The next warden of the Fleet, in the days of John, was Simon Fitz-Robert, Archdeacon of Wells,—­probably a near relative of Robert de Leveland, as the wardship of the daughter of the said Robert, as well as the custody of the jail, was also committed to him.  The freehold of the prison continued in the Leveland family for upwards of three centuries; until, in the reign of Philip and Mary it was, sold to John Heath for L2300—­a large sum in those days, but not more than the value of the property, which from the way it was managed produced a large revenue to its possessor.

The joint wardens of the Fleet at the time of our history were Sir Henry Lello and John Eldred; but their office was executed by deputy in the person of Joachim Tunstall, by whom it was rented.  As will naturally be supposed, it was the object of every deputy-warden to make as much as he could out of the unfortunate individuals committed to his charge; and some idea of the infamous practices of those persons may be gathered, from a petition presented to the Lords of the Council in 1586 by the then prisoners of the Fleet.  In this it is stated that the warden had “let and set to farm the victualling and lodging of all the house and prison of the Fleet to one John Harvey, and the other profits of the said Fleet he had let to one Thomas Newport, the deputy there under the warden; and these being very poor men, having neither land nor any trade to live by, nor any certain wages of the said warden, and being also greedy of gain, did live by bribing and extortion.  That they did most shamefully extort and exact from the prisoners, raising new customs, fines, and payments, for their own advantage.  That they cruelly used them, shutting them up in close prisons when they found fault with their wicked dealings; not suffering them to come and go as they ought to do; with other abominable misdemeanours, which, without reformation, might be the poor prisoners’ utter undoing.”

In consequence of this petition, a commission of inquiry into the alleged abuses was appointed; but little good was effected by it, for only seven years later further complaints were made against the warden, charging him with “murders and other grave misdemeanours.”  Still no redress was obtained; nor was it likely it would be, when the cries of the victims of this abominable system of oppression were so easily stifled.  The most arbitrary measures were resorted to by the officers of the prison, and carried out with perfect impunity.  Their authority was not to be disputed; and it has been shown how obedience was enforced.  Fines were inflicted and payment made compulsory, so that the wealthy prisoner was soon reduced to beggary.  Resistance to the will of the jailers, and refusal to submit to their exactions, were severely punished.  Loaded with fetters, and almost deprived of food, the miserable captive was locked up in a noisome subterranean dungeon; and, if he continued obstinate, was left to rot there.  When he expired, his death was laid to the jail-fever.  Rarely were these dark prison secrets divulged, though frequently hinted at.