
had paid fees and sworn not to institute
proceedings. When charitable ladies sent money
to discharge the claims against poor men who
remained in the Fleet for fees only, Bambridge
often concealed many such prisoners, unwilling
to let them enjoy freedom again. He was
proved, also, to have taken bribes, especially
forty guineas and an amber and silver model of
a Chinese junk, worth eighty broad pieces, from
a poor woman. This wretch, in fact, revelled
like a second Jonathan Wild in every black
meanness and peculation. For instance, when
an Insolvent Act was passed with some little
mercy in it, this atrocious rascal required three
guineas from each prisoner before he would
allow them to enjoy the benefit of the new
act.

He had another ingenious trick. Immediately
he had beaten a prisoner, or in any way
exceeded the law, he preferred a bill of indictment
against the sufferer for riot or attempt to
escape, to stop his mouth, and prejudice the
judges against him.

The committee that examined Bambridge
consisted of five noblemen and many eminent
commoners. Among them were: General Wade,
the great road-maker of the Highlands; Sir
James Thornhill, soon after Hogarth's father-
in-law; Francis Child, the banker; and Sir
Gregory Page, the hanging judge satirised by
Pope. The chairman was James Oglethorpe,
Esq. The scene is the more interesting to
us, because it was excellently painted by
Hogarth for one of the members, Sir Archibald
Grant of Monymusk, knight of the shire for
Aberdeen.

"On the table," says Horace Walpole,
describing this picture, "are the instruments of
torture. A prisoner in rags, half starved,
appears before them. The poor man has a
good countenance: that adds to the interest.
On the other hand is the inhuman jailer.
It is the very figure that Salvator Rosa
would have drawn for lago in the moment of
detection. Villany, fear, and conscience are
mixed in yellow, and livid on his countenance;
his lips are contracted by tremor; his face
advances, as eager to lie; his legs step back, as
thinking to make his escape; one hand is thrust
precipitately into his bosom, the fingers of the
other are catching uncertainly at his buttonholes.
If this was a portrait, it was the most
striking that ever was drawn; if it was not, it
is still finer."

This committee, first appointed February
25th, 1728–29, declared Thomas Bambridge,
then warden of the Fleet prison, and John
Huggins, his predecessor in that office, notoriously
guilty of great breaches of trust, extortions,
cruelties, and other high crimes and
misdemeanours.

Public indignation, once aroused, was not
willing to let Bambridge escape. He was tried,
May 23rd, 1729, for the murder of a Mr.
Castell, who had been forced into Corbett's
sponging-house when the small-pox was raging
there. Page, one of the most infamous of
judges, persuaded the jury to acquit Bambridge;
but the widow of Castell fought the case till the
wager of battle was claimed, and Bambridge
then, rather than fight, selected to be tried
again. He was tried again, and was acquitted,
but narrowly escaped being torn to pieces by
the people. In December of the same year, they
were at Bambridge again, and he was tried for
stealing the goods of one Elizabeth Berkley,
while a prisoner in the Fleet. The articles stolen
included Flemish lace, gold lace, plate, and rings.
They were worth thirty pounds, and were distrained
for fifty-six pounds of rent due to Mr.
Huggins, Bambridge's predecessor. Bambridge
and his men broke open the door, and forced open
her boxes. The poor woman was then turned
on the Common Side, without a bed to lie on,
and her mind became affected. Bambridge was
again acquitted.

At the same session, Huggins, and Barnes,
a turnkey, were also tried for the murder of a
prisoner named Arne; but in these cases, and
with these cases only, Page was merciful, and
they, too, were acquitted.

Bambridge then actually petitioned government
for compensation, "having been put to
great charges and expenses; and, notwithstanding
his acquittal, having for nearly seven
years last past lost the profits of the several
offices which were granted to him, but hath
also been incapacitated from exercising his
profession of an attorney and solicitor for his
support and subsistence.