Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T17:46:34.322Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

1. British Governments and Rebellion at Sea

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Olive Anderson
Olive Anderson
Affiliation:
Westfield College, University of London
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Rebels against British governments could always maintain themselves far more easily at sea than on land; a guerre de course was indeed their natural resource. They could use as bases the small islands so conveniently situated athwart British trade routes in the Channel and the Irish and North seas, or the nearby ports of foreign powers; even more important, the chances of profit which a trade war held out invariably won them support not only from numbers of English seamen (especially Irish and Channel ports men), but from the cosmopolitan armateurs and floating riff-raff of the ports of France and the Low Countries as well. Yet because merchant support was vital to domestic stability and British seamen were precious, no de facto government could postpone for long a vigorous attempt to clear the seas of rebel ships.

Type
Notes and Communications
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 3 , Issue 1 , March 1960 , pp. 56 - 64
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1960

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Royalist privateering did not really get under way until 1645 (cf. Cal[endar of] S[tate] P[apers] Dom[estic], 1644–5, 346, 375 and H. B. de la Rogerie, Bulletinde la Société Guernésiaise, ix, 366), and it was not until 1648 that a small section of the fleet revolted to the Royalist side—an event which immediately gave a great stimulus to Royalist privateering.

2 Stuart commissions to privateers imposed the usual restrictions (cf. Marsden, R. G., The Law and Custom of the Sea (Navy Records Society, 1916), 11, 32Google Scholar and Bulletin de la Société Fersiaise, xv, part iv, 418). However, no doubt largely because of the weakness and rapacity of the exiled Court itself, these were commonly disregarded (cf. Warburton, E., Memoirs and Correspondence of Prince Rupert and the Cavaliers (1849), iii, 258Google Scholar and Curtis, C. D., ‘The Presence of Tromp during Blake's Reduction of the Scilly Isles in 1651’, Mariner's Mirror, xx (1934), 50–66).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 E.g. Cal. S.P. Dom., 1649—50, 104, 128, 129, H[istorica] M[anuscripts’] C[ommission], Leybourne-Popham MSS. (1899), 97–8. Parliament's authorization had, however, first to be obtained to override the Ordinance of 24 Oct. 1644 which forbade quarter to be given to Irishmen taken in arms against Parliament {Cal. S.P. Dom., 1649–50, 123). On the other hand, the Council of State refused to open negotiations for exchanges with Rupert himself when they were petitioned to do so in March 1651 (Ibid.. 1651, 93).

4 Ibid.. 1649–50, 138.

5 Ibid.. 247.

6 Ibid.. 130, 306, 384.

7 Ibid.. 1652, 213, 260.

8 Ibid.. 1649–50, 384; 1654, 305; Cal. S.P. Colonial, 1574–1660, 419, 427, 428.

9 On this point Oppenheim, M., ‘The Navy of the Commonwealth, 1649–54’ (English Historical Review, xi (1896), 57), is somewhat misleading.Google Scholar

10 Cal. S.P. Dom., 1649–50, 199.

11 Printed in Firth, C. H. and Rait, R. S., Acts and Ordinances of the Interregnum (1911), 11, 254–6.Google Scholar

12 Cal. S.P. Dom., 1650, 3.

13 Cf. Ibid.. 1654, 169, 200.

14 Ibid.. 1649–50, 469.

15 These prisoners provoked repeated local complaints, particularly from Dorset (cf. Cal. S.P. Dom., 1650, 239, 291; 1651, 30, 265; 1652, 64; 1653–4, 201).

16 Cf. e.g. the Council's dealings with the Admiralty judges, the official formerly known as the Clerk of Admiralty committee, the Crown, and the Commissioners of the Great Seal in one protracted attempt to get commissions of Oyer and Terminer for trying maritime prisoners issued ‘with all expedition’ (Cal. S.P. Dom., 1650, 162, 177, 218, 232, 239, 341).

17 Ibid.. 1651, 265; 1652, 29, 150, 201, 213, 220, 247, 260, 263, 374, 379.

18 P[ublic] R[ecord] O[ffice], H[igh] C[ourt of] A[dmiralty], 1/8/35.

19 Cal. S.P. Dom., 1651, 381. The Act is printed in Firth and Rait, op. cit. 11, 550.

20 Cal. S.P. Dom., 1653–4, 201.

21 Ibid.. 1655–6, 293.

22 H.M.C., Stuart Papers (1902), 1, 69.

23 The French were officially informed in September that commanders of their ships serving with Jacobite commissions were not considered to be included in the Treaty of Limerick and therefore would not be treated as prisoners of war (Cal. S.P. Dam., 1691–2 453).

24 A[rchives] N[ationalesde France], Marine B2 86, fo. 657, B3 75, fo. 232, B2 108, fo. 725, B2 107, fo. 90. The Jacobite Courts had first to overcome Louis XIV's cautious disapproval.

25 P.R.O. S[tate] P[apers], 44/205/35, Ad[miralty], 1/4080/484.

26 Their opinions, delivered on 20 May 1693, and their later arguments before the Council, are to be found in Marsden, op. cit. ii, 145–7, H.M.C., Portland MSS. viii, 37 and State Trials, ed. W. Cobbett (1809–28), xii, 1275.

27 H.M.C., Portland MSS. xiii, 37.

28 P.R.O., Ad. 1/4080/67, S.P. 44/205/80.

29 P.R.O., H.C.A. 1/16/75, 1/13/13–14. 1/29/1, 4. No doubt because the trial attracted a good deal of attention at the time, confused accounts are common. Cf. the broadsheet in S.P. 32/6, no. 11 and the misplaced pathetic rhetoric of The Life of Fames II [...collected out of Memoirs writ of his own Hand], ed. J. S. Clarke (1816), which describes the martyrdom of one Golding, who was in fact hanged, drawn and quartered for treason (11, 527).

30 P.R.O., H.C.A. 1/13/121. The Jacobite prison ships were abandoned at Louis's request at the end of 1695 (A.N., Marine, B2 109, fos. 261, 318), so that the Jacobite threat of reprisals can have had nothing to do with these pardons. In fact pardons were already common in the High Court of Admiralty.

31 The very able Whig pamphleteer and later notorious deist, Matthew Tindal, happened to be one of the civilians whose opinion was requested. His very effective pamphlet, An Essay Concerning the Law of Nations and the Rights of Sovereigns, went through at least two editions in 1694 and provoked a Jacobite reply.

32 Tindal, op. cit. 34, 22 and cf. the opinion of Oldys, the Admiralty Advocate (H.M.C., Portland MSS. viii, 43). The debate can be further studied in the condemned men's appeal to the House of Lords (State Trials, xii, 1270—the first two men listed here as tried for piracy were in fact tried for treason).

33 As implied in the Life of Fames II, 11, 527.

34 This cogent utilitarian argument was advanced by Tindal, op. cit. 13. Possibly another motive was to check the loss abroad of seamen much needed for the fleet. It is most unlikely that the object was the financial one of depriving James of his prize tenths—James also got tenths from the prizes of ships for which he procured French commissions (H.M.C., Stuart Papers, 1, 88) and in any case his financial position was far less parlous than his brother's had been during his exile.

36 Eight more men were attainted of piracy during this war (P.R.O., H.C.A. 1/16/75), but from H.C.A. 1/29 it is clear that all of these were genuine pirates and not Jacobites.

36 A.N., Marine, B2 108, fo. 725.

37 Le Pelley, J., ‘The Jacobite Privateers of James II’, Mariner's Mirror, xxx (1944), 191.Google Scholar (That this was due to French jealousy of the Jacobites’ greater freedom from control (Ibid.. 192) seems unlikely.) The notorious Captain Vaughan furnishes an example of this practice, although the fact that he held a Jacobite commission (cf. H.M.C., Stuart Papers, 1, 103) never emerged at his trial, which was exclusively for treasonably serving under a French commission (cf. e.g. State Trials, xii, 488–538).

38 The last such entry is dated 29 luly 1696 (H.M.C., Stuart Papers, 1, 118). In the war of 1702 and the risings of 1715 and 1745 the practice was never resumed.

39 P.R.O., S.P. 32/6, no. 11.

40 Sir Mark Forester insisted, after the Pretender had given him the Forerunner, ‘I cannot go to sea without apprehension unless I get a commission from a foreign prince. Under foreign colours the English cannot touch me’ (H.M.C., Stuart Papers, 11, 200).

41 16 Geo. III, c. 5.

42 Annual Register, 1776, 118.

43 Cf. P.R.O., Ad. 1/483/1100, 1/485/996, 1/487/173.

44 P.R.O., Ad. 1/314, Rodney to the Secretary to the Admiralty, 29 lune 1781.

45 P.R.O., Ad. 1/487/113.

46 P.R.O., 30/20/10/28. Rodney was concentrating on commerce protection and collecting prizes. He consistently held strong views on the disposal of prisoners.

47 P.R.O., Colonial Office, 5/1089, Digby to Shelburne, 10 May 1782.

48 Maclay, E. S., A History of American Privateers (1899), p. viii. There were 792 rebel privateers, as against only forty-seven war vessels.Google Scholar

49 17 Geo. III, c. 9. The government's policy is discussed in more detail in a paper by the present author in Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, xxviii (1955), 66.

50 Cf. e.g. P.R.O., Ad. 98/13/120, 166, 98/14/69.

51 Annual Register, 1777, 53–65; cf. Ibid.. 1778, 57.

52 ’Letter to the Sheriffs of Bristol’, The Works of the Right Honourable Edmund Burke (1808 edn., 12 vols.), iii, 138. The Bill was faultily drafted, and gave the Opposition an excellent opportunity to expound their view that the government's American policy was part of a great plan for overturning the British constitution (cf. Annual Register, 1777, 56).

53 By 22 Geo. III, c. 10 Americans were granted full belligerent rights.

54 P.R.O., Ad. 1/488/510.

55 Sandwich Papers, ed. G. R. Barnes and J. H. Owen (Navy Records Society, 1932–8), 11, 152; P.R.O., Ad. 3/85, 26 Aug. 1778.

56 E.g. Ibid.. 98/13/121, 124, 509.

57 In the first six months of 1781 there were eighty-two such volunteers, although exchanges were then being made. (The total number of Americans imprisoned in Britain at that time was about 400.)

58 , E. and Hale, E., Franklin in France (Boston, 1887), 123, 311; A.N., Marine, B4 151, fos. 191–6.Google Scholar

59 G. H. Gutteridge, David Hartley, M.P., 1774–83 (University of California Publications in History, xiv, no. 3), 231–340.

60 To be found for example in Hale, op. cit. 195.

61 See e.g. P.R.O., Ad. 3/86, 13 and 28 Nov. and 13 Dec. 1778; S.P. 42/53, 4 Dec. 1778, S.P. 42/54, 2 June 1779, Ad. 3/90, 9 Feb. 1780.

62 Sandwich Papers, 1, 271; 11, 54. Very heavy expenses were incurred in paying the £5 reward given for recapturing any American prisoners who escaped—for many did, very often collusively.

63 Franklin knew this well enough (cf. Hale, op. cit. 335).

64 Cf. P.R.O., Ad. 3/85, 6 Oct. 1778; S.P. 42/66, s Nov. 1779, Ad. 3/91, 5 and 29 Aug. 1780, Ad. 3/90, 10 May 1780.

65 Some exchanges were finally allowed against British seamen released at sea on parole by privateers, e.g. P.R.O., Ad. 98/13/407, 425, 439, 451, 453, 467, 493.

66 P.R.O., Home Office 28/2/98; Memoirs of the Life and Writings of Benjamin Franklin, written by himself, continued to his death by W. T. Franklin (1833 edn.), v, 142, 159, 173, 175.

67 P.R.O., Ad. 1/490/253.

68 Cf. Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, v (1861), 330–75.