Under the Bloody Flag

by John C Appleby

  Although much of this spoil was concentrated in the Channel, it spread to exposed regions along the coasts of Spain and Portugal. In November 1571 the harbours of Vigo and Bayonne were described as ‘the regular refuge and shelter of the pirates as there is nothing there to resist them’.17 Two men-of-war, the Printemps of La Rochelle and the Castle of Comfort, an English vessel, had recently sought refuge at Bayonne with a Portuguese prize, taken off the Canary Islands. The following year, in July 1572, three ships-of-war were fitted out in London for a voyage towards the Spanish coast, particularly Cape St Vincent.

  While the evidence is patchy and vague, it is possible that several hundred vessels were seized by the privateers and brought into England during the early 1570s. Undoubtedly many of these prizes were small trading or fishing craft of Flemish or French origin. But a significant number of richer Iberian and Flemish vessels, as well as ships from Italian and Hanseatic ports which were allegedly carrying Spanish or French commodities, were also taken. A steady flow of booty was thus brought into England by the privateers, laying the basis for a flourishing, if clandestine, trade in prize goods in markets along the coast of the south and south-west. De Spes claimed in August 1571 that the plunder from the privateers enriched Dover, the Isle of Wight and other regions along the coast.18

  Some part of these goods was dispersed as gifts and perquisites to procure the support of courtiers and local officials. Châtillon, for example, marked his departure from the Queen’s court in October 1570 with banquets and gifts, paid for out of the proceeds from the privateers. However, a greater part of the booty was disposed of in provincial markets along the coast. These prize marts operated through a combination of exchange and commerce, occasionally at night, and usually to the advantage of buyers who were in a position to acquire plundered commodities at cheap rates. A cargo of cloth brought by French rovers into Tor Bay during September 1571 was worth more than 60,000 crowns, but it was reported that ‘they cannot get more than twelve thousand crowns offered for it’.19

  Although the booming trade in plunder was short lived and localized, it provided some compensation for the disruption to the Spanish and Flemish trades, at least in providing an alternative source for imports. De Spes commented on the demand for Spanish goods among English traders towards the end of 1570, though he noted also that they ‘get a sufficient quantity of goods from Andalucia which the pirates steal and bring hither’.20 While the trade in plunder did not replace commerce with either Spain or the Low Countries, which represented a loss to English customs duties of about 6 per cent, it was on such a scale as to provide a powerful economic incentive to support and shelter the privateers, though it was qualified by retaliatory seizures by the French and Spanish. At the same time, the economic benefits were offset by the damage to England’s overseas relations. The activities of the privateers provoked complaints from Spain, France and Flanders, as well as from members of the Hanseatic ports whose trade with the Iberian peninsula was vulnerable to attack. International complaints met with a mixed response in England, although the Queen’s sympathy for the privateers was eroded by the gradual improvement in Anglo-Spanish relations

  De Spes’ reports to Philip II nonetheless presented an unfavourable picture of widespread connivance and collusion with the privateers or pirates, as he insisted on describing them. Their supporters included leading members of the regime. Leicester, for example, was dismissed as a ‘light and greedy man who maintains the robbers and lives by their plunder’.21 The ambassador pursued Spanish and Flemish grievances with the Queen, her council and the High Court of Admiralty, but with varying results. In January 1571 the council ordered the arrest of two Dutch warships which had taken several vessels in the River Meuse, in response to his complaints, with a promise that they would be restored to their owners. In ‘the meanwhile’, however, he reported that the ‘other pirates go on robbing, and very little can be done towards punishing them or recovering their booty’. Although Cecil offered in February to send out two of the Queen’s ships against pirates, it was on condition that the merchants of Antwerp contributed to the charge of fitting them out. Several weeks later, the Queen cut short a meeting with one of Alva’s representatives from the Low Countries with a ‘sort of joke about the pirates; remarking that, as they did not speak English, it was no business of hers to correct them’.

  Yet the regime was already adopting a tougher line with the privateers and their supporters in England. In March 1571 Elizabeth took action to prevent the spread of disorder along the coast. This included a warning that ‘no pirate of whatsoever nation shall enter any of her ports or the Downs, under penalty of losing the ship which he brings, and imprisonment for himself’.22 The warning appears to have been particularly intended for the privateers who congregated off the south-east coast, making use of temporary bases and havens in Kent and Essex. Later in the year Frobisher was sent out with four naval vessels, in a more direct attempt to limit the activities of the privateers. Furthermore, during October de Spes reported that the Queen had appointed commissioners to assist in the recovery of plunder which was claimed by merchants and shippers of Hamburg. Indeed, the commissioners arrested some of the privateers and purchasers of their booty in Dover, though de Spes claimed that the former continued to be secretly supplied with provisions. The response of the regime culminated in March 1572 with a proclamation expelling the privateers and sea rovers from English ports. The Queen’s subjects were warned that they faced the death penalty if they continued to serve with the privateering fleets.

  The actions of the regime had unforeseen consequences for the sea beggars who returned to the Low Countries, seizing Brill in April 1572. Thereafter they acquired bases in Holland and Zeeland, including Flushing, from which they continued their privateering war against Spain. Their sea raiding soon included attacks on neutral and friendly shipping. By June 1573 it was reported that they spared no one they met with, including the English, though three recently captured prizes were released. Their underlying political purpose was underlined by reports that they had taken to wearing the ‘device of the crescent’ on their clothing, as a sign that ‘they would rather turn Turks than abandon’ the struggle with Spain.23 By contrast the maritime activities of the Huguenots, from their base at La Rochelle, were seriously weakened by the massacre of French Protestants on St Bartholomew’s day in Paris and the provinces. While the English remained sympathetic to the Protestant cause in France and the Low Countries, increasingly it was tempered by the diplomatic and defensive concerns of the regime.

  Following the restoration of Anglo-Spanish relations and the revival of trade with Spain and Flanders, Dutch and French privateers were in danger of becoming an unwelcome presence in English ports and waters. Even so, the Channel remained infested with Dutch, French and English rovers, many of whom sailed with commissions from William of Orange. Nor was the Queen’s Navy able to prevent fleets of privateers from occasionally visiting English harbours either for provision or plunder. When the French ambassador complained to Elizabeth in January 1573 about the continued support for the Huguenots, reportedly she replied ‘that as they belonged to the same religion as she did, she could not close her country to them. The sea, she said, was their hunting ground, but if they brought any property of French subjects to her country she would order its restitution’.24 The seizure of nine French vessels by a group of privateers off the Isle of Wight reinforced the complaints of the ambassador. French concern was inflamed by the arrival in English waters of a fleet of twenty or twenty-two men-of-war from La Rochelle. It soon became the focus for rumours of a relief expedition to the French port under the command of the Duke of Montgomery, one of the Huguenot leaders who escaped to Guernsey after the massacre of St Bartholomew, with the support of maritime adventurers in the south-west, including Hawkins.25

  The continued threat to shipping was dramatically demonstrated by a piratical attack on a ship carrying the Earl of Worcester across the Channel, to represent the Queen at the ch
ristening of the daughter of Charles IX. Worcester was saved by the skill of the master and his company, but an accompanying vessel, with a party of gentlemen aboard, was captured. Four of the company were killed and six or seven wounded, while the gentlemen were robbed of their clothes, jewellery and £500 in cash. According to intelligence sent to Alva from London, the attack was carefully planned, if not ‘specially ordered’.26 It provoked a swift response. While the captain of the Isle of Wight took local action against the privateers and pirates, at sea seven men-of-war were seized by the Queen’s vessels under the command of Captain William Holstock.

  The support for the Huguenots in England, and the despatch of relief expeditions to La Rochelle, provoked angry complaint from Charles IX. The French claimed that between 1562 and 1573 they were spoiled of goods valued at nearly £30,000 by pirates and rovers based in England. During the summer of 1573, French suspicions were deepened by rumours of various plans for combined action at sea by the Huguenots and their Dutch and English associates. Following his return to the Isle of Wight with a fleet of privateers and several prizes, Montgomery met a representative from William of Orange, reputedly to consider an expedition to relieve the Dutch port of Haarlem. The suspicions of the Catholic party in France, regarding the intentions of the English, appeared to be confirmed in the spring of 1574 when Montgomery invaded Normandy from Guernsey, in an unsuccessful attempt to raise a rebellion, though Elizabeth denied all knowledge of it.27

  English depredation was heavily overshadowed by the activities of the Dutch and French privateering fleets within the Channel, but it did not disappear from local waters. While significant numbers of English recruits served with the privateers, pirate ships continued to operate, under conditions, moreover, which deepened the confusion between lawful and unlawful plunder. This was especially the case with those adventurers who acquired foreign commissions, usually against Spain, though the practice was of uncertain legality and met with mixed responses from the regime. Claiming losses against the Spanish in the Low Countries, George Fenner sailed with a commission from William of Orange during the early 1570s. Armed with such authority, he seized a fleet of merchant vessels returning to Flanders from Portugal, laden with salt and bullion, after a running conflict which lasted for two days. The captured vessels were brought into Falmouth during October 1572. At the request of Cecil, however, the legality of the seizures was referred to a group of leading civil lawyers, who reported in November that they should be restored to their owners. Yet this failed to deter the activities of aggressive adventurers, like Fenner, who disposed of plunder overseas. Indeed, Fenner went on to raid the Spanish harbour of Munguia, thereafter sailing to the Azores where he captured several vessels returning from the Indies.28

  Occasional reports and complaints to the council indicate that piracy and sea roving remained widely scattered and varied, ranging from indiscriminate pillage to the more selective spoil of Spanish and Flemish shipping. During July 1572 the council ordered the return of a Spanish vessel which had been taken and brought into Southampton by a ship of Bristol. It also instructed the Vice Admiral of Essex to arrest the pirate, Captain Blunt, and his company, who were reported to be near Harwich, after committing ‘sundrie spoiles and robberies upon the seas against the Queen’s … subjects and others’.29

  The volume of complaints increased during 1573 and 1574, compelling the council to intervene in various cases of disorderly spoil and plunder. During February 1573 it responded to requests from Sandwich and Dover for a commission for the trial of pirates, partly as a result of local concern at the expense of keeping large numbers of men in prison. The following month the captain of Camber Castle near Rye was ordered to confiscate several prizes brought in by French ships-of-war, although proceeds from the plunder were to be used to offset the charge of imprisoning the companies of the latter. During May and June the Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports was instructed to investigate French and Flemish complaints concerning recent outrages, including the spoil of a merchant of Antwerp at Winchilsea, while taking steps to suppress pirates and their supporters within his jurisdiction.30

  Much of this was the untidy legacy of the presence of the privateering fleets in English waters, which overlapped with long-standing, localized piratical enterprise. French complaints in February 1573 of the number of English pirates allegedly haunting the coasts, without restraint, were confused with angry concern at the activities of Hawkins and others, who were supporting Huguenot adventurers on the Isle of Wight as well as supplying La Rochelle with provisions and munitions. French and Scottish traders also complained of the ‘enormous interest they had to pay to certain brokers at Southampton, to redeem’ their ships and cargoes taken by pirates.31

  In the south-west the following year, the mayor of Dartmouth reported the activities of a group of rovers, ‘committing robberies and piracies upon the coast, and having recourse to Torbaye’.32 They included Captain John Cole who seized a Danzig vessel which was taken to the Isle of Wight. During February or March 1574 John Callice, one of the leading pirate leaders operating during the 1570s and early 1580s, captured a prize, the cargo of which was sold in Cardiff and Bristol. In April 1574 a representative of the King of Portugal complained to the council about the spoil of a ship laden with spices which were brought into Barnstaple. At the same time the bishop of Chichester warned of pirates along the coast of Sussex. Further reports of pirates and sea robbers frequenting the south coast were made by Viscount Howard of Bindon in June. In addition, sixteen ships were reported to be fitting out at Colchester for Zeeland, by a partnership of English, Dutch and French adventurers. Later in the year ten men-of-war of Flushing arrived at Rye, to await a fleet of Huguenot raiders from Calais and other French ports.33

  Small-scale depredation spread from the Channel into the Irish and North Seas, where it was entangled with Scottish and Irish piracy. Scots pirates were operating in the Irish Sea during 1573. Several were arrested and imprisoned in Ireland, and subsequently dealt with according to a special commission issued by the Lord Deputy in Dublin. During June the Lord Deputy was ordered by the council to arrest two Irish pirates, following complaints of their seizure of several vessels laden with goods claimed by French, Flemish and German merchants.34

  During the summer pirates and rovers were raiding in the North Sea between England and Scotland. Their targets included vessels from Holland and Zeeland. Cornelis Willemson, the master of one such ship, complained that he was taken and tortured by English pirates near Yarmouth. After being ‘hanged until he was almost dead’, Willemson was stripped naked and cast into the sea ‘eight times tied with a rope and with stones at his legs … until they knew where his money was’.35 In November the council ordered the arrest of pirates and other suspected persons operating along the coast of Suffolk. By early December one of the pirate leaders, Phipson, was under arrest in the castle at Norwich. Another captain suspected of piracy was taken in the following month. The sheriff of Norfolk was instructed to send both men to London, so that they could be examined by the judge of the High Court of Admiralty. In March 1574 the court issued a writ for the recovery of a French vessel taken by Richard Peacock of Scarborough. Its cargo of Spanish commodities was sold in Yarmouth, Boston and other places along the coast. Peacock and his company were pursued by a French merchant, Jacques le Duc, who complained later that he ‘was not only put in daunger of his lyfe, but also sume of the buyers [of the plunder] commenced an action of slaunder against him, so that he was constrained to relinquishe his … suite’.36 In June the Scots complained of spoils committed by English pirates, some of whom haunted the Farne Islands, while others cruised off Scarborough and Flamborough Head.

  The council responded to the disorder and violence along the east coast by authorizing the Lord Admiral to send out the Vice Admiral of Norfolk against the pirates. But a trading ship was plundered at sea, within sight of the Vice Admiral’s fleet. In July 1574 the council issued instructions to the president of the Council in the Nor
th, and to officials in Berwick, for the prevention of piracy. They included orders for the arrest of pirates and for an inquiry into the receivers of their goods. The council was keen to ensure that Scottish victims received speedy restitution of any spoil by pirates, though its concern was partly designed to strengthen the claims of English merchants who were the victims of Scottish depredation.37

  The cliffs at Flamborough Head, Yorkshire. This dramatic landmark along the east coast was a favourite haunt for pirates. In 1523 the Admiral or Vice Admiral of the North Sea was sent out to hunt down rovers operating off Flamborough. During the later 1580s a group of locally based pirates haunted the region, disposing of their booty in nearby Hilderthorpe. (Author’s collection)

  While it remained difficult to combat the threat from pirates who ranged along the east coast and into the North Sea, several rovers were apprehended in Scotland during 1574. In June the English ambassador in Edinburgh, Henry Killigrew, informed Cecil of the capture of Higgins and his company of thirty-eight men at Caithness. According to Killigrew’s report, Higgins was sailing with a licence from Sir Thomas Smith, though he added that it was ‘time to restrain such, for they would make a pique where there is no need’.38 The capture of Higgins was followed by the arrest of another rover, Robert Isted, a gentleman of Hastings, who was at Montrose with two prizes which were claimed by Flemish traders. Several of the rovers escaped, though at least fifteen remained in custody. They included Peter Fisher, a Scotsman, who admitted to various acts of piracy during the previous eight years. Isted claimed that his prizes were Spanish, and lawfully taken with a commission from William of Orange. In July, however, he and his company, with the exception of two boys who were handed over to Killigrew, were hanged in chains at Leith as an example and warning to others.39