Pirates and Privateers

[I]n the Afternoon my lieutenant returned aboard and informed me that he was receiv’d by a great number of pyrates with much civility to whom he read the publick the proclamation . . . . (Hahn, 94)

Captain Vincent Pearse, commander of HMS Phoenix, recorded this entry in his log on 24 February 1718. His ship was anchored in a harbor surrounded by pirate ships. Ashore, his lieutenant had ventured into the pirates’ lair to extend a peace offering. Two hundred nine pirates, including Benjamin Hornigold, would take advantage of the king’s offer, the first step in Britain’s attempt to suppress piracy following the War of the Spanish Succession.

Enlargement of 1715 map of New Providence.
To the left at Dewitt's Point is the fort. To the right along the shore of the town harbor is the redoubt.
(Source: Wikimedia Commons)

Between 1716 and 1726, roughly 4,000 pirates roved the seas. They posed a significant threat to British colonists, commerce, and law and order. To bring all of them to justice would have taken an inordinate amount of manpower and expense. For this reason, King George I opted to employ a carrot-and-stick policy in 1717.

[W]e do hereby promise and declare, that in case any of the said Pirates shall, on or before the fifth Day of September, in the Year of our Lord One thousand seven hundred and eighteen, surrender him or themselves to one of our Principal Secretaries of State in Great Britain or Ireland, or to any Governour or Deputy Governour of any of our Plantations or Dominions . . . every such Pirate and Pirates so surrendering . . . shall have our gracious Pardon of and for such his or their Piracy or Piracies, by him or them committed before the fifth Day of January next ensuing. (By the King)

If pirates chose not to take advantage of the amnesty,

[W]e do hereby strictly Charge and Command all our Admirals, Captains, and other Officers at Sea, and all our Governours and Commanders of any Forts, Castles, or other Places in our Plantations, and all other our Officers Civil and Military, to seize and take such of the Pirates who shall refuse or neglect to surrender themselves accordingly. (By the King)

In addition, bounties would be awarded to anyone who brought a pirate to justice:

for every Commander of any Pirate Ship or Vessel the Sum of One hundred Pounds; for every Lieutenant, Master, Boatswain, Carpenter, and Gunner, the Sum of Forty Pounds; for every inferior Officer the Sum of thirty Pounds; and for every Private Man the sum of twenty Pounds. (By the King)

Should a pirate decide to turn on his crew mates after 6 September 1718, and the pirate captain was convicted of his crimes, the turncoat would earn a reward of £200.

To show that he meant business, the king sent “a proper Force to be employed for Suppressing the said Piracies” that consisted of “three fifth-rate vessels of forty guns each, one sixth rate of twenty guns and a sloop” to the West Indies; a fifth rate, a sixth rate, a sloop, and “the forty-gun Pearl” to Virginia; and “three twenty-gun sixth-rates” to New England. (Brooks, 374) The primary purpose of these Royal Navy ships was not to hunt pirates; rather, they were to protect shipping and intercept pirates who dared to attack merchant vessels and inhibit trade.

How effective would these twelve warships be? That depended on a variety of factors:

a. the geography and vastness of the region each was to patrol;

b. their sizes as compared to those of the pirates;

c. unclean hulls that slowed down ships and weakened the planks, allowing for leaks;

d. diseases that plagued sailors unused to serving in the Caribbean; and

e. the element of autonomy that allowed naval captains to refuse what governors wanted them to do.

Still, King George’s dispersal was a start, and the Royal Navy would be more effective in suppressing piracy as the years passed.

Another decision of the King’s was to put an end to the private charter given to the proprietors of Carolina, and to send Woodes Rogers to the Bahamas as its royal governor. His task was to oust the pirates from New Providence and restore law and order.

Left: Governor Woodes Rogers from family portrait by William Hogarth in 1729
Right: Governor Robert Hunter portrait attributed to Godfrey Kneller in 1720
(Sources: Wikimedia Commons and Wikimedia Commons)

King George’s proclamation wasn’t the first one issued during this period rife with piracy. Governor Robert Hunter of New York had issued one in July 1717. It demonstrated that the colony’s interests were finally on the same page as the Crown’s. Instead of colluding with pirates, as was common in earlier years, this proclamation made it clear that the colonists and sea rovers were now enemies.

Nor was New York the only colony that began cracking down on pirates. In October 1717, Massachusetts brought charges against eight pirates for the first time since John Quelch’s trial. This time around, the defendants were members of Sam Bellamy’s crew: Simon Van Vorst, John Brown, Thomas Baker, Hendrick Quintor, Peter Cornelius Hoof, John Shuan, Thomas South, and Thomas Davis. The charges against them involved “piracy, robbery & felony committed on the high sea.” (Trials, unnumbered) Prior to pleading, they requested assistance from an attorney, and Robert Auchmuty was chosen. One of his objections involved the laws under which they were being tried:

That the Commission of the late Queen Anne was of no force after Her Majesty’s Demise: And so the Court had no Power to act by vertue of the said Commission, It having dyed with the Queen: And several Authorities in the Law were Cited and Insisted upon . . . . (Trials, 4)

The court said the opposite was true.

[T]he Proclamation of His present Majesty King GEORGE, for Continuing Officers, and the subsequent Commission, and the Instructions from the Crown lately Transmitted to the Governour, referring to the Pirates was a sufficient justification of the above-mentioned Act, which was still in full force; and that the cases which had been Cited, were not to the purpose. (Trials, 4)

The defendants pleaded not guilty. The trial began the next day with the Advocate General orating on the egregiousness of piracy.

Now as Piracy is in its self a complication of Treason, Oppression, Murder, Assassination, Robbery and Theft, so it denotes the Crime to be perpetrated on the High Sea . . . whereby it becomes more Atrocious.

First, Because it is done in remote and Solitary Places, where the weak and Defenceless can expect no Assistance nor Relief; and where these ravenous Beasts of Prey may ravage undisturb’d, hardned in their Wickedness with hopes of Impunity, and of being Concealed for ever from the Eyes and Hands of avenging Justice. One of the most aggravating Circumstances, that attend a Crime, is the facility of it’s being committed, that is, where the Malefactor cannot easily be prevented nor discovered. Thus by the Law of GOD Theft in the Field was more grievously Punished, than Theft in a House. . . .

Another Aggravation of this Crime is, That the unhappy Persons on whom it is acted, are the most innocent in themselves, and the most Useful and Beneficial to the Publick; . . . Ships are under the Publick Care . . . Masters of Ships are Publick Officers, and therefore every Act of Violence and Spoliation committed on them or their Ships, may justly be accounted Treason, and so it was before the Statute of the 25th of Edward III.

The Third Circumstance, which blackens exceedingly and augments a Pirates Guilt, is the Danger, wherewith every State or Government is threatned from the Combinations, Conspiracies and Confederacies of Profligate and Desperate Wretches, united by no other tie . . . than a mutual Consent to extinguish first Humanity in themselves, and to Prey promiscuously on all others. (Trials, 6-7)

After this explanation regarding “the Nature and Effects of Piracy in General,” he then addressed “Principles of the Civil Law” that the court was obligated to follow and which dictated appropriate punishments for the crime if the defendants were convicted. Only after this were witnesses called. The defendants also offered their testimonies. Van Vorst, Brown, Baker, Quintor, Hoof, and Shuan were found guilty, but South was acquitted. As per the law, the six felons

shall go hence to the Place from whence you came, and from thence you shall be carryed to the Place of Execution, and there you and each of you, shall be hanged up by the Neck until you & each of you are Dead; And the Lord have Mercy on your Souls.

And the Court do also ordain, That all your Lands, Tenements, Goods and Chattles be forfeited to the King, and brought into His Majesty’s use. (Trials, 14)

The convicted pirates were hanged on 15 November “at Charlestown Ferry within flux and reflux of the Sea.” (Trials, 14)

As for Thomas Davis, the vice-admiralty court heard his case on 28 October. Since Thomas South had been acquitted, he could now appear as a witness. He explained that Davis had been forced to join the pirates, who refused to allow him his freedom because of his carpentry skills. “[T]hey would shoot him before they would let him go from them.” (Trials, 19) Several others testified on his behalf as well. When it was Davis’s turn to speak, he explained how he came to be aboard the pirate ship and how he survived her sinking.

John Valentine, an attorney whom the court had chosen to speak for Davis, then said,

if he believed the Prisoner to be guilty of the crimes, for which he was Indicted, he should not appear on his behalf: That he hoped this Honourable Court upon consideration that there was little or nothing said, much less proved against the Prisoner, they would acquit him as being Innocent, for that in all Capital crimes there must be down-right Proofs and plentiful Evidence to take away a Mans Life . . . . (Trials, 20)

Although the prosecutor did not concur and had quite a lot to say on Davis’s guilt, the Court “were of Opinion that there was good proof of the Prisoners being forced on board the Pirate Ship . . . which excused his being with the Pirates; and that there was no Evidence to prove that he was Accessory with them, but on the contrary that he was forced to stay with them against his Will.” (Trials, 22) The verdict? Not Guilty.

Notwithstanding the warships sent to suppress piracy, or the fact that King George extended his Act of Grace to incorporate piracies committed through 5 January 1719, and that pirates then had until 1 July 1719, to turn themselves in, piracy remained a problem. Governors repeatedly sought additional help from London. Such requests either fell on deaf ears or weren’t reacted to in a timely manner.

In July 1718, Lieutenant-Governor Alexander Spotswood, never a friend of pirates, grew concerned at the presence of such scoundrels in his colony. He shared with Virginia’s Council that

Severall . . . Pirates have Since come into this Colony with Certificates from the Governor of No Carolina of their Surrendering to him, but in regard their Travelling about the Country with their Arms and keeping together in Considerable Numbrs give Great Suspicion, that they design to betake themselves again to Piracy. (Executive, 481)

As a result, Spotswood issued a proclamation that insisted that

all Persons who have been concerned in any Piracys, and who shall come into this Colony immediately upon their Arrival, to deliver up their Arms to the first Justice of the Peace or Milletary Officer, and prohibiting them to Associate in any Greater Numbers than three in one Company And that in Case any be found going armed, or in Greater Numbers than is above Expressed, That the Justices of the Peace Cause them to be taken up and put in Prison till they give Security for their good behavior. (Executive, 481-482)

To his way of thinking, this proclamation was not enough. Fed up with North Carolina’s failings when it came to dealing with pirates, and desiring to prevent the pirates from adversely affecting Virginia’s trade, Spotswood took matters into his own hands.

[H]aving at the same time received complaints from . . . the trading people [of North Carolina] of the insolence of [Thache and] that gang of pyrates, and the weakness of that Governmt. to restrain them, I judged it high time to destroy that crew of villains, and not to suffer them to gather strength[.] (America, 800)

He gathered the necessary intelligence about Blackbeard and his men, and solicited help from pilots familiar with North Carolina waters. He met with the warship captains stationed at Virginia and they formulated a plan. At his expense,

I hyred two sloops and put pilotes on board, and the Captains of H.M. ships having put 55 men on board under the command of the first Lieutenant of the Pearle and an officer from the Lyme, they came up with Tach at Ouacock Inlett on the 22nd of last month. (America, 800)

Capture of Blackbeard by Jean Louis Jerome Ferris, 1920
(Source: Wikimedia Commons)

In the ensuing fight against Robert Maynard and his men, “Tach with nine of his crew were killed, and three white men and six negros were taken alive but all much wounded.” (America, 800) The Royal Navy lost eleven men and another twenty-three sustained wounds. As to why Spotswood chose not to get prior approval, he explained, “I did not communicate to the Assembly nor Council, the project then forming agt. Tach’s crew for fear of his having intelligence, there being in this country and more especially among the present faction, an unaccountable inclination to favour pyrates . . . .” (America, 800)

Governing a colony far from home often meant the governors, like Spotswood, were left to their own devices when it came to dealing with pirates. Guidance in the specifics of what to do was either sparse or not forthcoming. In 1661, during his tenure as governor of Jamaica, Colonel Edward D’Oyley (or Doyley) arrested the men who sailed aboard Betty and Pearl because they had attacked a Dutch vessel. Since these were the early days of the English colony, there was no gaol in which to imprison them. Instead, their sentences involved manual labor on the plantations of the island’s various officers. If anyone thought to succor these men, the colonel proclaimed not to

comfort or abet the said Theeves and piratts nor any waies promote advise or consort upon pain of being prosecuted as accessories to the said Robbery and piracy in according to the law. (Hanna, 103)

To make certain the residents specifically knew who these men were, he had them wear arrows on their necks. This punishment lasted for as long as he thought them unrepentant. One was a young man named “henry Morgan, souldier.” (Hanna, 103)

With navies stretched thin and governments focused more on European events than West Indian ones, colonial governors sometimes improvised to protect their domains. In 1665, manipulation of the law was the sleight of hand that Jamaican governor Sir Thomas Modyford employed. Authorities in London expected him to implement the law and heed their instructions, but they weren’t on the scene and didn’t necessarily understand the full picture. He randomly selected fourteen pirates and put them on trial. Since they were found guilty, according to the 1536 Offences at Sea Act, they were to be hanged. Except, the whole trial had been rigged to show England that he was maintaining law and order on the island. Now that he had achieved that aim, he pardoned the condemned and commissioned them to go privateering against the Dutch since England was at war with them.

Even pirates tried to manipulate the law to their advantage. George Cusack was caught in a compromising position and arrested in England in 1674. After the indictment was read against him and five others, he was asked to plead, but 

first took some exceptions to the Jury; not for any prejudice against any particular men of them; but because they were Citizens; who did not (he said) understand Maritime-Affairs. . . . Sea-Captains, and Masters of Ships should have been Impannell'd. . . . [H]e cryed out, We will be Tryed (my Lord) by men of our own Trade! Which being understood in another sence, made not only the Audience, but his fellow Prisoners to laugh heartily. (Grand, 30)

The Court overruled his objection, perhaps because the current jury was more likely to find him guilty, whereas if men of the sea sat in judgment, they were more likely to acquit him since they tended to protect their own.

This Mr. Cusack appeared to be a Person of a Clear Courage, and good understanding: he pleaded very well for his life; but the matter was too foul to be washt off with good words. (Grand, 31)

He and the other defendants were found guilty and hanged in 1675.



To be continued . . .

Part 1: Law and Order: Pirate Edition               Part 2: What Is a Pirate?

Part 3: The Evolution & Suppression Continues

Part 4: A Test Case          Part 5: Suppressing a Proliferation

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