Although the piratical raids of Stukely and others were especially targeted on local coastal trades, they exposed the vulnerability of the seaborne commercial and communications network that held together the Spanish Empire. Occasionally, moreover, they embarrassed the Spanish with the capture of richer prizes. In February 1564 a Spanish representative in London complained of the seizure of a ship, returning from Flanders with a cargo worth 80,000 ducats and forty convicts, by Cobham, in consort with two vessels from Newcastle. The Spanish claimed that Cobham and his associates ‘attacked the ship with artillery as if they were mortal enemies, and killed a brother of the owner’.46
The arrest of Stukely and Cobham thus gave the regime an opportunity to respond to diplomatic complaints and grievances from the recently appointed Spanish ambassador in London, Guzman de Silva. Since his appointment in 1564, de Silva had urged the Queen to take stronger action against pirates and rovers. The Queen’s earlier promise that Cobham ‘should receive an exemplary punishment if he was [taken] in England’, may have aroused Spanish expectations, as expressed in the cautious optimism that crept into de Silva’s reports.47 In August 1564, while informing Philip of the measures taken for the satisfaction of his subjects, he noted that ‘the remedy will not be a complete one for all, yet it appears they are doing their best’. Partly in response to de Silva’s pleas, the regime tried to regulate more rigorously the activities of men-of-war, while equipping a fleet of royal ships to be sent against pirates. According to the ambassador, Elizabeth was very annoyed at the damage inflicted on peaceful traders, though she continued to claim that many of the pirates were ‘Scotsmen who spoke English to avoid being known’.48
But the failure of the trials of Cobham and Stukely was another illustration of the regime’s inability to combat piracy and maritime disorder. At the same time it appeared to confirm the suspicions of the Spanish that adventurers such as Cobham enjoyed the support of the Queen’s courtiers and councillors. In July 1565 de Silva compiled a confusing report that Cobham, a ‘bad man and a great heretic’, was acquitted by a jury of twelve men; however, the judge of the High Court of Admiralty, ‘seeing that they were biased or perhaps bribed, did not submit the whole case to them, but only certain counts, and when they had absolved the prisoner he was taken back to prison again’. The council intervened, charging the jury with bringing in a false verdict. Each juror was condemned with a fine of £20 or imprisonment for six months, and ‘put in the pillory with papers stuck on them like a cuirass’.49 The ambassador was reassured by the Queen’s concern to ensure that Cobham was punished. Following a second trial, he reported that Cobham was found guilty and sentenced:
to be taken back to the Tower, stripped entirely naked, his head shaved, and the soles of his feet beaten, and then, with his arms and legs stretched, his back resting on a sharp stone, a piece of artillery is to be placed on his stomach too heavy for him to bear but not heavy enough to kill him outright. In this torment he is to be fed on three grains weight of barley and the filthiest water in the prison until he die.50
Yet the ambassador was soon informed that Cobham’s relatives and kin were seeking a pardon for him. Although they did not include Lord Cobham, who reportedly considered ‘his brother’s crime a disgraceful one’, the petitioners included the Earl of Sussex, who privately urged de Silva to intercede with the Queen, ‘to suspend the execution of the sentence … to prevent … disgrace to their house and kin’. Regardless of the appeal, the ambassador was increasingly doubtful that the sentence would be carried out. Indeed, Cobham seems to have successfully claimed benefit of clergy. In September de Silva was informed by the judge of the High Court of Admiralty that the Queen had been advised after the trial that ‘being an ecclesiastic, [he] could not be done to death, by the laws of the realm, and they had sentenced him as they had to deter others from committing like crimes’.51
This setback was compounded with the failure of legal proceedings against Stukely due to weaknesses in the evidence presented in court. Stukely’s subsequent surprise offer to serve the King of Spain was rebuffed. In 1566 he returned to Ireland with the new Lord Deputy, Sir Henry Sidney, whose instructions included provision for dealing with the problem of piracy across the Irish Sea. But he continued to arouse suspicion and mistrust, particularly with the Queen. In July 1567 Elizabeth ordered Sidney to investigate allegations that he had purchased hides and skins, plundered from the Dutch by Edward Cooke of Southampton. Several years later he fled to Spain, reportedly taking the title of Duke of Ireland, and fuelling fears that he intended to return at the head of an invasion force supported by Philip II.52
The failure to punish Stukely and Cobham weakened the Queen’s determined drive against piracy. The Spanish ambassador commended Elizabeth’s efforts to remedy the situation at sea, while casting aspersions on some of her ministers. But he had a realistic appreciation of the limited impact of royal policy on pirates and rovers. ‘As soon as things look a little better’, he reported, ‘they begin their robberies again, no doubt for the purpose of keeping their hands in’.53 In these circumstances there was little apparent decline in piratical activity during 1565 or 1566, or any lessening in the support it received ashore.
Although the council coordinated the regime’s response to piracy, insofar as its actions amounted to a policy, they were essentially ad hoc in nature. It relied on the cooperation of other agencies for the administration and enforcement of measures that were the result of a reactive, case-by-case approach. Characteristically, in July 1565 the council requested the assistance of the Lord Justice of Ireland in the recovery of a Spanish ship and its cargo which was spoiled by two rovers, James Heidon and Corbett. In the following month it ordered the judge of the High Court of Admiralty to examine Spanish complaints about the plunder of vessels at the mouth of the Thames, and at other places along the coast, with instructions to proceed against pirates, as well as those who aided and abetted them ashore. These demonstrations of concern for ‘the conservacion of justice and reformation of … disorders’ were followed by a general search for pirates and plunder within Norfolk, Suffolk and Essex, under the supervision of Vice Admirals and local justices.54 A similar search was ordered for the Cinque Ports under the supervision of the Lord Warden, Lord Cobham.
The council’s efforts to encourage or cajole officials into effective action met with mixed results. At the end of August 1565 the Vice Admiral of Essex, George Christemas, was commended for his diligence in searching for pirates ‘inhabiting or haunting that coaste’. But he was also admonished for failing to send out vessels to apprehend two rovers at Harwich, on the grounds that he lacked the authority to do so. In future Christemas was instructed to use any means available against pirates who visited the region, as long as it did not burden the Queen with extraordinary charges. About the same time, in a striking gesture of its determination to combat piratical attacks on Spanish and Flemish shipping, the council authorized the judge of the High Court of Admiralty to proceed against suspected pirates brought to his attention by the Spanish ambassador or any other subject of the King of Spain.55
Diplomatic considerations, combined with concern for the security of the seas around the British Isles, compelled the council to maintain close attention to the issue of piracy and disorderly plunder. In September 1565 it ordered the sheriff of Hampshire and the mayor and corporation of Southampton to ensure that the trial of men accused of piracy was dealt with promptly, and that those found guilty were executed. During October it issued orders for the replacement of the Aid, one of the Queen’s ships sent out to patrol the seas for pirates, by several small vessels which were more suitable for winter service. Shortly thereafter it instructed the Earl of Bedford to assist in the recovery of certain commodities in the north of England, belonging to a merchant of London, which had been taken by pirates. Bedford was also requested to aid Jacob Spinola and others, in the search for their goods, taken by Charles Wilson and his associates at the mouth of the Thames and reputedly store
d in the Farne Islands. In addition, the vice president and Council in the Marches of Wales were ordered to send up to London a pirate, Andrew Whyte, for further examination.56
Such close supervision and monitoring paid dividends. At the end of October 1565 Wilson and other pirates were captured and brought to London for trial. Two of Wilson’s accomplices, John Smythe of Dover and Jeffrey Berrye of New Romney, were also apprehended by Cobham’s officers in the Cinque Ports. Both men were ordered to London, so that they could be put on trial with their leaders, in order to assist in the recovery of the plunder. A similar concern to assist the victims of piracy led the council to issue a stay of execution, later in the year, for William and John Hopers who were found guilty of piracy at Southampton, so that they could be examined as to the location of their booty.57
Despite his annoyance at the regime’s failure to punish Cobham and Stukely, the Spanish ambassador praised its resolute response to piracy during the rest of 1565. Towards the end of October he reported that many pirates had been hanged, while Wilson, one of the more notorious offenders, was in custody. The Queen had also sent out ships to take pirates. Furthermore, de Silva noted that Elizabeth had ‘issued very good regulations which were much needed, and if they are carried out, as they appear likely to be, will be of great benefit’.58
The regulations which the ambassador referred to represented an unprecedented and wide-ranging attempt to eradicate piracy by linking maritime depredation with criminality and disorderly activity ashore. They included the appointment of commissioners in the coastal counties of England and Wales for the repression of piracy and other disorders. Detailed instructions for the commissioners were drawn up by the council in November 1565. In order to cut off the aid that pirates received from land-based supporters, the commissioners were commanded to appoint deputies within the havens, creeks and other landing places of their jurisdictions. These deputies were to be selected from reputable members of the community. They could be appointed and removed as necessity required. The council anticipated that no haven would ‘be lefte unprovided of sufficient persones’ to assist the commissioners, who were expected to supervise their deputies by a visit at least once every month.59 It also required a monthly report from the commissioners of their own proceedings.
Under the terms of the articles drawn up by the council, the piracy commissioners and their deputies were granted extensive policing and supervisory powers. They were instructed to undertake an inquiry of all the ports, creeks and landing places, including a survey of shipping, mariners and fishermen, within their areas of jurisdiction. No vessels were to put to sea without a licence from them. The deputies were to ensure that no prohibited commodities, particularly grain, were exported without the Queen’s warrant. They were also given the responsibility for supervising the landing and sale of goods brought in, with authority to arrest and examine any person suspected of illegally acquiring such wares. In addition, the commissioners and their deputies were empowered to arrest suspected law breakers who aided and abetted pirates.60
With some qualification, the establishment of the commissioners represented a national strategy for the repression of piracy in England and Wales. Their appointment recognized the wider social dimension to piratical activity which enabled it to flourish in many coastal regions with local support. The maritime counties were placed under the supervision of four or five commissioners who were assisted by a larger number of deputies, though there was no provision for their appointment in Yorkshire, London or Ireland. Elsewhere the new officers included powerful aristocrats, such as the Earls of Derby and Bedford in Lancashire and Northumberland, gentlemen and local officials, including Sir Peter Carew and Sir John Chichester in Devon, or Sir Christopher Heydon and William Paston in Norfolk, as well as the bishops of Durham in the north and of St David’s in south-west Wales.61
The appointment of the commissioners and deputies may have contributed to the short-term deterrence of piracy, but their impact was uneven and uncertain. While the registers of the council show signs of occasional activity by some officials, there is little evidence of the regular, detailed reporting that was required by their instructions. Their responsibilities, indeed, may have been focused more closely on the enforcement of the ban on the export of grain. Moreover, there was a danger that the activities of such officials would be seen as intrusive by local communities and potentially rival jurisdictions. In December 1565 Richard Arnold of Walberswick in Suffolk was summoned to appear before the council or the Duke of Norfolk, to answer charges that he refused to show ‘his cockett to the comyssioners for the sea costes, … and for his evill language used againste them’.62 In any case local officers lacked effective means for dealing with recalcitrant communities or groups of aggressive pirates or rovers. The commissioners in Radnorshire informed the council during January 1566 of the arrival of Phetiplace at Milford Haven, though they appeared to be powerless to arrest him or his company. The council was also aware of the heavy demands it was placing on the shoulders of unpaid and possibly unpopular agents. Thus, in February 1566, while reminding the commissioners of their responsibilities, it advised them ‘not to overcharge themselves or their deputies otherwise then is convenient’.63
Despite the novel establishment of the commissioners, the council remained heavily involved in dealing with cases of piracy and disorderly plunder. In November it instructed the Lord Deputy in Dublin to implement a decree, of the High Court of Admiralty, for the recovery of pirate plunder. About the same time it considered allegations made earlier in the year by Reynold Mohun, one of the recently appointed commissioners in Cornwall, against Sir William Godolphin, John Killigrew the elder and younger, and Peter Killigrew, concerning piracy and other disorders in the south-west, which were followed by complaints of the ‘evill usage in keeping of a castell’. In November the council renewed an earlier order for the appearance of Smythe and Berrye before the judge of the High Court of Admiralty, to answer accusations that they maintained pirates. At the end of the year, following further Spanish complaints about the plunder of Flemish shipping, it instructed Vice Admirals and others to certify it of such spoils.64
While its registers are missing for the remainder of the 1560s, except for the period from October 1566 to May 1567, the council seems to have retained a close interest in the problem of piracy and maritime disorder, particularly as it continued to provoke complaints from Spain. Following an audience with Elizabeth in May 1566 to discuss the plunder of Flemish ships, de Silva informed Philip II that ‘the evil is of so long standing that I do not know that any remedy will cure it at once, although the Queen seems anxious to do so’.65 De Silva was concerned not to see new orders and regulations issued, but with the execution of those already in place.
The concerns of the Spanish appeared to be confirmed by the piratical early career of Martin Frobisher and his brother, John, who came to the attention of the council during these years. Frobisher, who was to become one of the leading maritime adventurers of Elizabethan England, and his associates served as a link between an older generation of pirates, who were still active during the early years of Elizabeth’s reign, and a younger group of rovers, who emerged during the later 1560s and 1570s. His disorderly activities at sea underline the confusing interplay between legitimate and illegal depredation which enabled resourceful adventurers to survive while crossing the boundary between piracy and privateering.
Frobisher was a younger son of a minor landed family in the West Riding of Yorkshire. After the death of his father, Martin, as a young and ambitious man, moved to London, finding employment with a relation of his mother, Sir John Yorke, a prominent and well-connected merchant in the city. During 1553 and 1554 he served as Yorke’s agent on two trading voyages to Guinea. During the second voyage he was captured and imprisoned for about nine months by the Portuguese. Thereafter, he abandoned any interest in developing a career in commerce, in favour of risky, but potentially rewarding, sea ventures. It is likely that he served on priva
teering voyages during the Anglo-French war which Elizabeth inherited in 1558. The following year Henry Strangeways claimed that Frobisher was involved in an abortive expedition for raiding along the coast of Guinea. During the war with France from 1562 to 1564, Frobisher, his brother and Peter Killigrew served as captains of three men-of-war sent out by John Appelyard. This small fleet of rovers captured five French prizes, but they were subsequently seized on their return to Plymouth. Frobisher also assisted in the seizure of a Spanish ship which was engaged in a fight with a vessel under the command of Thomas Cobham. The Spanish prize was taken into Baltimore, where Frobisher received part of its lading of wines. Although Frobisher’s share of the plunder was confiscated in Devon, he and his associates secured its release, in addition to the French prizes. A dispute with Appelyard over the booty led to the imprisonment of the Frobishers in Launceston Gaol during July 1564, although they were freed later in the year.66
The return of peace saw no let up in the Frobishers’ attacks on Spanish or Flemish trade. The plunder of a Spanish vessel during 1565 enabled Frobisher to purchase a ship, the Mary Flower of 100 tons, which he planned to send out on a trading voyage to west Africa under the command of his brother. In reality this was a voyage of plunder, possibly with a commission issued by the Huguenot leaders in France, which led to the spoil of a Flemish vessel at the entrance to the Thames. The cargo, claimed by merchants of Antwerp, was carried off to south-west Ireland. Frobisher was arrested for his complicity in piracy, but insufficient evidence led to his release in October 1566, on condition that he did not go to sea again without licence.67
Under the Bloody Flag Page 14
