Pirates and Privateers

When Elizabeth I came to power in 1558, she began instituting changes that subtly altered how England defined piracy. Her policies saw pirates as “unlicensed sea-raiders” rather than traitors. (Craze, 659) In March of 1751, she issued five directives regarding English coasts.

1st. That no pirate of whatever nation shall enter any of her ports or the Downs, under penalty of losing the ship which he brings, and imprisonment for himself.

2nd. That no subject of the Queen, or other inhabitant of her realm, shall send or supply any victuals or stores of any sort to the said pirates, and shall not receive goods from them, or deal with them directly or indirectly.

3rd. That it is the Queen’s will that these clauses shall be obeyed, and that any infraction of them shall be punished by the arrest of the offenders by the Governors of the ports, to be held until further orders from the Queen and Council.

4th. That any person found culpable, after the publication of this, shall be punished as a disturber of the Queen’s peace.

5th. That any subject of the Queen who may have offended in this way, and will make confession of the same, and declare those whom he knows to be guilty, shall be himself pardoned. (Simancas, 4 March. 239)

These declarations proved ineffectual, possibly because no one paid attention to them. On 23 August, the Spanish ambassador to England wrote to King Felipe II that

the guns from the castle and ramparts of Dover had prevented Flemish ships from taking the twenty-four pirate vessels which were there. Twentytwo of them are now on the beach, our ships having captured the other two. The pirates have left a few of their sailors in charge of them and the captains and rest of their people have come to London. The assertions made at Court that the pirates would be arrested is not true . . . . (Simancas, 23 Aug., 273)

Rather than condone piracy, which was what Elizabeth seemed to be doing, Felipe II of Spain had a different way of halting piracy. Sir Richard Hawkins, one of Elizabeth’s Sea Dogs, wrote,

[I]f this Spanish shippe should fall athwart his King’s armado or gallies, I make no doubt but they would hang the captaine and his companie for pirates . . . by a speciall law, it is enacted, that no man in the kingdomes of Spaine, may arme any shippe, and goe in warre-fare, without the King’s speciall licence and commission, upon paine to be reputed a pirate, and to be chastised with the punishment due to corsarios. (Hawkins, 232)

Felipe II of Spain, Sir Richard Hawkins, James VI of Scotland and I of England
Sources: Wikimedia Commons, Wikimedia Commons, Wikimedia Commons

When James I ascended the English throne in March 1603, he wanted peace, and to achieve that he was determined to bring about an end to piracy no matter what. He issued numerous proclamations to ensure this happened. In October, Secretary Giovanni Carlo Scaramelli sent a missive to his superior, the Venetian Doge, and the Senate. English pirates had attacked the Venetian ambassador’s ship and stolen from him.

The Judge of the Admiralty (Aldemari) has been for two days in Southampton, drawing up the indictment against the pirates . . . Five . . . have been arrested, and on their information more stolen goods are being discovered. The prisoners insist that the ship they sacked was not Venetian, though the money and the nature of the goods prove it to have been so; but the judge says . . . that without a confession from one of them, or further proof, would it be possible to condemn them to death. (Venice, Oct. 22., 145.)

Scaramelli’s words emphasized the fact that without the pirates fessing up or witnesses testifying to the defendants’ criminal acts, English law basically assured that they would get away with their crimes. James was fed up with such marauding, each act like a slap to the face, so he issued a proclamation, which Scaramelli included with his report. This time, James also went after those who abetted the pirates.

A Proclamation to repress all Piracies and Depredation upon the Sea.

The King is informed, through the manifold and daily complaints made by his own subjects and by others, of continual piracies and depredations, “committed on the seas by certaine lewd and ill-disposed persons.” The ordinary proceedings have proved ineffectual to stop the mischief.

He now makes the following order: –

Pain of death, not only for Captain and mariners, but for owners and victuallers of any “man-of-warre,” which shall commit piracy, depredation, or “murther at the sea upon any of his Majesties friends.”

Pain of death for anyone who seizes any goods belonging to subjects of allies.

All fresh “Admirall causes” to be summarily tried by Admiralty Judge.

No appeal from his sentence.

“No prohibition in such cases of spoile and their accessories or dependances be granted hereafter.”

A record of the restitutions to strangers to be kept.

All Vice-Admirals to certify the Court of Admiralty every quarter of all “men-of-warre” put to sea, or returned home with goods taken at sea, or the produce thereof, the fine of forty pounds for each breach of this order.

The King’s subjects shall forbear from aiding or receiving any “Pirat or sea rover,” and likewise from all traffic with them.

The Vice-Admirals, “Customers,” and other officers shall not allow any ship to go to sea without first searching her, to see whether she is furnished for the wars and not for fishing or trade. In any case of suspicion, good surety shall be exacted before they let the ship sail. The officers shall answer for such piracies as may be committed by those who have sailed with their licence.

“Divers great and enormous spoyles and piracies have been of late tyme committed within the Straits of Gyblaltar by Captain Thomas Tomkins, gentleman, Edmond Bonham, Walter Janverin, mariners, and goods and moneys brought by them to England have been scattered, sold, and disposed of “most lewdly and prodigally, to the exceeding prejudice of his Majesties good friends, the Venetians.” All officers are to arrest these malefactors.

“Given at his Majesties City of Winchester.” 30th September, 1603. (Venice, Oct. 22., 146.)

This and seven subsequent proclamations attempted “to turn back the clock, past the privateering commissions of Elizabeth and even the laissez-faire policies of Henry VIII and his predecessors, all the way to Edward III.” (Burgess, Pirates, 30) To make certain that juries did not sympathize with accused pirates and acquit them, they would be tried “by the Judge of the High Court of the Admiralty without admitting unnecessary delay, and no appeal from him shall be allowed to the defendant.” (Burgess, Pirates, 30)

These measures looked good on paper, but laws were only part of the battle. Order, or follow-through, in obtaining convictions and carrying out punishments, was also important to the effectiveness of these laws. In actuality, few pirates were brought to justice. Eventually, James tried offering pardons; pirates took advantage of these but often returned to new plunderings.

Charles II (1660-1685) tried a different tack to curb piracy when Parliament passed the 1670 Piracy Act (Chapter 11 22 and 23 Car Cha 2).⁶ This put the onus on the captains and their crews to stop piracy. Rather than just give up without a fight, which authorities saw as detrimental to English trade and the nation’s reputation, merchant ships were expected to be armed and to engage any would-be sea rovers. If the master of any

English Shipp . . . of the Burthen of two hundred Tunns or upwards and mounted with sixteene Gunns or more . . . shall yeild up the said Goods to any Turkish Shipps or Vessells, or to any Pirates or Sea rovers whatsoever without fighting . . . the Master shall upon proofe thereof made in the High Court of Admiraltie be from thenceforth incapeable of takeing charge of any English Shipp or Vessell as Master or Commander thereof . . . .

If the master ignored this ruling and was discovered, six months imprisonment for each offense was warranted. For those who commanded vessels of lesser tonnage and armament who failed to defend themselves, they were liable to suffer each and every “Penaltyes” mentioned in the piracy act. One of these included the seizure, by the Admiralty, of the ship in question.

The authorities also had the right to go after any members of the crew who failed to do what was expected of them in defense of the ship, cargo, and themselves.

. . . if the Marriners or inferiour Officers of any English Shipp laden with goods and merchandices as aforesaid shall decline or refuse to fight and defend the Shipp when they shall be thereunto commanded by the Master or Commander thereof, or shall utter any words to discourage the other Marriners from defending the Shipp, That every Marriner who shall be found guilty of declineing or refuseing . . . shall loose all his Wages due to him together with such goods as he hath in his Shipp, and suffer Imprisonment not exceeding . . . six monthes and shall dureing such time be kepte to hard labour . . . .

If the captain wished to fight against the pirates, but the men used force to prevent him from doing so, the guilty seamen “shall suffer death as a Felon.”

To provide the master and crew with an incentive to fight against their attackers, the ship’s owners were expected to pay each of them up to three pence per each pound of the cargo’s value. If any seaman was killed or sustained incapacitating wounds, this money was expected to go to his widow and/or children.

As the legalities of privateering and the obligations required of merchant ships changed, another shift began albeit at a slower pace. This stemmed from the fact that merchants and plantation owners became more important to the economy of England and her colonies. The growth of that importance manifested itself in their increasing power to influence Parliament and legislatures.

Another incident that influenced how piracy was perceived and, in time, resulted in new laws being passed involved a pirate attack in the Indian Ocean. In 1695, Muslim pilgrims were returning from Mecca when Henry Every, Thomas Tew, and other pirates attacked Fateh Muhammed and Ganj-i-Sawai, Emperor Aurangzeb’s flagship. Enraged, the emperor and his people lashed out at the English closest to hand, those associated with the East India Company (EIC). At the factory in Surat, sixty-three Englishmen were shackled and imprisoned three to a cell. Contact with anyone outside the factory walls was strictly forbidden. Some were badly beaten; one was stoned and died. They remained prisoners until almost the end of June 1696.

Henry Every and his fellow pirates chase Gang-i-Sawai
(Source: Wikimedia Commons)

In response to Emperor Aurangzeb’s outrage and demand for justice, England’s Privy Council issued the following proclamation in William III’s name.

Emperor Aurangzeb and William III of England
(Sources: Wikimedia Commons, Wikimedia Commons)

William By the Grace of GOD, King of Great-Britain, France and Ireland . . . are Informed that Henry Every, alias Bridgeman, together with several other Persons . . . to the Number of about One Hundred and Thirty, did . . . Commit several Acts of Pyrracy . . . And that the said Henry Every, and severals of his Accomplices, since . . . are Returned to, and have Dispersed themselves within this Our antient Kingdom, thinking, and intending thereby to Save & Shelter themselves from the Punishment & Execution of Law . . . We being Resolved, that outmost Diligence shall be Used for Seizing, and Apprehending the Persons of such Open and Villanous Transgressors; Do therefore . . . Command, the Sheriffs . . . and Our Good Subjects . . . to do their outmost Indeavour and Diligence to . . . Apprehend the Persons of the said Henry Every . . . together with . . . his Accomplices, . . . and . . .  Deliver him or them Prisoners to the next Magistrat of any of Our Burghs, to be by them keeped in safe Custody until farther Order be taken for bringing him or them to such . . . Punishment as their Crime does Deserve, . . . and for Incouraging the Magistrats . . . and any other of Our Good Subjects to Search for, and Apprehend such Nottrorious Rogues: We . . . do make Offer, and Assure the Payment of the Sum of Five Hundred Pounds Sterling for the said Henry Every . . . and Fiftieth Pounds Sterling . . . for every one of the other Persons . . . to any Person or Persons who shail Seize and Apprehend them or any of them, and Deliver him or them Prisoners to any of the Magistrats of Our Burghs . . . . (Proclamation)

Every eluded the authorities, but six of his men were apprehended and tried. When the jury returned its verdict, they acquitted the men. One EIC official opined, “Some of the old hardened Pirats said, they lookt on it as little or no sin to take what they could from Heathens as the Moors and other Indians were.” (Hanna, 203) Perhaps the jury shared that sentiment. Of course, not everyone thought well of the EIC, and a verdict of innocence allowed the jury to give the Company a bit of comeuppance.

The acquittal was a slap in the face to the Crown which wanted to show how tough England could be on pirates. Determined to see the pirates brought to justice, the Crown tried a different tact. It tried the six men a second time – just not for their offenses against India. The new charges stemmed from crimes (mutiny being one) committed against England, and this jury declared the pirates guilty and the six were executed. In all, only twenty-four members of Every’s crew were ever brought to justice.

One result of Every’s attack and the subsequent debacle in court was that the Board of Trade and Plantation became an independent body, instead of being answerable to the Privy Council. It was now the board’s responsibility to examine all laws and regulations passed in the colonies. These would no longer be permitted to clash with England’s trade policies.

Another outcome concerned the law against piracy. In 1696, pirates had to be tried in England, even if they committed their crimes anywhere else in the world. This was part of Henry VIII’s 1536 Offences at Sea Act. Many felt this requirement was archaic, in addition to being expensive for individual colonies to afford. If an arrested pirate was to be transported to England, was he notorious enough or was his case of political worth to warrant the expense of sending him to England? One of the few who were deemed to fall into either category was William Kidd, but what about every other pirate who was arrested? A new law was needed to remedy this, but since pirates were akin to being traitors under Henry’s law, it was necessary to revisit the definition of piracy. To that end, Sir Charles Hedges, an Admiralty Court judge, was approached. His legal perspective was that

piracy is only a sea term for robbery, piracy being a robbery committed within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty.

If any man be assaulted within that jurisdiction and his ship or goods violently taken away without legal authority, this is robbery and piracy. (Brooks, 61)

Two years later, William III’s An Act for the more effectuall Suppressions of Piracy reinforced this definition of piracy.⁷ It also explained why there was a need for altering where trials would be held.

Persons committing Piracies Robberies and Felonies on the Seas in or neare the East and West Indies and in Places very remote cannot be brought to condign Punishment without great Trouble and Charges in sending them into England to be tryed within the Realme

and this reticence to bring justice to the pirates persuaded honest seamen that they had little to fear from turning pirate and “that sort of wicked Life.” (William III) As a result of the lack of prosecutions,

the Numbers of them are of late very much increased and their Insolencies soe great that unlesse some speedy Remedy be provided to suppresse them by a strict and more easie way for putting the ancient Laws[,]

the situation would just get worse. Consequently, captured pirates could now be tried in vice-admiralty courts in any dominion over which the English monarch ruled, instead of returning the accused to England to stand trial. Seven men were to sit in judgment, one of whom must be “President or Chiefe of some English Factory or the Governour Lieutenant Governour or Member of His Majesties Councills in any of the Plantations or Colonies aforesaid or Commander of one of His Majesties Shipps.” (William III) The remainder could consist of merchants, factors, planters, naval officers, and masters of English merchant ships.

The oaths and procedures for a vice-admiralty court trial were spelled out and those who sat in judgment were to be impartial. Each accused must state whether he was guilty or not guilty; if he refused to plead, “he shall suffer such Pains of Death Losse of Lands Goods and Chattells and in like manner as if he or they had beene attainted or convicted upon the Oath of Witnesses or his owne Confession.” (William III) In other words, no plea was equivalent to a guilty plea. If a pirate declared that he was not guilty,

Witnesses shall be produced . . . and duely sworne and examined . . . in the Prisoners presence And after a Witnesse hath answered all the Questions proposed by the President of the Court and given his Evidence it shall and may be lawfull for the Prisoner to have the Witnesse crosse-examined by first declaring to the Court what Questions he would have asked and thereupon the President of the Court shall interrogate the Witnesse accordingly and every Prisoner shall have liberty to bring Witnesses for his Defence . . . and afterwards the Prisoner shall be fairly heard what he can say for himselfe[.] (William III)

When all was said and done, the prisoners were taken away to allow the judges to debate and vote on the guilt or innocence of the accused. Once that was decided, the prisoners returned to court to hear their fates. If “attainted [they] shall be executed and put to Death at such time in such manner and in such place upon the Sea or within the ebbing or Flowing thereof as the President or the major part of the Court . . . directed”. (William III)

This act also conferred the status of pirate upon any master or seaman who went on the account. This included anyone who acted as a go-between or tried to corrupt crews. Those who mutinied were also deemed pirates. Chapter nine of the statute concerned those who aided and abetted pirates.

And whereas severall evill disposed Persons in the Plantations and elsewhere have contributed very much towards the Encrease and Encouragement of Pirates by setting them forth and by aiding abetting receiving and concealeing them and their Goods and there being some Defects in the Laws for bringing such evill disposed Persons to condigne Punishment Be it enacted by the Authority aforesaid That all and every Person and Persons whatsoever who after the Twenty ninth Day of September in the Yeare of our Lord One thousand seaven hundred shall either on the Land or upon the Seas wittingly or knowingly sett forth . . . are hereby declared and shall be deemed and adjudged to be accessary to such Piracy and Robbery done and committed[.] (William III)

This included anyone who helped the pirates after the fact, as well as before, and if found guilty, each suffered the same punishment as if he or she had been a pirate.

This law also addressed compensation for killed or wounded seamen and rewards for informers. Any governor who refused to adhere to this act forfeited “all and every Charters granted for the Government or Propriety of such Plantation.” (William III)


To be continued . . .

Part 1: Law and Order: Pirate Edition               Part 2: What Is a Pirate?               Part 3: The Evolution & Suppression Continues

Notes:
6. Although enacted, there are no extant documents to show whether anyone was ever prosecuted under this act, according to Sarah Craze.

7. An interesting side note to William’s anti-piracy legislation is that in 1700, the Board of Trade issued “An act to punish governors of plantations in this kingdom for crimes committed in the plantations.” (Burgess, Politics, 193) The reasoning behind this was that colonial governors who were chummy with pirates were violating their charters, and therefore, the Board decided to criminally prosecute such governors.


Resources (The list is so extensive that I have placed it on a separate page.)

Copyright ©2025 Cindy Vallar

Home

Pirate Articles

Book Reviews

Pirate Links

Sea Yarns Galore

Thistles & Pirates