Under the Bloody Flag (37 page)

Fenton’s scheme for peaceful commerce failed. The Portuguese refused to trade with the English, though they were prepared to supply them with provisions. As the two remaining ships sailed along the coast of Brazil, they encountered three Spanish vessels off the port of São Vicente. During the ensuing conflict one of the Spanish vessels was sunk. Thereafter the English ships became separated. Both were short of water and provisions. Consequently both ships returned to England, though Fenton considered making course for Newfoundland. When he reached Ireland in June 1583 many of his company were discontented and rebellious. By the time the
Galleon
Leicester
reached the Thames one of the officers, Hawkins, was in irons as a result of a violent brawl with Fenton.

What began as an ambitious and peaceful trading venture turned into a disorderly and dangerous voyage. Yet the expedition was symptomatic of the increasingly predatory and opportunistic nature of English maritime expansion. The evidence of Madox’s diary, moreover, suggests that this was in the hands of men who were habituated to piracy. But the development of deep-sea plunder raised challenging questions about its operation. Fenton’s scheme for the settlement of St Helena may have been impractical; nonetheless, it points to the emergence of new and possibly radical ideas for the establishment of overseas pirate bases which may have been circulating among seafarers, though the experience of the voyage indicated that conditions during the early 1580s did not favour their implementation. Madox’s summary of the reasons by which Fenton was ‘induced at last to honest trading’ provided a revealing insight into the confused discussion of such ideas, and the response to them. Evidently Fenton appealed to his company:

if we once give ourselves over to piracy, any place suitable for habitation must be contemned and to return home enriched with plunder is neither safe nor honest. And after plundering to return home in poverty is an offense punishable by death. Even if all are charged with the same guilt and all are authors with me in robbing others, yet the harshest blame would fall on me should I return. But to remain is a harsher lot, for I find no one who would willingly wish to die an exile from his country, and I cannot remain alone.
⁷⁸

Fenton’s ‘troublesome voyage’, and the confusion which overtook it, thus illuminated the speculative and uncertain response to the opportunities for oceanic plunder that Drake so spectacularly pioneered.

Piracy and disorderly privateering during the early 1580s

If deep-sea depredation emerged in hazardous and hesitant circumstances, local piracy around the British Isles continued to flourish in various guises despite the commissions of the later 1570s. Experienced pirate captains, such as Callice, survived into the early 1580s, but they were joined by a group of younger leaders who reinvigorated the pirate brotherhood, particularly in favoured haunts in south-west England and Wales. The activities of men such as Clinton and Purser, whose exploits were embellished in ballads and song, pointed towards the consolidation and elaboration of a pirate culture which was acquiring sharper and more defiant definition.

A steady stream of complaints and reports to the council revealed the extent of the problem. In May 1580 an Italian ship was seized along the Thames by a Dutch rover sailing with an English captain. Several weeks later a group of English soldiers and sailors spoiled a ship in the harbour at Youghal. In addition pirate ships were active along the east coast, ranging northwards from Orford Ness. The
Elizabeth
of London was plundered by John Coates and his company off Flamborough Head, a regular haunt for pirates who preyed on vulnerable coasting vessels. Although much of this activity was opportunistic, and justified as retaliation against overseas attack, organized piracy flourished along the coasts of south and south-west England. In April 1581 Henry Howard, son of Viscount Howard of Bindon, was accused of associating with pirates at Lulworth.
⁷⁹
Further along the coast, the increase in the number of pirates and rovers off the Isle of Wight was blamed on the negligence of Sir Edward Horsey’s lieutenant. Later in the year the council ordered Lord Cobham to send out ships for the apprehension of pirates who had plundered merchants of Rye while crossing to Dieppe. Two London merchants, Samuel Knollys and Philip Fish, were also commanded to appear before the council to answer charges that their vessel, the
Bark
Roe
, had spoiled two Turkish ships in the Mediterranean.
⁸⁰

Despite greater vigilance and supervision, pirates and rovers continued to frequent well-established havens with little fear of arrest or punishment. One of Burghley’s agents, John Johnson, provided a detailed report concerning the situation on the Isle of Wight, which was regularly visited by English, Dutch and French rovers during the early 1580s. Under the protection of local officials a flourishing trade in booty, including the redemption of captured vessels, was maintained in the form of unregulated seaside markets. In small ports, such as Cowes or Newport, the disposal of pirate plunder attracted gentlemen, farmers, fishermen, craftsmen and the servants of Sir Edward Horsey. In April 1581, with at least four men-of-war anchored around the island, Johnson reported that about thirty boats thronged around the rovers, carrying passengers from ship to ship for a fee of twelve pence to do business with the pirates. It was like a fair, with ‘byinge and selling and barteringe’.
⁸¹
Aboard the men-of-war every sailor had his share of the booty laid out on display, while bargains were made with visiting buyers. Johnson, who was trying to recover the property of English and Flemish traders, aroused the suspicions of the rovers because he purchased nothing. His report to Burghley suggests that he narrowly escaped with his life after being identified as a spy. The captain of one of the rovers threatened to put him on trial before a jury selected from the company, but he was dissuaded by appeals from the master and others, including one of Horsey’s men. Instead, he was forced to swear never to reveal the identities of the rovers or the purchasers of their plunder. Thereupon the captain ‘made [him] good cheare’ in his cabin, promising him two shirts.
⁸²
Meanwhile, the company disposed of their wares. A cargo of cloth and linen, reputedly worth £1,400 or £1,500, was sold in less than two days; much of the proceeds appear to have been dispersed by the pirates in daily visits ashore.

Lulworth Cove, Dorset. Under the protection of local landowners such as Sir Richard Rogers, pirates and rovers visited the harbour during the 1570s and early 1580s, consorting with the local inhabitants. Among those associating of consorting with pirates was Henry Howard, the son of Viscount Howard of Bindon. (Author’s collection)

Under these conditions the regime struggled to maintain its firm response to piracy. The punishment of pirates continued to be influenced by considerations of policy or undermined by the negligence and corruption of local officials. In June 1581 the commissioners for piracy in Dorset bound Adam Sampson, a Scottish rover, to appear before the council, though they were one of the few commissions still active. The following month Samuel Bigges, sentenced to death for piracy, was reprieved. In August the council was informed that William Daniel and another pirate had been allowed to escape. Although two pirate captains were in custody by October 1581, their contrasting experiences indicated similar weaknesses. One of them was John Piers, who was widely suspected of operating in league with his mother, Ann, reputedly a witch of Padstow. According to various reports Piers was freed without facing trial by the mayor of Rye. Although he was arrested a second time, he escaped from Dorchester Gaol with the connivance of the keeper. He was recaptured and hanged in chains along the shore of Studland Bay at the command of the council. The other prisoner, Fludd, avoided execution during 1581. On the eve of the Anglo-Spanish war, with the reputation of a ‘valiant and skilful pirate’, he offered to survey the coast of Spain for the Queen.
⁸³

The limited success of the council in regulating local officials was demonstrated by the activities of the servants of Sir John Killigrew, one of the commissioners for piracy in Cornwall. In January 1582 other members of the commission accused Killigrew’s servants of spoiling a Spanish ship in the harbour at Falmouth, and of attempting to rescue a pirate captain. Faced with repeated allegations of conniving with pirates, Killigrew fled Cornwall. According to one report he was ‘secretly lurking in London’, although another informant suggested that he was in Ireland.
⁸⁴
In April he voluntarily appeared before the council. After a short spell of confinement, he was allowed to return to the south-west.

Carrick Roads, Cornwall. A long-standing haunt for pirates and rovers, and the power base for the Killigrew family, whose members were repeatedly in trouble for their maritime activities and dealings with visiting rovers. (Author’s collection)

From the perspective of the council, the problem of dealing with such cases was complicated by malicious complaints, which often grew out of local rivalries that were difficult and time consuming to disentangle. In July 1582 Gilbert Peppitt, an Admiralty official in Exeter, was accused of allowing Clinton Atkinson to escape two years earlier. But the accusation appears to have been part of a campaign to discredit Peppitt, who was subsequently exonerated of any wrongdoing. To some extent, the growing use of officials from the High Court of Admiralty in London to search for pirates and their supporters was intended to override these difficulties, though officers from London remained dependent on local cooperation and compliance. James Swift, the marshal of the Admiralty, compiled a detailed report on piracy during 1581 which contained a mine of information, sometimes of a very personal nature. The pirate, George Burde, for example, was described as suffering from a ‘stump foot’.
⁸⁵
Yet without the support of local officials, much of this information was of little value, as Swift inadvertently acknowledged. His comments on the procedure for the arrest of pirates drew explicit attention to the long-standing problem posed by negligent constables.

As a result piracy remained a flourishing business, especially within the Channel and western approaches. In February 1582 a ship of Don Antonio’s was taken and brought into Kinsale by a group of pirates. A fishing boat was attacked within sight of Rye during June. About the same time, the French complained of the seizure of five ships by Court Hellebourg, and the capture and sale of another vessel in Poole by Atkinson. Later in the year Francis Hawley, the keeper of Corfe Castle in Dorset, presented an alarming report of his inability to repel visiting pirate ships. The ‘place of their repaire is here’, he informed Walsingham, ‘where in trueth they ar my masters’.
⁸⁶
Hawley sought to defend himself against rumours concerning his relations with the pirates, claiming that ‘their comforte in landing here is not the cause of their accesse unto us, for their captaines (who seldom or never come ashoare) ar verie unwilling therunto’. In any case, when pirates came ashore they were ‘so stronge and well appointed as they cannot be on soddine repulsed’. While Hawley admitted that he had been recently involved in discussions with Purser, about the recovery of a French ship, he advised Walsingham that a group of Southampton men had offered £600 for the recovery of the vessel, which they intended to sell back to the original owners.

The activities of pirates and rovers within and beyond the waters of the British Isles encouraged retaliation, including the arrest of English shipping in overseas ports, which provoked appeals for letters of reprisal among merchants and shipowners. During 1581 the
Minion
of Plymouth was arrested in Spain on suspicion of piracy. The owners of an English vessel which was arrested in the port of Civitavecchia were awarded a commission of reprisal. It was accompanied by the issue of a similar licence against Lübeck. In addition the raids of French and Scottish rovers led to angry complaints from ports such as Chester, Liverpool and Yarmouth. Merchants of Chester repeatedly demanded letters of reprisal against France and Spain to recoup their losses at sea. Among those claiming losses against Spain was Henry Oughtred of Southampton, although the Spanish countered with their own complaints about the raid on the Newfoundland fishery by his vessels in 1582.
⁸⁷