Fowey harbour, Cornwall. During the later Middle Ages Fowey acquired notoriety as a pirate refuge. Like other ports and havens in the region, it continued to be visited by pirates in search of recruits and provisions. In the later 1530s the companies of some rovers even went ashore to attend mass in local churches. (Author’s collection)
The monarchy attempted to take firm action against pirates and sea rovers during these years. Commissions of inquiry were issued to investigate complaints of spoil and plunder. The Crown ordered the arrest and imprisonment of men accused of piracy, and the restitution of plundered cargoes. In some cases offenders were commanded to appear before the King and council. At times compensation was awarded to foreign merchants who were the victims of English pirates. In 1484 the sheriffs were ordered to publish a proclamation concerning the regulation of ships-of-war, which were not to put to sea without their owners ‘first making oath and finding surety for good bearing towards the King’s subjects, friends and confederates and all under the King’s safeguard or safe-conduct’.8
But royal regulation met with mixed success. Incidents such as the plunder of a Breton vessel, carrying letters of safe conduct from the Admiral of England, by three ships from Topsham, starkly revealed the limitations of the late medieval monarchy in trying to curb the piratical tendencies of seafaring and seashore communities.9 The inability of the Crown to deal with the piracies of its subjects at sea was linked with the coastal plunder of vessels cast ashore by bad weather. In many parts of England landowners appear to have seen such vessels as legitimate casualties of the sea, though the use of violence against the surviving companies of wrecks sometimes looks like a form of land piracy. Despite recent improvements to the King’s Navy, it proved difficult to provide for the regular patrolling of the coasts. Although the navy was restored to a total of sixteen vessels under Edward IV, the financial and physical problems in maintaining it were reflected in its subsequent decline. Thus, in 1485 Henry VII inherited a force of seven ships.10 Under these conditions the monarchy could do little more than attempt to contain, rather than eradicate, the problem of piracy. Nor was this a problem limited to England. Political and diplomatic relations in north-west Europe, combined with the rudimentary development of international law, constituted a favourable environment for the widespread maintenance of maritime depredation of varying shades of legality.
The safety of the seas during peace and war from the 1480s to the 1520s
During the early decades of Tudor rule the Crown’s growing concern with the safety of the seas was reinforced by the demands of domestic and dynastic security. Henry VII’s cautious foreign policy and support for naval development were accompanied by a firm approach towards piracy. This was reinforced by the careful control of the issue of letters of reprisal, which helped to contain the potential for disorder at sea. Furthermore, the continued expansion of overseas trade, despite short-term fluctuations, may have limited the economic and social pressures that encouraged maritime depredation. By the 1520s, however, these conditions were beginning to change as a result of the problems and opportunities presented by Henry VIII’s aggressive diplomacy and overseas ambitions. The onset of Anglo-French hostilities was accompanied by a resurgence of cross-Channel plunder and raiding by Scottish sea rovers, which paved the way for widespread disorder at sea.
The persistence of piracy during the 1480s and Henry VII’s handling of it were demonstrated by the prompt response to overseas complaints against English depredation. During February 1486 the new King issued two commissions concerning attacks on foreign shipping. The first concerned the seizure of a French vessel by two English men-of-war. The crew of the French prize were put ashore in Normandy, and the vessel was taken to the Isle of Wight where its cargo was divided up and distributed among the captors. Sir Edward Woodville, captain of the Isle, was instructed to arrest those involved and to ensure that the plunder was restored; if the latter refused to cooperate, they were to be brought before the King and council. Several weeks later the bishop of Exeter and other commissioners were ordered to investigate complaints from several Hanseatic merchants about the seizure of two vessels from Hamburg, off the coast of Cornwall, by a group of rovers from Fowey led by John Gaye and William Bruer. The commissioners were commanded to arrest the vessels and their cargoes, which had been brought into the Cornish port. Moreover, Gaye, Bruer and their followers were to be imprisoned until either restitution or compensation was made. In an effort to contain the spread of piracy, Henry issued a proclamation in November 1490 which ordered the punishment of pirates who spoiled Spanish and Imperial shipping. In addition the purchasers of plundered commodities were warned that they faced the forfeiture of property and imprisonment at the King’s will.11
As in the past, piracy provoked retaliation and reprisals at sea. Henry, however, was unwilling to sanction the widespread or indiscriminate use of letters of reprisal, preferring to rely on diplomacy and other means of seeking redress. The treaty between the King and Ferdinand of Aragon in 1489 thus revoked all letters of reprisal; in future, if justice was denied, the ‘King of the injured party must twice demand redress from the sovereign of the party which has done the damage before he deliver letters of marque and reprisal.’12 Commissions of reprisal were issued only after careful consideration, and usually under strict conditions, especially when compared with later practice. Thus in October 1495 Richard Wele and others of King’s Lynn were authorized to seize ships of Dieppe, following their inability to obtain satisfaction from the Admiral of France for the capture of their vessel off the coast of Norfolk by two ships from the French port. The following year two London merchants received a letter of reprisal after they were unable to gain compensation for the loss of goods laden aboard a ship in Falmouth, which was plundered by a French vessel. Unwilling to act precipitately, Henry postponed the issue of the commission until diplomatic efforts to gain redress were exhausted. After long delay and deliberation, the King granted a commission, authorizing the recipients to recover the amount of £700 from the French. The proclamation announcing the peace treaty with France of August 1498 sought to reduce such lengthy delays by establishing a new and speedier procedure for dealing with cases of spoil and robbery between the two countries.13 Though the initiative was not developed, it was a further indication of Henry VII’s concern to use letters of reprisal as a last resort. For most of his reign, indeed, there was neither the opportunity nor the need to promote large-scale reprisals at sea or other forms of licensed plunder.
Although these conditions limited the growth of organized piracy, the ability of the early Tudor regime to tackle the problem rested on an uncertain combination of naval power and patrolling with the support and cooperation of local officials and communities. None of these could be taken for granted. Outrageous cases of spoil continued to take place on the Thames, exposing serious weaknesses in the policing and internal security of the river. In March 1502 a commission of oyer and terminer was issued to the Lord Admiral, for the investigation of an attack on a vessel anchored between Ratcliffe and St Katherine’s by William Palmer, Richard Bray and others, who reportedly ‘threw the mariners in the river and so drowned them and plundered the ship’.14 River piracy was a long-standing problem which was nurtured by the growing size and commercial significance of the port of London. The vulnerability of shipping along the Thames attracted organized gangs and opportunist thieves who provided a potential recruiting ground for more ambitious piratical enterprise.
The gradual improvement in the security of the sea, which appears to have reflected changes in the level and intensity of maritime depredation during the later fifteenth century, was not sustained. It may appear paradoxical that the reign of Henry VIII, which witnessed impressive naval development, should also experience a striking increase in piracy and maritime spoil. But the roots of both lay in the rapidly changing international environment. The new King’s aggressive foreign policy revived Anglo-French rivalry and conflict. Hostilities from 1512 to 1514, fo
llowed by renewed conflict between 1522 and 1525, led to widespread disorder at sea.
During the early decades of the reign, English enterprise was heavily overshadowed by the activities of French and Flemish men-of-war in the Channel, as well as by the raiding of Scottish rovers sailing with commissions from James IV. In 1512 Henry VIII was reported to be deeply perplexed and annoyed at the actions of the Scots. Despite the peace between the two countries, Scottish adventurers, including close associates of James, such as David Falconer or the Barton brothers, supported the French in the spoil of English shipping. To the anger of Henry, moreover, when ‘James’s subjects attack Henry’s, they call themselves the French King’s servants, when taken as pirates, in company of Frenchmen, they are James’s subjects’.15 The English responded by seizing Scottish ships. In July 1512 James complained about attacks on his subjects’ shipping and the capture of Scottish merchants, some of whom were dubbed ‘the Pape’s men’ and sent to London for trial. The prisoners included Falconer, though James persuaded Henry to defer his execution, ‘notwithstanding his manifold piracies, for which he well deserved to die’.16
The confusion between Scottish and French depredation posed serious problems for the English. During 1515 Henry VIII was faced with growing complaints from English merchants against French pirates and rovers who were masquerading as Scots. In reality the French were operating with Scottish commissions. Nonetheless, by August 1515 Henry was prepared to issue letters of reprisal if his subjects were unable to obtain redress in France. At the same time attempts were made to deal with the issue by diplomatic means. This included the appointment of English and French commissioners, who met at Calais and Boulogne during 1517, to resolve disputes over piracy and disorderly plunder. The English also proposed an exchange of pirates and other rovers, probably because of the cost of maintaining foreign prisoners. However, negotiations between the commissioners were hindered by ‘their ignorance of the language, and the absence of necessary documents’.17 Nor did the subsequent treaty with France, of 1518, end the attacks on English shipping. Continued complaints against French raiding were accompanied by reports that the Chancellor of France objected to the restoration of English property. In such circumstances Henry issued a proclamation, proffering compensation to the victims of French piracy if proof was provided.18
The disorderly activities of men-of-war at sea were accompanied, if not sustained, by localized spoil and pillage. Much of this was opportunistic and random in nature. It was also disorganized and often amateurish, as indicated by an abortive attempt by a group of stowaways to persuade the owner and master of a vessel, sailing down the Thames, to turn to piracy. According to William Bochether, one of the ship’s company, the owner found four mariners, who had been secretly taken aboard by other members of the crew, hiding in the hold. The stowaways urged the owner to abandon the voyage in favour of robbery along the river or at sea: ‘We are good fellows that will strike a hand’, they declared, ‘if you will consent with us’.19 When he refused, they appealed to Bochether for assistance. But the latter replied that ‘he had a good occupation [and was] able to get his living with truth’. Thereafter the owner put the four men ashore. Bochether, who was apparently sick, appears to have followed them. During the night the four mariners used the vessel’s boat to take a Breton ship, with which they put to sea. Bochether recovered and returned aboard the vessel; however, when it arrived at Harwich, he was arrested and imprisoned in Colchester Castle, for complicity in the seizure of the Breton ship. From prison, ‘laden with irons, lying on the bare ground without meat and drink’, he begged relief from the Lord Admiral and constable of the castle.20
The attraction of robbery at sea, at a time of such disorder, may have been widespread and capable of wider development. A carefully prepared, though abortive, pioneering expedition to North America, led by John Rastell in 1517, was partly sabotaged by the mariners’ overriding interest in the prospect of piracy. Shortly after putting to sea Rastell was urged to seize an Irish pirate, Henry Mongham, in order to take a Portuguese ship which the pirate had captured. At least one of Rastell’s officers also advised him to turn to robbery at sea.21 In fact the venture was abandoned at Waterford, in a manner that foreshadowed the predilection for piracy or illicit plunder among English mariners engaged in long-distance voyages beyond Europe.
The regime tried to respond swiftly, and in a varied manner, to the threat of sporadic piracy. In March 1515 a commission of oyer and terminer was issued to the Lord Admiral and his deputy to investigate the alleged piracies of John Baker, John Brigenden and their followers. Several years later, during 1519, the King granted another commission to the Lord Admiral and others, to determine all civil cases of spoil between England and France in accordance with the recent treaty. The navy was also employed to combat pirates and rovers, though with mixed results. In 1519 Thomas Howard, Earl of Surrey, captured a group of Scottish pirates. But successful expeditions against pirates in the seas around the British Isles required small, speedy and specialized vessels which did not always meet the vision or requirements of the King’s fleet. During 1523, for example, Sir Anthony Poyntz, the commander of a naval force patrolling the sea between Wales and Ireland, hired a ship for £1 to reconnoitre the coasts of the Isle of Man and Scotland.22
The presence of foreign men-of-war in English waters increased during the 1520s, despite an agreement between the King and Charles V for more naval patrols against pirates and enemies. At varying times Spanish, French and Flemish predators haunted the coasts of southern England and Ireland, seeking prizes or disposing of plundered cargoes. The confusion and disorder at sea presented opportunities for a diverse collection of adventurers, whose activities undermined the pretensions of rulers to defend maritime jurisdictions against the danger of legal and illegal raiding. To some extent the increase in depredation during these years may have been more apparent than real, reflecting growing concern among monarchs, such as Henry VIII, with their rights and responsibilities as sovereigns over vaguely defined home waters. Under tense international conditions, efforts to assert such rights, without adequate coastal and naval defences, ran the risk of inviting retaliation.
Growing complaints about piracy thus occurred against a background of confused competition and cooperation. In November 1525 Queen Margaret of Scotland complained about the seizure of a ship belonging to Robert Barton by one Flemish and two English vessels. Two years later local officials in Southampton were powerless to prevent three large Flemish vessels entering the port and seizing a merchant ship. As the Channel became crowded with men-of-war during the later 1520s, the threat to peaceful commerce and shipping intensified. During April 1528 an English naval patrol daily met with French and Flemish ships-of-war seeking prizes. According to a subsequent report from the Low Countries, if war broke out, there were 10,000 mariners ready to rig out vessels, at their own charge, against the English. Concerned at the dangers of renewed conflict, Henry attempted to maintain English neutrality, in an effort to limit the threat of French and Imperial coastal raiding. But there was little that the King could do to keep overseas spoil at arm’s length. By December 1528 the Spanish were complaining of attacks on their vessels, in English waters, by the French. Allegations of English complicity fuelled demands for the issue of letters of reprisal against France and England.23 The ensuing disruption to trade and shipping encouraged the growth of maritime depredation at an acutely sensitive time for England’s relations with the rest of Europe.
Peace and plunder: disorder at sea during the 1530s
During the 1530s, against a threatening international background, piracy and disorderly plunder became a more menacing problem in the seas around the British Isles. To some extent the nature of the problem, and the response to it, were influenced by a shifting concern with domestic and international security. Unavoidably both were linked with Henry VIII’s divorce from Katherine of Aragon and the subsequent break with Rome. The anxiety of the regime about the danger of internal dis
order and rebellion was thus reflected in its handling of the problem of maritime depredation. Pirates and rebels could be easily identified as a common threat to Henrician rule, particularly at a time when the risk of foreign invasion seemed to be growing. It is possible, therefore, that the striking increase in the volume of evidence concerning piracy may be partly the result of the greater seriousness with which it was viewed by an insecure and embattled regime. In such circumstances new legislation to deal with piracy was passed by Parliament in 1536, in order to strengthen and clarify the existing law.
It was in Ireland that the prospect of rebellious subjects taking to the seas emerged as a danger. In the later 1520s James Fitzgerald, 11th Earl of Desmond, who was reported to be at sea with certain English vessels, appealed to Emperor Charles V for assistance against his enemies, including the English. In exchange, he offered to attack the Emperor’s rivals, while expelling them from Ireland. Regardless of the Emperor’s response, the death of Desmond effectively neutralized the prospect of organized maritime action against the English in Ireland. Nonetheless, the dangers of discontented and feuding magnates resorting to continental intrigues alarmed the Tudor monarchy. Only a few years later, two Spanish ships laden with munitions of war were reported to have reached Ireland.24 At a time when the Tudor regime was trying to extend its authority over Ireland, it may have been particularly prone to confuse piracy and rebellion, creating a climate of fear and expectation that was to recur with the raiding of the O’Malleys and O’Flahertys along the west coast during the later sixteenth century.
The widespread activities of pirates, especially within the Channel and the Irish Sea, underlined the continuing insecurity of the seas during the 1530s. In 1531 Lord Lisle, the Vice Admiral of England, and others were authorized to investigate and determine cases of piracy. Later in the year it was reported that Kilmanton, a sea rover, intended to seize Sir William Skeffington, the Lord Deputy of Ireland, during his passage to England, and hold him to ransom for the King’s pardon. Kilmanton was captured in the Isle of Man, though other members of his company managed to escape aboard a vessel bound for Grimsby. The following year a group of Bretons claimed to have been robbed at sea by English rovers, some of whom came from Plymouth. But the Channel was infested with French and Scottish, as well as English, rovers. In March 1532 John Chapman, master of a London vessel, reported continually sighting men-of-war in search of prey. He encountered two Breton vessels coming from the west, one of which surrendered after he prepared to board it. According to Chapman the vessel was of 150 tons burden, full of ordnance and manned with a mixed company of ‘Frenchmen, Bretons, Portingales, Black Moors, and others’. 25
Under the Bloody Flag Page 3
