Under the Bloody Flag
Page 8
Among the most pressing problems facing the new regime of Henry’s successor, the boy-king Edward VI, was the persistence of lawlessness in the Channel and the western approaches, and along the east coast. In addition the regency government inherited protracted disputes concerning the spoil of the Emperor’s subjects during the 1540s, which were costly and diplomatically damaging. In an important gesture of goodwill, at the end of 1547 the booty which Robert Reneger had seized and placed in the Tower was returned to the Spanish. Reneger, a leading member of the merchant community of Southampton, was awarded £250 by the council towards the cost of resolving the dispute.2
In response to growing complaints against the piracies of Thompson and other English rovers, during September 1547 the council tried to regulate the activities of private men-of-war. It prohibited the sending out of such vessels without a special licence from the Lord Admiral. The owners were also required to take out bonds for the good behaviour of their ships at sea. Furthermore, at the direction of the Lord Admiral and the Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports, local officials were to take similar bonds from the owners of all vessels engaged in trading and other voyages. The council expected that bonds would be taken in every port and creek by local officials, in ‘suche summes of money as they shall think’ necessary, though there is little evidence for the implementation of this unusual and possibly unworkable scheme to tackle maritime disorder.3
The need for more effective regulation at sea grew urgent during the later 1540s as the regime faced increasing complaints against the activities of English pirates and rovers. These included the plunder of a Lübeck vessel by the servants of Robert St Leger, and the spoil of several French vessels in the Channel, as well as a case of piracy and murder near Deal Castle. Along the east coast the plunder of shipping provoked conflicting claims to prizes taken by English and Scottish rovers. Complaints of English piracy continued into 1548. In May the Lord Admiral issued sweeping instructions for the examination of all vessels entering the realm, following the spoil of French ships in the Channel which were freighted with merchandise by a group of London merchants. Greater vigilance in some regions may have persuaded pirate groups to resort to more remote bases in Ireland. In July, for example, officials in southern Irish ports, including Youghal, Cork and Kinsale, reported the growing presence of English pirates, who were attacking French, Spanish and local vessels.4
Yet the regime was so alarmed at the rival dangers of Scots and French raiding that in August 1548 the council authorized the Lord Admiral to send out armed vessels from Devon and Cornwall, against ‘the Scots, pirates and the King’s other enemies’.5 This revival of the western adventurers was partly in response to the growing attack on English shipping by the French which included the recent seizure of five vessels, three of which were burnt and their crews committed to the galleys. The victims of such plunder also complained that they were unable to obtain justice in France. As during the 1520s, French men-of-war claimed to be operating with Scottish commissions. When Pietro Strozzi, the Italian adventurer in the employ of the French King, was challenged by one of his English victims, he replied, ‘that he and the rest were, for the time of their stay there, Scots’.6
In an effort to control the activities of the western adventurers, the council issued the Lord Admiral with orders for their regulation. They included provision for taking bonds from shipowners and captains, and for a record to be kept of all vessels that were licensed to go to sea, a copy of which was to be sent to the council. While publicly acknowledging peace with France, however, the council’s orders gave warrant to the adventurers in the south-west for a private war at sea. Thus the owners of men-of-war, their captains and masters, were ‘to be told secretly that, besides Scots and pirates, they may stay the French fleet with the Newfoundland fish and any other French ships, saying that they have previously been spoiled by Frenchmen and could have no justice, or pretending that victuals or munitions in any such French ships were sent to aid the Scots’.7 All captured prizes were to be returned to an English port, where inventories and valuations were to be made of them, so that if the peace continued and the French offered redress for English claims, they might be restored. The administration of these regulations was left in the hands of the Lord Admiral, his Vice Admirals, Sir Peter Carew and John Grenefeld, and other officials in Devon and Cornwall.
These secret instructions demonstrated an early appreciation of the strategic value of private enterprise in disrupting the transatlantic trade of a rival and potential enemy. They also anticipated the outbreak of war with France during August 1549. The conflict witnessed a short-lived revival of privateering which drew on the experience of the Henrician wars with France. In the south-west a wide range of promoters, including shipowners, traders and lesser landowners, were involved in sending out vessels from ports such as Dartmouth, Exmouth and Plymouth. They included Thomas Winter, mariner and shipowner, of Stonehouse near Plymouth, and a varied group of adventurers from Exmouth and the neighbouring region, such as Gregory Cary, a local Admiralty official who was involved in several ventures with Walter Ralegh and his sons, John and George. Elsewhere, armed vessels were sent out from ports along the south coast, particularly Rye, as well as from Calais across the Channel. London and some of the east-coast ports were also involved in the sea war. In addition, vessels operating from Irish ports participated in the spread of opportunistic privateering and plunder.8
Although the sea war with France was too short for the sustained development of private maritime enterprise, which may have been disrupted in parts of the south-west by the outbreak of popular rebellion against religious change, it was unruly and piratical in nature. Alarmed at the increase in piracy the regime issued a proclamation early in 1549 which extended the death penalty to the supporters of pirates, though there is no evidence that it was ever implemented. In any case, the underlying problem was disorderly plunder by lawful men-of-war. Walter Ralegh and Gilbert Drake were partners in victualling a vessel which illegally seized a Spanish ship of San Sebastián. It was ransacked of much of its cargo of wine, by the wives of the mariners, after its return to Exmouth. Following Spanish complaints, the vessel was restored. Later in the year two small men-of-war, of about 30 or 35 tons, from Plymouth and Waterford, brought a Biscayan prize laden with wine into Youghal. The Plymouth vessel was reportedly owned by John Ellyot, merchant, though he later claimed to have sold it to Griffith Vaughan of south Wales. The Irish vessel, under the command of James Gough, was owned by David Power and James Fitzgerald, 14th Earl of Desmond. The captors claimed that the prize was found at sea ‘with no creature aboard her’.9 However, several Biscayan mariners, who were in Youghal on a trading voyage, while noting the absence of Spaniards either aboard the prize or the men-of-war, recognized it as a vessel from Plasencia which had been involved in a fishing expedition off Baltimore, further along the coast, in the year previously.
Flemish vessels in the Channel were also the target of disorderly depredation. Towards the end of 1549 a variety of Flemish-owned commodities, taken by an adventurer known as Irish George of Calais, were recovered by one of the King’s ships. At the same time French trade and shipping were legitimate prey for men-of-war. During the year French prizes laden with varied cargoes such as fish and salt were brought into Rye and other ports along the south coast. But the limitations of this short-range, and low-cost, form of plunder are suggested by the need of Thomas Woddman, captain of the Falcon Grey, set out by Sir Thomas Grey, to borrow money in Youghal to re-victual his ship.10
The confusion between legitimate and disorderly depredation, particularly in the south-west, encouraged the spread of piratical activity across the Irish Sea. The problem grew more severe during the 1540s. Although local officials complained repeatedly about the threat to trade and shipping, pirates and rovers were supported by coastal communities which benefited from a vigorous trade in plundered cargoes. Within a region where the authority of the Tudor regime was demonstrably weak, Irish Sea trades, unde
rtaken in small, often unarmed and poorly manned vessels, were acutely vulnerable to the pirate menace. The local maritime conditions and environment, with open and remote coastlines and islands, also favoured the growth of piracy. Islands such as Caldey, off south-west Wales, may have played a crucial role in the operation of this kind of scattered roving, not least in providing cover for surprise attacks. The Isle of Man, which lay beyond the jurisdiction of the Lord Admiral, was frequently visited by pirates of varied backgrounds. The spread of English piracy widened the hinterland for the disposal of plunder, within a dangerously exposed maritime region that was irregularly patrolled by the King’s ships, while potentially directing the attention of pirates and rovers towards the Atlantic.
Caldey Island, Pembrokeshire. According to the Description of Penbrokshire by George Owen, written during 1602 and 1603, the inhabitants of the island were afraid to keep oxen because of the threat from pirates or their purveyors, who regularly raided for provisions. (Author’s collection)
Reports from officials in Irish ports reveal the growing importance of Ireland for the expanding range of English depredation. In April 1549 the mayor of Waterford informed the Lord Deputy, Edward Bellingham, of the activities of pirates during the previous three years. Much of this was small scale and casual in nature, involving petty plunder by groups of rovers whose identity was occasionally known to their victims. During 1547, for example, a vessel bound from Kinsale to Dungarvan, with a lading of wheat and malt for Thomas and Robert Hyat, was attacked by a small English ship with a crew of ten or eleven mariners under the command of Thomas Fyshebill. One member of the company of the Irish vessel, Robert Lovedaye, was taken aboard the pinnace. He recognised at least six of Fyshebill’s men, and urged them ‘not to meddle with Hyat’s goods for that he was his neighbour and a man that he knew well’.11 Against the wishes of Fyshebill, evidently Lovedaye and other members of the company, including Robert Hyat, were sent ashore in a boat with a chest of their possessions and three or four bags of wheat. Before reaching land, Lovedaye was forcibly taken out of the boat by a small group of pursuing rovers, concerned that ‘he should not go ashore to be their confession’.12 About one year later, indeed, Lovedaye was a leading witness in a case heard by the High Court of Admiralty, during which he identified six of Fyshebill’s company, who were being tried for piracy.
It was difficult to guard against this kind of opportunistic robbery at sea, though the size of some groups of rovers exposed them to the risk of capture. In July 1548 officials in Youghal informed the Lord Deputy of their seizure of a pirate, operating under the name of Smith, and his followers, who had plundered local fishing boats. But this success was offset by a report from Kinsale of a recent outbreak of pestilence which killed most of the male inhabitants, leaving an empty town ‘with few men and naughty neighbours’, including several groups of pirates who were threatening to blockade entry into the port.13 One of them, Richard Coole, had married the aunt of a local landowner, Barry Oge, and resided in his castle, which he used as a base to pillage visiting vessels. About the same time the mayor of Cork complained that English pirates were boldly haunting the mouth of the haven. They were accompanied or followed by groups of Scottish, French and Spanish rovers. Later in the year a Scots pirate was cruising off Lambay Island and the Head of Howth, within easy reach of Dublin.
The inability of the regime to combat the spread of piracy across the Irish Sea was starkly underlined by the activities of Thompson and Coole off Waterford during the summer of 1548. Towards the end of July the mayor announced Thompson’s arrival to the Lord Deputy, adding that he threatened ‘to do them mischief for the taking of his boy by Watkin Apowell’.14 Thompson was captured, but within a month he was set at liberty by a powerful lord, O’Sullivan Beare, on the payment of a large ransom. In response to Coole’s seizure of a Portuguese vessel which was brought into the port during August, the Lord Admiral sent one of his servants to Waterford to ensure that it was restored to the original owners. But the action invited retaliation from the pirates, who demonstrated their local power by plundering and seizing shipping. Although some of the pirates were captured, in September the mayor requested their speedy discharge, partly because of the cost of maintaining them, but also on the grounds that they ‘behaved very ill in gaol’.15 The problems facing Waterford seemed to get worse during October, with the arrival of more pirates or rovers led by David Power and James Gough. When they were denied the opportunity to re-victual, Power and his associates plundered a Portuguese vessel in the harbour. As a result, the mayor complained that other foreign shipping refused to visit the port.
Local responses to the spread of piracy across the Irish Sea were uncertain and deeply ambivalent. Faced with an increase in the number of pirates and rovers operating along the coast, in November 1548 the mayor of Cork requested advice from the Lord Deputy as to whether they should be apprehended or killed. Several weeks later, officials reported the arrival of Thompson and Richard Stephenson, who had served under Robert St Leger, on Christmas Day with a ship laden with a cargo of wine, figs and sugar. The Lord Deputy authorized the inhabitants of the port to trade with Thompson and Stephenson, as it seemed that their goods were not stolen, and they had recently received pardons. At least part of this was misleading or based on misinformation. In 1549 the council instructed the Lord Deputy to publish a proclamation offering rewards for the capture of notorious pirates, who included Thompson. But such inducements appear to have made little difference to the situation in and around Cork, where the mayor admitted that ‘the people of the adjacent country have long traded for [the] … wares’ of Thompson and Stephenson.16
Officers acting on behalf of the Lord Admiral struggled to deal with the problem. In January 1549 the mayor of Cork noted that some of the port’s neighbours had been compelled to restore goods purchased from pirates as a result of recent inquisitions by Admiralty officials. About the same time, another of the Admiral’s officers, Thomas Wodloke, requested the mayor to arrest Henry Strangeways and fifteen other members of Thompson’s company. Wodloke complained, however, that the mayor ‘was loth to make variance between Cork and the pirates without special commandment’.17 Indeed, the inhabitants were reported to be making ordnance for the pirates as well as supplying them with provisions. Weeks after his arrival, Thompson was still trading in the port, possibly in competition with another English rover who brought in a Flemish prize. Competition between rival groups of pirates or rovers could easily become hostile. In February 1549 a Danzig ship was brought in by the Mary Winter, owned and sent out by Thomas Winter, apparently on the grounds that it was sailing for Scotland with a cargo of wine. But it was tempting and easy prey for Thompson, Coole and Freeman, who recaptured the prize and claimed it as their own.
In order to deal with the pirate threat, in 1549 Walter Cowley, the Solicitor-General in Dublin, proposed to the Lord Admiral that some of the King’s ships should be sent to Ireland. The proposal was linked with more ambitious measures for the defence and security of English interests, which included the reduction of Ireland through the construction of forts and the establishment of presidencies and councils in the provinces of Munster, Ulster and Connacht. The activities of pirates and rovers during the wars with Scotland and France thus raised wider concern about the vulnerability of Ireland to external threat. In March 1549 rumours circulated that the French and Scots intended to expel the English from Ireland. An earlier report had warned of the exposure of Skerries, a favourite haunt of pirates near Dublin, to a French landing, particularly as it was the ‘only road in those seas for them betwixt Brittany and Scotland, being in their direct trade into the Frith of Dumbarton’.18
Lacking the resources for the effective defence of Ireland or the Irish Sea, the regime adopted improvised tactics which included the employment of pirates for military purposes. In 1549 the council authorized the Lord Deputy to use pirates against the MacDonnells, who had renewed their raiding from the Western Isles across the North Channel dur
ing the 1540s, either in conflict or cooperation with Gaelic leaders in the north. One of those employed was Richard Coole, whose testimony illustrates the adaptable and criss-crossing careers of many of the pirates and rovers operating during these years. Coole was a mariner from Minehead in Somerset. By his own admission, he served as a pirate for one year, during which time he took several prizes, including one taken off Caldey Island in December 1548. After petitioning the Lord Deputy for a pardon, he took part in an expedition to recover Strangford Castle from the Scots. Thereafter, he was involved in action against an Irish rebel. Although Bellingham promised him a pardon, it is not clear if the bargain was fulfilled. Coole subsequently sailed to the Isle of Man, ‘landed his mate as a pledge’ and was captured ‘of his own good will’.19 In May 1549 Rice ap Morgan and two associates received £100 as a reward for his capture. He was imprisoned in the Tower, where his fellow prisoners included the rebel leader Robert Kett and his brother William. He was still in custody at the end of October, awaiting examination by the officers of the Lord Admiral, though his career of sea roving was far from over.
The increase in piracy and maritime disorder during the later 1540s had serious consequences for the Lord Admiral. Within a divided and faction-ridden regime, it presented his rivals with an opportunity that they exploited to engineer his downfall and execution during 1549 on the grounds of high treason. Although the main charges against Seymour concerned his alleged scheme for an ‘alteration in the state’, it was supported by damaging accusations concerning his dealings with pirates.20 These included claims that he cultivated relations with pirates, ignoring orders from the council and his brother, the Lord Protector, for the restitution of plunder which was concealed for his own profit. While the captors of pirates were imprisoned, moreover, pirate leaders were freed, as if the Lord Admiral was ‘authorized to be the chief pirate, and to have had all thadvantage thei coulde bring’.21 Allegedly, the Lord Admiral’s purchase of the Scilly Isles, and his plan to acquire Lundy Island, both well-established haunts for pirates, were seen as a sinister attempt to provide a safe refuge, where he could conspire with the pirates against his rivals. These accusations, which lacked corroborating evidence, were intended to destroy an ambitious and powerful competitor at court by equally ambitious and self-seeking rivals. Nonetheless, they suggest that the spread of piracy was facilitated by vested political interests within a weak and self-interested regime. Such conditions created opportunities for officials and others to manipulate the porous boundary between piracy and public service for private gain.