Sea-borne Raiders
1656. From Norways "Highways &
Byeways".
250 years ago all this Coast suffered to a degree
which seems to us incredible from the ravages of
what were then called Turkish pirates but which
were in reality Algiers and Gallic rovers. The
justices of Cornwall complained to the Lord
Lieutenant that in one year the Turks had taken no
less than a thousand Cornish Mariners, while Looe
alone, in the ten days before the letter was
written, had lost 80 men.
A letter dated July 10th 1656 and quoted in the
State Papers says that seven boats and two and
forty fishermen were taken by the Turks off the
Manacles between Falmouth and the Lizard last
Wednesday was three weeks.
These rumours prove the existence of underspread
misery for each man so captured was a bread winner,
and few of them saw home again.
Two or three years later Sir John Pennington was
cruzing between Mount's Bay and the Lizard when
he saw five sail of Turks men of war standing in
for the Channel. They turned and fled when they saw
Pennington's fleet and as unfortunately the
wind was very light
From a very early period the whole coast of the
British Isles was disturbed by the activities of
pirates, and the pest was not effectively destroyed
until the end of the Interregnum. The area under
consideration in these notes is not unique in its
piratical associations, therefore, but rather is it
representative. Its story is not one of unrest
while the rest of the coast had peace but rather a
typical account of life in those parts of the
Kingdom which were near the sea. It follows that a
glance at the general history of piracy in England
may usefully precede the more detailed local
story.
The first pirates on the English coast were
themselves English, and preyed as a rule on foreign
shipping. Piracy of this nature had become
sufficiently extensive because state action by
1224, when Geoffrey de Lucy was nominated keeper of
the whole coast from Pevensey to Bristol. This
district was divided only a month later, a keeper
of Cornwall and Devon being appointed, whose
principal duties were the suppression of piracy,
the repulsion of raiders, and the maintenance of
security for the coasting trade.
Victoria County
History, Cornwall, P 477.
Among the centres of
piracy in the West, Fowey stands pre-eminent, and
in 1472 ships of Fowey appear to have been
plundering as far away as the Portuguese coast.
(Vic. County History, p.483). By 1634 the power of
Fowey was long over (Vic. County History, p,485)
but, while it lasted, it formed a most striking
example of piracy by the English. Ships were not
safe then even in the harbours; for instance a
vessel entering Dartmouth in 1345 was at once
plundered.
In the 16th Century complaints from
foreigners that they had been plundered by the
English in English waters were often before the
Privy Council. The powerful Hanseatic League (Union
of towns, chiefly in N.Europe, for trading
purposes) for instance, complained of piracy
against one of their vessels near Falmouth in 1546,
and a similar charge by the French against the men
of the "West Contrie" appears under the
date of 1550.
An official enquiry into piracy in
Devon and Cornwall appears to have been made late
in 1563.
These examples are by no means all that could be
given in regard to the Western Channel, and similar
stories are presented by other parts of the coast -
Scotland, Bristol, Ireland, Kent, East Anglia and
so on. Although St. Keverne is not mentioned, there
is no reason to believe that the people there were
better than elsewhere.
We read of French pirates almost as early as of
English, especially pirates of Dunkirk who preyed
on the English coasts. Netherlanders also soon
appeared in the field.
Last of all (about the
beginning of the 17th Century, probably) came the
terrible Turkish, Algerian, or Barbary pirates.
These came from a greater distance than the others,
and consequently in larger ships, which were fully
armed, so that the official records often refer to
them as "Turkish men-of-war".
Although
these Barbary pirates (They are often also referred
to as "Rovers of Gallee") penetrated far
into the English Channel, raiding the coast, or
preying on local shipping, their course brought
them first to the Lands End and the Lizard, and as
they could there prey on ocean- going vessels, they
were always especially active there.
At various dates other pirates are named in the
State Papers, but often they are more entitled to
the name of "privateers" than
"pirates". Thus the "Brest
pirates" during the Cromwellian period were
privateers on the Stuart side, sometimes sailing in
a fleet under the command of Prince Rupert. During
the quarrel of the Protector with Spain, we hear of
"Spanish pirates". It is this
privateering element which accounts for the fact
that piracy always assumed a more alarming aspect
during and immediately after a war. (Victoria
County History Cornwall.)
Efforts were continually made by the government to
suppress piracy, but for some time they were not
effectual, owing to the imperfect state of the
navy.
It must be remembered that the merchant
service was drawn on for naval purposes and
men-of-war pure and simple were only permanently
introduced by Henry VIII, and then only to
supplement the levies of merchant vessels.
Commissioners in various parts of the county, and
small squadrons, did what they could until the
Elizabethan period. Then under the Queen's keen
grasp of affairs and the masterly and thorough
administration of Lord Burghley, piracy like most
other matters, received systematic treatment.
Burghley's strong attitudes towards piracy is
sufficiently expressed in his description of the
three branches of maritime enterprise. "The
one is to cary or recary marchandizes, the other is
to take fish; for the thyrd, which is the exercise
of pyrecy, is detestable and cannot last. (Growth
of English Industry & Commerce in Modern
Times" p.69.Cunningham).
It is unnecessary here to enter into an account of
the elaborate legislation for the fostering of
shipping for which he was responsible. It is
sufficient to say that he laid the foundations of
naval power, that the fatal struggle of Charles I
to maintain the navy failed, so that in the
"thirties" of the seventeenth century
piracy was at its worst (it was at this time that
the worst piratical attack on St. Keverne took
place) and that in his great work of perfecting the
navy Cromwell provided the means for the final
crushing of piracy. There was not much piracy after
the Restoration.
The Cornish coast, owing to its distance from
London and its comparative barrenness, has not held
out much temptation to foreign invasion, but has
offered many advantages to piratical incursions. It
was far removed from state interference, it is near
the mouth of the Channel, and it has many useful
havens, often unfortified. Of these havens Helford
was a favourite among pirates.
Falmouth harbour was
guarded by the forts at St. Mawes and Pendennis,
but the Helford River was never fortified. Even the
forts of Falmouth were not always effective,
however, for Pendennis was usually in charge of the
Killigrew family (Moreover, the forts appear
frequently to have been insufficiently manned) many
of whom were personally interested in piracy.
A
certain Peter Killigrew, was charged with piracy in
Ireland in 1555 and was under examination in the
Tower in 1556. The same gentleman was fined
£55 for "dealing with pirates and
pirates goods" in 1578. (Acts of the Privy
Council, llth Feb. 1578).
The most extraordinary member of this family was,
however, John Killigrew, Captain of Pendennis
Castle. In 1577 he was found to have purchased
stolen French wines from a pirate named Hix, but
was allowed to settle the matter by paying the real
owners for the goods.
In the winter of 1580-1 a
Spanish vessel, bound from Calais to Biskay, the
"Marie" of San Sebastian by name, was
driven by stress of weather into Falmouth Harbour,
having lost her masts. During the night she was
plundered by "certain Englishmen where of
three or fower are said to be his (Killygrew's)
servants".
Lady Killigrew is said to have
ordered the raid.
Sir John was ordered by the Privy
Council (Acts of the Privy Council, 28th January
1581) to restore the vessel and goods to their
owners, and to render an account of the episode to
the Council. Such an account appears to have been
rendered (Calender of State Papers (Domestic
Series) Jan 15th and Mar 2nd 1582 (l58l) but Sir
John neither appeared before the Council nor
returned the goods, for the Acts of the Privy
Council tor 15th March 1581, gives a long account
of how Killigrew has disappeared and the ship also.
"Albeit said their Lordships (i.e. The Privy
Council) they were enformed that he was repaired to
London and secretlie lurked in some place, yet
could not be found, and ship being returned (as it
was said) into those partes, their Lordships have
been further geven to understande that the said
ship hath been carried into Ireland, and most of
the men cast overbourde and the goodes etc. rifled
between them Sir John Killigrew's
servants".
A Commission of Enquiry is to be appointed to
enquire into the matter, and if he can be found, to
take surety of £1,000 from him for his
appearance before the Council.
Sir John still
avoided his pursuers and warrants for his arrest
were issued in October 1588, in connection with
another piratical affair, in which a Danish vessel
was plundered (Act of the Privy Council, 20th Nov.
1588), So far from answering to the Council in the
matter, we are told that he "goeth up and
downe the country accompanied with divers lewde and
disordered persons for his guard, armed with
unlawfull weapons to withstand those which should
go about to apprehend him, contrary to all lawe and
authority"e
Next a general proclamation was
issued for his arrest, and county officers were
ordered, if necessary to use force "either by
raisinge the power of the county or otherwise for
his apprehension. (Act of Privy Council, 23rd Mar.
1589).
Being still missing in April 1589, he was deprived
of his office of Vice Admiral of the County of
Cornwall (ibid. 25rd April, 1589). On 6th July 1589
he is again reported as fleeing from place to place
and cannot be taken, in contempt of all lawe and
government (ibid. 6th July, 1589).
Strange to say,
on 31st July, 1589, he was granted freedom from
arrest for thirty days, and in October for three
months. In 1596 we find him again referred to as
Captain of Pendennis He was then once more
dabbling in piracy.
It is quite conceivable that much piracy may have
taken place at St. Keverne or any other place under
the jurisdiction of a governor who was capable of
defying the Privy Council by marching about with an
armed force, and that we should have no record of
them. We know at least that St. Keverne men were
building up a reputation for getting what they
could and keeping it.
A piratical incident is recorded in connection
with Helford in 1597 (Calender of State Papers
(Domestic Series). Letter dated from Dartmouth,
18th November 1597).
The story is told by a sailor
driven into Dartmouth by stress of weather, and
there arrested and examined as a pirate. He related
how, when in the service of one. Captain Elliott,
they took a fly-boat, armed it, and went to Helford
with it, bringing in a Dieppe prize, laden with
knives, victuals, etc. for Brazil, which they had
taken.
Sir John Killigrew, instead of arresting
them, warned them of the approach of H.M.S. Crane,
and, according to one account, bribed the Captain
of the man-of-war with £100. As for his
reward he had from Elliott nine bolts of Holland
cloth and a chest. Elliott and his crew sailed
away and continued their piracy until taken by the
Spaniards, when Elliott saved his skin by taking
command of one of the vessels of the Spanish fleet,
a position in which his knowledge of England was,
of course, regarded as valuable.
About this time (i.e. after the Armada), raids by
Spaniards were common, and in July, 1595, Hanibal
Vyvyan reported the burning of Penzance, Newlyn,
Mousehole, Poole Church and Church Town, and other
villages adjoining, without resistance (Calender of
State Papers (Domestic Series) under dates).
Spaniards were pillaging and taking boats between
the Lizard and St. Michael's Mount in l600.
At this time some fishermen of St. Keverne were
taken by the Spaniards and pressed for information
as to the English navy. The precis of the original
record which appears in the calender of State
Papers runs as follows;
"June 19th, 1595. Confession of Sampson
Forth, of St. Keverne, sailor, before Hannibal
Vyvyan.
While fishing with three others in
Falmouth,Bay, 7th May last, they were taken by a
shallop of Blueth commanded by one Ferris, a
Fleming, and manned with 16 sailors and 20
soldiers; were carried to Blueth, and brought
before Don Diego, general of the army there, why by
an Englishman that was in one of the galleys there,
examined them.
On oath as to what preparation of shipping was
being made in England and under whose government.
Told him there was about 100 or 120 sail and that
Sir Francis Drake was general. He asked them to say
whither they were bound, but they could not tell.
After re-examination he had a pass to leave in a
bark belonging to Mr. Sayer of Dartmouth".
Apparently, however, St. Keverne men did their
best to "give as good as they got" for a
letter (Cal, of State Papers (Dom.) under date)
from one, W. Leonard, to Sir Francis Godolphin, a
high official of the county, dated 29th September,
1628, relates how the "Lewis" a ship of
war out of Brest, came ashore at Penryn, on the
previous Friday. The crew abandoned her. "The
country came thick with their axes and other
tools" cut down the mast and rifled the ship
of all her tackling and ordnance. In spite of the
interference of Leonard, they carried away two
cables, one worth £40. There were 100 people
aboard rifling. Leonard in his letter requested
instructions and a commission to examine those that
have the goods, or they will never be had again for
“St. Keverne men do not use to deliver back
but by law or upon oath.”
Penryn seems to be incorrect as the name of the
place where the ship went ashore, both for
geographical reasons, and because St. Keverne men
plundered it. Moreover another account states that
the vessel went ashore on 27th September last, in
the parish of St. Keverne, near Falmouth. (Gal. of
State Papers (Dom). Feb 19th, 1629).
In 1651, search was being made for a pirate in the
Helford River, and about the same time losses in
Falmouth "by the malicious practice of the
Dutch" are reported.
The "Turkish" peril by that time became
severe. A small fleet, under Sir John Pennington,
and comprising a number of ships called the
Lion's Whelps, cruised the Channel for several
years to suppress these Barbary pirates, who are
described as "the scourges of all Christian
navigations". St. Keverne suffered severely at
their hands in June 1636,
Several accounts of this raid appear in the
Calender of State Papers (Domestic Series) and they
all agree closely. It appears that a number of
boats fishing off the Manacles, were taken by the
"Turks" and their crews carried away as
captives. The number of boats is given as seven in
every account, but the number, of men is given
variously as 50, 42 and 50. The same Turkish
vessels had just previously taken 5 boats of Looe,
which were engaged in deep sea fishing between
England and Ireland. Graphic details are given of
boats seen drifting unmanned and without sails, of
weeping women, of constant fear of the raiding and
destruction of the village, and of the men that put
to sea and were never seen again.
One witness (Calender of State Papers (Domestic)
20th June, 1656) the captain of a barqe of
Plymouth, reported that he sailed from Plymouth for
St. Keverne and "arrived there on Thursday
morning last, where he heard it credibly reported,
with sorrowful complaint and lamentable* tears of
women and children, that on the 15th instant three
fisherboats belonging to St. Keverne, three others
of Helford, and one more of Mollan (Mullion) and
about 50 men in them, being on the coast fishing
near Black Head, between Falnouth and the Lizard,
not three leagues off the shore, were taken by the
Turks who carried both men and boats away. During
the time of his abode at St. Keverne, which was
from Thursday till Sabbath-day then following,
there was no news heard of either men or boats, so
that it goes for an absolute truth thereabouts that
they were all surprised by the Turks and carried
away".
Another account given by the Justices of the Peace
sitting in quarter sessions at Bodmin, in
connection with the loss of the Looe boats, as well
as the St. Keverne boats (Cal. of State Papers
(Dora) July 14th 1636) tells how the men of Looe
"through terror of that misery whereunto these
persons are carried by these cruel infidels"
would rather "give over their trade than put
their estates and persons into so great peril,
there being now 60 vessels and about 200 seamen
without employment". The narrators then add
"These Turks daily show themselves at St.
Keverne, Mount's Bay, and other places, that
the poor fishermen are fearful not only to go to
the seas, but likewise lest these Turks should come
on shore and take them out of their
houses".
The Earl of Northumberland, in command of the
fleet at Plymouth, sent two vessels in chase of
these pirates, who were suspected to have gone into
the Severn estuary, a place they frequented, but
they were not caught.
Of what happened to the unfortunate captives of
these pirates, the following petition of English
captives in Algiers to the King in 1640 (Cal of
State Papers (Dom) under date) gives a picture,
"Here are about 5,000 of your subjects, in
miserable captivity, undergoing most unsufferable
labours, as rowing in galleys, drawing in carp,
grinding in mills; with divers such
unchristian like works, most lamentable to express
and most burdensome to undergo, withal suffering
much hunger and many blows on their bare bodies, by
which cruelty many not being able to undergo it,
have been forced to turn Mohamedans, so that these
burdensome labours will cause many good seamen and
others your subjects to perish unless some course
be by you taken for our release, which we of
ourselves cannot procure by reason of our great
losses, and the extraordinary ransoms imposed on
us".
To this petition dated 3rd October 1640, was
appended a list of 957 prisoners taken since May
18th, 1639. Later, war was pushed into the
Mediterranean against these pirates.
At about the same time as the loss of the St.
Keverne fisher-boats, there occurred an exciting
skirmish in the Helford River. On llth May 1636,
two Dunkirk frigates brought four French ships,
taken by them as prizes, into Falmouth. On the 14th
they set sail with their prizes, but were met
outside the harbour by a Dutch pirate, the
"Black Bull" of Amsterdam, which attacked
them. The Dutchman chased one of the frigates under
Pendennis fort, which opened fire on him. He
therefore abandoned the pursuit, and chased the
other frigate into the Helford, following her a
mile up the river, till both vessels grounded. The
Dutchman fired on her with his ordnance, landing
thirty musketeers on the south side of the river,
who shot into the frigate from the land, killing
one of her men. The frigate surrendered, the
Dutchman remaining in charge of her in defiance of
His Majesty's Officers, who commanded him to
deliver her to them. Eventually the Dutch captain
was taken and sent to Portsmouth in custody, his
prize being sent with him. The enquiry into the
matter led to an amusing complication, for the
Dunkirk frigate herself was found to contain stolen
English goods, so that the Dunkirker's captain
was also arrested. The complicated legal position
was not argued out, however, since most of the
officers of the Admiralty had fled from Portsmouth
to avoid the plague, and the last record of the
matter in the Calender of State Papers, which is
dated August l3th, 1656, states that the
"Black Bull" and the Dunkirk frigate were
then still in Portsmouth harbour.
In 1640 there were many references to Barbary
pirates on the Cornish coast. In one case they took
three barks "in the open view of
Penzance", took three other ships the same
night at Mousehole and the Land's End, while
three other vessels were pursued and escaped, one
after eight hours' fighting. Many other vessels
were seen deserted on the seas. In another account
there are reported to be sixty "Turkish
men-of-war" on the coast. In a third, sixty
men, women and children were taken from about
Penzance.
After this the official records contain little on
piracy for some time. This is probably due more to
the disorganisation caused by the Civil War than to
a great decrease in piracy.
By 1649 piracy again loomed very large indeed in
the Domestic State Papers - Dunkirkers, Ostenders,
and Barbary pirates, are all infesting the coasts
of England. Cases are considered by the Council of
State at almost every meeting. The Council drew the
attention of the Generals at sea to the
"growing strength of pirates at sea" and
"The great danger the fishermen are in to be
deprived of the fruit of their labour", and
dictated a general policy of suppression.
The Brest pirates, or Stuart privateers then came
into prominence. The terror with which the
inhabitants of Western Cornwall regarded the
Barbary pirates did not, however, extend to those
of Brest. A naval captain reported (Cal. of State
Papers (Dom) July 25, 1655) in 1655 that he
discovered a Brest man-of-war at the Lizard and
"at anchor amongst the fishermen, with whom he
seemed to hold correspondence". The Englishman
gave chase, and the Frenchman, seeing he could not
escape, left his vessel and landed in a fisherboat,
the vessel herself being run ashore and all the men
except five or six escaping up the country. The
Englishman landed men who took thirteen of the
fugitives prisoners "one being an Englishman,
and their gunner" but he could not take the
Captain as the "country was
treacherous",
In 1659 the Ostenders got to Falmouth and took a
vessel, but before many more years had passed, the
evil of piracy was suppressed.
Meagre as are the facts which appear to be
available in connection with pirate raids near St.
Keverne, enough can be found to shew that the whole
coast was in continual apprehension of piracy, that
Helford was a constant haunt of pirates, and that
St. Keverne itself is the subject of one of the
most distressing of these outrages. In all this,
moreover, this part of the country is a fair type
of general conditions, and of one phase of that
general insecurity of life which existed in the
past in England, and which we can hardly realise
now.
Other phases of that insecurity were famine and
plague, both of very frequent recurrence. Apart
from its local interest, therefore, these notes on
St. Keverne help to bring home a sense of the
reality of that insecurity, of !which the most
familiar reflection is seen in the public prayers
handed down from those days:
"From lightning and tempest, from plague,
pestilence and famines, from battle and murder, and
from sudden death,
Good Lord, deliver us".
F.A. Howe. 19.7.10.
|
