A Journal of a Young Man of Massachusetts, 2nd ed.

DARTMOOR PRISON

A Return of American prisoners of war killed and wounded in an attempt to force the military guard on the evening of the 6th of April, 1815.

Reply to King and Larpent's Report

To the People of the United States

Having perused, with attention, the report of Mr. Charles King, and Francis Seymour Larpent, on their examination of the unfortunate occurrence at Dartmoor, on the 6th of April last:

We, the undersigned, being there at the time this unfortunate occurrence took place, deem it a duty we owe to the surviving sufferers of that bloody transaction, to our fellow citizens, and ourselves, to make some remarks upon such a singular report. Although we presume the door is forever closed against any further investigation of that ever to be remembered transaction, we cannot help, however contrary it may be to our wishes to irritate the public feeling, already so much excited, entering into a detailed investigation of that report.

In the committee's address to the public on the 27th of June last, preceding the publication of the affidavits of some of the prisoners, taken on that melancholy affair, they have justly anticipated what would be the report of the commissioners, after their investigation; they drew their conclusions from the singular manner in which the investigation was conducted. The report commences by stating, that, after carefully perusing the proceedings of the several courts of inquiry, instituted immediately after that event, they proceeded immediately to the examination, upon oath, of ALL the witnesses, both American and English, who offered themselves for that purpose.—How far this part of the report is correct, we shall leave the public to judge.

On the arrival of the commissioners at the depot, the committee of the prison were sent for; after waiting some time at the door of the room, where the inquiry was held, they were called in separately and questioned as to their knowledge of the transactions of the sixth.—The depositions of those who were eye witnesses of that disgraceful scene were taken; some were questioned as to the general conduct of Shortland, previous to that affair; it was represented by them as it would have been by all, as being universally cruel, overbearing and oppressive. After having finished the examination of the committee, they requested them to bring forward all the evidence that was likely to cast any light on the subject of inquiry. They accordingly returned into the prison, and drew up a list of the names of some of the eye-witnesses of that day's occurrence. Although they could have brought hundreds to the examination, and the sum of whose evidence would have amounted to the same, yet the committee not wishing to impede the progress of the investigation, by a redundancy of evidence, they were careful to select such men as were most likely to give a clear and distinct account of all the circumstances as they occurred under their knowledge, taking care, at the same time, to procure those whose different situations afforded them an opportunity of witnessing that transaction, from the commencement to the close. Such was the evidence the committee had selected, to the number of about fifty, very few of whom were ever examined, although they were kept waiting in the turnkey's lodge (where they were ordered to stay until called for) during the hours of investigation. In the course of the inquiry, it seems, the commissioners found it necessary to survey the particular situation of the prisons, and the points from which the different attacks were made; they accordingly came into the yard for that purpose, and after having been shown all the places from whence the firing was continued, where the crowd of prisoners had assembled on the first alarm, and where the hole, so much made a handle of, had been made—after a slight survey of these different places, they retired into their session room, leaving orders, once more, with the committee to hold their evidence in readiness, as they would soon be called upon for examination. The committee replied that they had been in readiness since the commencement of the inquiry, and were then only waiting their orders to appear before them, feeling happy in the idea of having it in their power to show to the court, and to the world, by the evidence they had to produce, that the attack of Shortland on the defenceless prisoners, was premeditated and unjustifiable in any point of view.

After attending in the turnkey's lodge during the sitting of the commissioners, until the middle of the third day, without having but very few of the evidences sent for, and being fearful that they might be waiting for them, the committee sent them word that the witnesses were still in attendance. No answer being returned to this message for some time, the committee became uneasy on account of the long examination of the officers, soldiers, clerks, and turnkeys, attached to the depot, without admitting the prisoners to an equal privilege; and understanding the commissioners were about closing their inquiry, they again sent word they would be glad to have an interview for a few moments, for the purpose of explaining the nature of their evidence, and the necessity of a full hearing on both sides of the question. No answer being returned to this request, and still waiting with the anxious hope that they would soon send for some of us, when we were told by one of the turnkeys, that the commissioners were prepared to depart, having finished the examination. Astonished to think they meant to leave the depot without clearly investigating the circumstances that were the cause of their meeting, and feeling indignant that a cause of so much importance should be passed over so partially, the committee addressed a note to Mr. King, begging him not to shut the door of communication against the prisoners, by closing the inquiry without giving them the privilege of a hearing, as the greatest part of our witnesses were yet unexamined, and their evidence they conceived to be of the utmost importance to the investigation. No reply was made to this note; but, in a few moments, we were told, that the commissioners had left the depot. How far they are justifiable in saying they examined all the evidences that offered themselves, we think is sufficiently shewn.

The commissioners next go on to mention the insurrection of the prisoners about the bread, on the 4th, two days previous to the events, the subject of that inquiry. Although the report correctly states, the prisoners quietly returned to their own yards, after their demands having been complied with, Mr. King forgot to mention, that it was clearly represented to him, had the prisoners been so disposed, on that night, they could have easily made their escape. Although that transaction had nothing to do, as relates to the prisoners, with the events of the 6th, we merely represent this circumstance to show, that there was no intention whatever on their part to break out of the prison, as Shortland and his adherents have attempted to prove.

The report now goes on to mention, that on the evening of the 6th of April, about six o'clock in the evening, a hole was made in one of the walls of the prison sufficient for a full-sized man to pass, and others had been commenced, but never completed, and that a number of the prisoners were over the railing erected to prevent them from communicating with the sentinels on the walls, and that they were tearing up pieces of turf, and wantonly pelting each other, in a noisy manner.

As to the hole made in the wall, we believe the causes and reasons have been already sufficiently explained by the affidavits laid before the public. With respect to the prisoners being between the iron paling and the wall, it could have been, if it was not, easily explained to Mr. King, had he given an opportunity. It seems, that on the afternoon of the 6th, some of the prisoners having obtained leave of the sentinels on the walls to go over and lay upon the grass, others seeing them laying so much at their ease, went over to enjoy the same privilege; and as the sentinels made no objection to this proceeding, the number was soon increased to such a degree, that it became no longer an enjoyment to those who first obtained the privilege; some scuffling then ensued among themselves, and they began to pelt each other with turf and old shoes, principally in play, and among so many, no doubt, there must have been considerable noise; but how they can possibly connect this circumstance with the hole made in the wall, is entirely out of our power to conceive, as the iron railings separated them from the pretended breach in the wall, and distant from it more than half the length of the yard; of course, had the hole been intended as a breach, the iron paling would have become a barrier, instead of facilitating the means of an escape.

As to that part of the report which mentions the guard-barracks being the repository for the arms of the guard off duty, and of its standing in the yard to which the hole in the wall would serve as a communication, and of its being a further cause of suspicion and alarm to Captain Shortland—to one acquainted with the situation of the prison, such an idea would be ridiculous; but to those who are not acquainted with it, it will be only necessary for us to mention, that if the prisoners had the intention of breaking out through this passage, and had actually got into the barrack-yard, the difficulties they would then have to encounter would be much greater than to break a passage through the market square, or the back part of the yard. As to the idea of their possessing themselves of the muskets standing in the racks in the guard-barracks (even if they knew of any being there) it is childish; for how easy would it have been for the commanding officer, on the shortest intimation of such an attempt, with one blast of his bugle, to have called all his guards to the spot before a hundredth part of the prisoners could have got into the yard, and by that means instantly put a stop to any further proceedings on their part.

We cannot conceive how Mr. King can possibly come forward and say, on these grounds, it appeared to him that Captain Shortland was justified in giving the order for sounding the alarm bell, when, if he found the prisoners were conducting themselves improperly, had he sent for the committee (as always had been his custom heretofore, when he had any charge against the prisoners for improper conduct) and told them that the prisoners were breaking the wall (which circumstance, as has been published before, was not known to one tenth of the prisoners) and requested them to have represented to those engaged in it, the consequences that must ensue if they persisted in such conduct, we have not a moment's hesitation in saying, they would have put a stop to any further proceedings of that kind.

That part which relates to the breaking of the iron chain which fastened No. 1 gate, and which follows next in the report, says there was no evidence to show whether it was done before or after the alarm bell rang. As this was a material point on which they grounded Shortland's justification, we have to regret that the evidence we had to lay before the commissioners, and which would, in our opinion, have sufficiently cleared up that point, was not examined.

On the ringing of the alarm bell, the rush towards the gates leading into the market square was so great (attracted as has been before stated by curiosity) that those in front were irresistibly pushed forward by those in the rear, and if the chain had not broke, the lock must have given way to the pressure, and by this opening, it is but natural to suppose, that a number must have been shoved into the square, in front of the soldiers, who were drawn up in a line across the square, with Shortland at their head.

If, as the report now goes on to state, there was no direct proof before them of a previous concert or preparation on the part of the prisoners, and no evidence of their intention or disposition to effect their escape on this occasion, excepting that which arose by inference from the whole of the detailed circumstances connected together, had Mr. King examined the evidence on the part of the prisoners, as minutely as it seems he examined those on the part of Shortland, he could not even have drawn the shadow of an inference of that being their intention.

Where the commissioners got their evidence for asserting that Captain Shortland, by quiet means and persuasion, endeavored to persuade the prisoners to retire into their respective yards, is unaccountable to us, as those who know Captain Shortland, know he is not a man of persuasion. It is correct that Dr. M'Grath used every exertion to persuade the prisoners to retire out of the square, which if Shortland had allowed sufficient time, would have been quietly done; but the crowd, by this time, had become so great, and the pressure from the rear so strong, that those in front could not retreat until time should be allowed for those in the rear to fall back, but the hasty, haughty, and overbearing temper of Shortland, could not allow him to use such conciliatory means. He orders (the report says) fifteen file of the guard fronting the open gate, to the charge; and after some little time the charge was so effectual, with but very little or no injury to the prisoners, as to drive them, for the most part, quite out of the square, with the exception of a small number who continued their resistance about No. 1 gate. Under these circumstances, continued the report, the firing commenced.

Here we beg leave to request an attentive perusal of the affidavits of some of the prisoners, taken by the committee, and which relate particularly to this part of the transaction. It is there positively stated, that on the soldiers coming to the charge, the prisoners ALL retreated into the yard, and pushed the gate to after them. If the commissioners had examined the evidence, this part of the report ought to have been differently expressed.

We cannot conceive how Mr. King finds it difficult to reconcile the testimony respecting Captain Shortland's giving the orders to fire; when he reports that several of the Americans swear positively, that Captain Shortland gave that order—and many of the soldiers and the English witnesses heard the word given by some one, but could not swear it was by Captain Shortland; and some of them (among whom is the officer commanding the guard) think, if Captain Shortland had given such an order, they must have heard it, which they did not. Thus, then, stands the foundation for this part of the report. An English officer thinks it is not so, and several Americans swear it is so; and he finds it very difficult to reconcile their testimony.—The lightness with which they seem to have passed over this most important point of that day's transaction, cannot but be deeply regretted by those who feel for the unhappy sufferers, when they go on to state, "It may remain a matter of doubt whether the firing first began in the square by an order, or whether it was a spontaneous act of the soldiers themselves; it seemed clear it was continued and renewed both there and elsewhere, without orders—and that on the platforms and several places about the prison it was certainly commenced without any authority." We must once more request the attention of the public to the affidavits already published; it is there sworn by one of the witnesses, that previous to the alarm bell being rung, and while walking in the yard, a soldier called to him from the walls, and told him to go in, as they would soon be fired upon. How, then, can it be possible, that a soldier on the walls should know that they would soon be fired upon, if the order had not been previously given to that effect? And had the bugle-man been examined, he could have stated that, previous to the ringing of the alarm bell, he received orders to sound to fire; so that when the soldiers took their stations on the walls, they were charged and prepared for that purpose. With such information, we conceive the committee to stand fully justified in stating in their report, the belief of its being a pre-concerted plan, on the part of Shortland; and if the commissioners had possessed themselves with a knowledge of these circumstances, which they could and ought to have done, would they, then, reported Shortland as justifiable, even in a military point of view?

The next thing we have to notice in the report is, that very singular paragraph, which says, "from the fact of the crowd being so close, and the firing at first being attended with very little injury, it appears probable, that a large proportion of the muskets were, as stated by one or two of the witnesses, levelled over the heads of the prisoners, a circumstance, in some respects, to be lamented." Is it, then, to be lamented, that the soldiers did not level their pieces, on the first fire, directly into the crowd, which they have stated to be so great and so close that a soldier declared he could not come fairly down to a charge? or is it to be lamented, that one or two hundred were not killed at the first discharge, and a thousand or two wounded? If so, we think it much to be lamented, that the reporters were not there, and placed foremost in the crowd.

The circumstance of so few being hurt at the first discharge is not strange to those who are acquainted with the situation; and this occurrence alone corroborates the American evidence, and ought to have been sufficient proof to the commissioners, that the prisoners upon being charged upon, retreated through the gates, and shut them after them, before the firing commenced; and which circumstance, alone, should have shut the door of justification against Shortland for commencing a fire upon them, as they were in their own yards. As this was the actual situation of the prisoners on the first discharge, and the soldiers having to fire through the iron paling, and the prisoners retreating on a descending ground, of course brought the muskets, when down to a level, over the heads of the prisoners—it was owing to this fortunate circumstance that so few were injured on the first discharge of the musketry; and it seems the inhuman Shortland was aware of this circumstance, when he was distinctly heard to order his soldiers to fire low. This does not appear to correspond with that part of their report which says, "Captain Shortland was in the market square, exerting himself in giving orders to stop the firing."

That there was any provocation given to the soldiers to justify their subsequent brutal conduct, the commissioners themselves seem to find it very difficult to trace any evidence, although they say, it appears, that there was some resistance made to the turnkeys in shutting the prison, and that stones were thrown at the military. Had they examined the prisoners sufficiently, they would have been convinced that no resistance was made to the turnkeys in shutting the doors. As to throwing stones at the military, while they were chasing them from corner to corner, and firing at them in every place where they had taken shelter from the balls, could it be expected but they would seize on something for self defence, when they saw the soldiers running at them with their bayonets, and having no possible means of escape, as it has been before stated, all the doors in the prisons had been previously closed except one, and that one perhaps, the length of the prison from him. Is there a man, in such a situation, but would seize on the first weapon that offered itself, and sell his life as dear as possible. How can they, then, make that the slightest justification for such outrageous conduct on the part of Shortland or the military?

As to most of the officers being absent is erroneous; it could have been proved that there was an officer in every yard, and in one instance where he was heard to give the order to fire on a party of prisoners close by the door, and running and making every exertion to enter the prison.

As to Captain Shortland being busy in the square with the turnkeys, receiving and taking care of the wounded, certainly shows the commissioners' want of correct information, for it is already before the public, in affidavit, the cruel manner in which the wounded were treated by him, and of his abuse to the prisoners who were bearing the wounded to the hospital gate. That part of the report which relates that the time and commencement of this transaction was the officers' dinner hour, is too ridiculous for a comment. We do not believe that there was a prisoner in the depot that knew when or where the officers dined, and therefore, can be no ground for an argument, that the prisoners were taking this opportunity to escape.

The report goes on to state, "the cross fire, which was kept up from several of the platforms on the walls round the prison, and directed against straggling parties of prisoners, running about the yard, endeavoring to enter the prison by the door which the turnkey left open, according to their usual practice, does seem to have been without object or excuse, and to have been a wanton attack upon the lives of defenceless, and, at the same time, unoffending individuals." In answer to this paragraph, we shall only reply, that had the commissioners examined all the American evidence, and attached the same credit to it, which it appears they have done to all the English evidence, similar expressions would have been made use of against Shortland's conduct throughout the whole of their report.

It appears to us, after an attentive examination of this report, that the commissioners meant to justify Shortland in commencing his murderous attack upon the prisoners, and to condemn the soldiers for continuing it. Singular as this idea appears, it is no less strange to us, how it can be possible they could reconcile it to their feelings to make up a report containing such a direct contradiction to reason; for surely if Shortland could be justified in using coercive measures in the first instance, the military certainly should be acquitted for the subsequent massacre, as the whole was conducted under his immediate command;—and if he had a right to kill one, on the same ground he might have extended it to a thousand. And, on the other hand, if any part of the transaction is to be condemned, Shortland should answer for the whole; for what necessity could there be made to attempt identifying any of the soldiers? Surely the commissioners could not think of bringing them to punishment, as they acted by the direct orders of Shortland and his officers!—and if any one could or ought to be made to answer for the outrage, it should be Shortland.

In addition to the contradictions contained in the commissioners' joint report, Mr. King, in his letter to his excellency J. Q. Adams, almost denies the ground on which they have, in part, founded Shortland's justification, when he says (alluding to have heard several Americans swear, positively, that Shortland did give the order to fire, and an officer of the guard thinking that he did not, as he should have heard him) "perhaps the bias of my mind was, that Shortland did give that order; and wishing the report to go forth under our joint signatures, I forbore to press some of the points so far as otherwise I might have done."

If, then, any part has been neglected, or passed over for accommodation, or any other purpose (and one there certainly has, in not paying the same attention to the American as was done to the English evidence) it is to be regretted that Mr. King should so far forget the sacred duties attached to the appointment of a commissioner to enquire into the murder of his countrymen, as to pass over any points which might have brought to light the means of punishment for the murder, or obtained in some measure an indemnity for the surviving unhappy sufferers.

Will not the shades of the departed victims haunt him in his midnight slumbers, and, pointing to their lacerated bodies, say, these still remain unavenged? Will not the unhappy survivors show the stumps of their amputated limbs, and say, these wounds fester, and still remain unatoned? Will not the widow and the helpless orphan raise their innocent hands to heaven, and cry, why was justice denied us? Why was the heart so callous to our sufferings? And why was the bosom shut to sympathy? Let Mr. King point out some means to appease these bitter complaints, and we shall be satisfied.

We shall now close these unpleasant remarks, by noticing another unaccountable error in Mr. King's letter to Mr. Adams, where he mentions, speaking of Shortland, "and his general conduct, previous to this occurrence, as far as I could with propriety enter into such details, appears to have been characterized with great fairness, and even kindness, in the relation in which he stood towards the prisoners."—We shall not pretend to ask Mr. King where he obtained the evidence on which he grounds this assertion; we are sure it was not from the prisoners, who ought to have been the best judges of that circumstance; but, instead of all that, all the Americans who were permitted to express an opinion on that subject, at the examination, declared, without reserve, as would all the prisoners in the depot, had they been asked the question, that Shortland's conduct, from the commencement of his appointment to that station, had been cruel, oppressive, and overbearing; and, instead of taking measures to alleviate the distresses of the wretched objects under him, as a feeling man would have done, he seemed to take a pleasure in harrassing them whenever he could find the slightest pretext for so doing.

W. Colton, Joseph Swain, Arch'd Taylor, David Ingalls, Reuben Sherman, Arch'd I. Mackay, Philip Black, Homer Hall, James B. Mansfield, Abr'm M'Intire, Wm. Cochran, Henry Dolliver, John Jones, B. Weeks, Wm. Demerell, Thomas Ward, William K. White.