ANDREW BARTON
There was living at the commencement of the sixteenth century a
Scotsman, named Andrew Barton, who acquired considerable notoriety by
reason of his exploits at sea; and indeed, he was instrumental in
bringing to a definite issue the condition of high tension existing
between England and Scotland at that time, which culminated in the
battle of Flodden Field.
It appears, from certain State Papers, that one John Barton, the father
of Andrew, somewhere about the year 1476, in the reign of James III. of
Scotland, got into trouble with the Portuguese, who captured his vessel
and goods and otherwise ill-treated him; upon representation of which
injuries he obtained letters of marque against the Portuguese, in the
usual terms.
Apparently, however, John did not succeed in obtaining substantial
restitution by this means, for we learn, in a letter from James IV. to
Maximilian, Emperor of Germany, dated December 8th, 1508, that the
letters of marque had been repeatedly suspended, in the hope of
obtaining redress; but had been renewed during the previous year, in
favour of the late John Barton's three sons, one of whom--Robert--was
the occasion of the writing of this letter; the Portuguese having taken
him prisoner, and proposing to hang him as a pirate, which, says King
James, he is not, having authority to act against the Portuguese, by
virtue of my letters of marque.
All this argues a considerable amount of favour towards the Bartons on
the Scottish monarch's part; for it must be admitted that the renewal of
letters of marque, after they had run intermittently for thirty years in
respect of one incident, was a straining of the elasticity of
conventions.
The Bartons had, in fact, been high in favour both with James III. and
his successor, and were constantly employed by them in maritime affairs,
being frequently entrusted, as we learn from the accounts of the Lord
Treasurer of Scotland, with the handling of large sums of money.
They were formidable fellows, these Bartons; hardy and daring, skilled
in all the strategy of the sea, and, when occasion arose, perfect
gluttons at fighting. Andrew appears to have been the most formidable,
and added to his other attributes that of being a born leader of men.
We are told by Bishop John Leslie, in his "History of Scotland," that in
the year 1506 King James caused a great ship to be built, in the design
and rigging of which Andrew Barton played a prominent part, and was
afterwards placed in command of her to harry the Flemish pirates then
infesting the narrow seas: a task which he set about with characteristic
energy and ferocity, with the result that he captured some and
completely scattered and demoralised the remainder. By way of
demonstrating his success in graphic and convincing fashion, he
presently despatched to his august master sundry pipes, or casks,
containing Flemish heads! He little guessed, however, that his own head
was destined--according to some authorities--to make, before many years
had elapsed, a similar journey, unaccompanied by his body.
Having disposed of the Flemish pirates, Andrew Barton resumed his
operations, under letters of marque, against the Portuguese, and
captured, during following years, a good many vessels under that flag;
nor were his brothers idle. One cannot help wondering whether the Barton
family had not by this time exacted more than adequate restitution of
their losses of five-and-thirty years previously; and, as we know, it
was of the essence of such authorised reprisals that they should cease
when this end was attained. Very probably some contemporary persons,
more or less interested in their doings, began asking this same
question; at any rate, there prevailed in the year 1511 a very strong
feeling in England against Andrew Barton; he was constantly alluded to
as the "Scottish pirate," and accused of many outrages against vessels
other than Portuguese; and, as there existed just then very strained
relations with Scotland, these stories met with ready credence. The
general dislike of Andrew Barton and his doings was embodied in a
representation by Portuguese ambassadors to King Henry VIII., who does
not appear to have complained to the Scots King, or taken any steps in
the matter.
The public feeling was voiced, however, by Thomas Howard, Earl of
Surrey--afterwards victor of Flodden, and second Duke of Norfolk--who
exclaimed that "The King of England should not be imprisoned in his
kingdom, while either he had an estate to set up a ship, or a son to
command it."
This somewhat theatrical attitude is indicative of the exaggerated
stories in circulation as to Andrew Barton's terrorism of the narrow
seas; the immediate sequel, however, was the fitting out of two vessels,
commanded respectively by Surrey's sons, Lord Thomas and Lord Edward
Howard, with the express object of capturing Barton. It is said by some
writers that the Howards provided these ships at their own cost, and, in
view of Surrey's enthusiastic outbreak, it appears not improbable that
this was the case. However this may be, the two brothers put forth from
the Thames one day in June 1511 in quest of Andrew, who was then
returning from Flanders, by way of the Downs, in his ship, the _Lion_,
accompanied by a smaller vessel, or pinnace, the _Jenny Pirwin_.
The Howards had to wait for more than a month, however, and then, being
separated by bad weather, Lord Thomas sighted the _Lion_, which had also
parted from her consort.
Barton appears to have endeavoured, in the first instance, to escape;
according to Leslie, he made friendly advances to Howard, insisting that
the English and Scotch were not at war; this would have been a sound
and logical attitude for Barton to assume, and it may be that he acted
so; but in the end Howard chased him, and, finding himself outsailed,
the Scot faced the foe with his usual boldness, and a desperate
encounter ensued.
Howard's force was probably superior to that of his antagonist, but
Andrew Barton and his ship's company were not to be intimidated by odds
against them, when once they entered upon an engagement, and Lord Thomas
soon realised that the task he had undertaken was no child's play.
Reeling alongside each other, at the closest quarters, the two vessels
exchanged shots from their cannon as rapidly as they could be loaded and
fired, while the crossbowmen and arquebusiers discharged a perfect hail
of arrows, "quarrells," and bolts; Howard placed his ship again and
again alongside, in the attempt to board, only to be beaten off by the
valiant Scots, the decks of both vessels plentifully strewn with the
wounded and dying.
At length Howard, as courageous and persistent a fighter as Barton,
gained a footing on the _Lion's_ deck, with a few of his men; others
speedily followed, and a hand-to-hand fight ensued.
Barton was by this time mortally wounded; his leg was shattered by a
cannon-shot, and his body pierced in several places; but he sat up
against the bulwarks, blowing his whistle and beating a drum to rally
his men, as long as the breath remained in him; and it was not until
they saw the fighting flame quenched in the eye of their intrepid and
yet unconquered leader, and his chin drop upon his breast, that the
sturdy Scots were fain at length to yield to Howard and his men.
Lord Edward Howard, meanwhile, had captured the _Jenny Pirwin_, not
without some stubborn opposition, in spite of the odds in his favour,
the smaller vessel having suffered heavily in killed and wounded before
capitulating.
Both vessels were immediately added to the English Navy, the nucleus of
which was then in process of formation; the prisoners were conveyed to
London, and confined in the palace of the Bishop of York, awaiting the
king's pleasure.
As might be expected, the Scottish historians, Leslie and Buchanan, give
a somewhat different account from that of Edward Hall, in whose
chronicle the most nearly contemporary narrative is to be found.
Leslie's allegation as to the friendly overtures of Barton finds no
corroboration in Hall's Chronicle; and indeed, it is difficult to
believe that Andrew Barton did not thoroughly comprehend the situation
from the first.
King Henry VIII. appears to have been willing to give the prisoners
every chance, for he sent some members of his Council, with the Bishop
of Winchester, to parley with them. The bishop, according to Hall,
"rehearsed to them, whereas peace was yet between England and Scotland,
that they, contrary to that, as thieves and pirates, had robbed the
king's subjects within his streams, therefore they had deserved to die
by the law, and to be hanged at the low-water mark. Then said the
Scots, we knowledge our offence, and ask mercy, and not the law. Then a
priest which was also a prisoner, said, My lords, we appeal from the
king's justice to his mercy. Then the bishop asked him, if he was
authorised by them to say so, and they cried all, Yea, yea; then said
he, You shall find the king's mercy above his justice; for where you
were dead by law, yet by his mercy he will revive you; wherefore you
shall depart out of this realm within twenty days, upon pain of death,
if you be found after the twenty days; and pray for the king; and so
they passed into their country."
Thus far Edward Hall; Buchanan says: "They who were not killed in the
fight were thrown into prison at London; from whence they were brought
to the king, and, humbly begging their lives of him, as they were
instructed to do by the English, he, in a proud ostentation of his great
clemency, dismissed, and sent the poor innocent souls away."
When James remonstrated, demanding redress for the death of Andrew
Barton and his comrades, and the capture of their ships, Henry replied
that the doing of justice upon a pirate was no occasion for a breach of
friendly relations between two princes. "This answer," says Buchanan,
"showed the spite of one that was willing to excuse a plain murder, and
seemed as if he had sought an occasion of war."
This incident was celebrated in verse, not immediately afterwards, but
in the reign of Elizabeth.
The "Ballad of Sir Andrew Barton" gives a most circumstantial account of
the fight, introducing many details which are probably fictitious, and
confusing the identity of the Howards who took part in it. According to
the writer, Lord _Charles_ Howard was the hero of the occasion; but
there does not happen to have been any such person to the fore at that
time, the conqueror of the Spanish Armada--Charles Howard, Lord
Effingham, afterwards created Earl of Nottingham--not having been born
until five-and-twenty years later.
Probably the ballad was written after 1588--the Armada year--by way of
glorifying the Howards, who were very high in royal and popular favour
at that time; such anachronisms were very common in popular ballads of
this and later times.
The writer represents that Barton's smaller vessel was sunk; and he it
is who tells us about that alleged journey of Andrew's head:
My Lord Howard tooke a sword in his hand,
And smote of Sir Andrew's head;
The Scotts stood by did weepe and mourne,
But never a word durst speake or say.
He caused his body to be taken downe,
And over the hatch-bord cast into the sea,
And about his middle three hundred crownes:
"Whersoever thou lands, itt will bury thee."
With his head they sayled into England againe,
With right good will, and fforce and main,
And the day before new Yeereseven
Into Thames mouth they came againe.
Then King Henerye shiffted his roome;
In came the Queene and ladyes bright;
Other arrand they had none
But to see Sir Andrew Bartton, Knight.
But when they see his deadly face,
His eyes were hollow in his head;
"I wold give a hundred pound," sais King Henerye,
"The man were alive as hee is dead."
A gruesome sight, indeed, for the Queen--the courageous but gentle
Katharine of Aragon--and her ladies!
There is a disposition in some quarters to regard the whole incident as
fictitious, but this does not appear to be at all justifiable. Edward
Hall, the Chronicler, was a lad of thirteen or fourteen at the time, and
so may be regarded as, practically, a contemporary writer; while Bishop
Leslie (1527-96) and George Buchanan (1506-82) must certainly have known
many persons who remembered the fight. Moreover, it appears to be
certain that the _Lion_ and _Jenny Pirwin_ were at that time added to
the infant Navy, while the official correspondence of the King of
Scotland tells of the grant and renewal of the letters of marque.
Barton was not entitled to the "handle" which the Elizabethan rhymester
prefixes to his name: he was not a knight, though he might very possibly
have become one, had he lived.
Whether or not he was, strictly speaking, a pirate is very doubtful; he
was probably no worse in this respect than many, both in prior and
later times, who have escaped the odium and the consequences of piracy.
He was certainly empowered by his sovereign to overhaul and plunder
Portuguese ships and appropriate the goods of Portuguese subjects; and
if he permitted himself some latitude in the matter of Portuguese
cargoes carried in English or other bottoms--well, there are some naval
commanders of the twentieth century who would scarcely find themselves
in a position to cast the first stone at him; there were some curious
doings in the Russo-Japanese War, some of which still await the final
decision of the courts.
Andrew Barton, as has already been hinted, was not, strictly speaking, a
privateer; but he occupies an exceptional position, by reason of his
intimate association with the two Scottish kings, which places him
somewhat outside of the sphere of the ordinary letter of marque; while
as an intrepid sea-fighter, in command of a private ship, he is second
to none.
THE "AMITY" AND THE SPANIARDS
In the year 1592 the privateer _Amity_, of London, commanded by Thomas
Whyte, captured two armed Spanish vessels, the _St. Francisco_ and _St.
Peter_, respectively of 130 and 150 tons. The crew of the _Amity_
numbered forty-three, but we are not told her armament. The _St.
Francisco_ carried three iron guns, two copper pieces of twenty quintals
each, and one of fourteen quintals--that is, two pretty nearly one ton
in weight, and one about two-thirds of a ton; but it is not quite clear
what weight of shot they fired. She had also twenty muskets on board,
and carried a crew of twenty-eight men and two boys; she was licensed to
carry twenty passengers. The force of the _St. Peter_ is not given, but
was probably slightly in excess of that of the _St. Francisco_. They
were bound for the West Indies, with cargoes in which were included 112
tons of quicksilver--a pretty valuable freight--28 tons of papal
Bulls,[3] and some wine.
The description of the action, by someone on board the _Amity_, is given
in the Lansdowne MSS., and transcribed by Mr. M. Oppenheim, in his
"History of the Administration of the Royal Navy," as below, except that
the spelling is here modernised, to render the account more readily
intelligible to the reader:
"The order and manner of the taking of the two ships laden with
quicksilver and the Pope's Bulls, bound for the West Indies, by the
_Amity_ of London, Master Thomas Whyte.
"The 26th of July, 1592, being in 36 degrees, or thereabouts [somewhere
off the Strait of Gibraltar], we had sight of the said ships, being
distant from us about three or four leagues; by 7 of the clock we
fetched them up and were within gunshot, whose boldness (having the
King's arms displayed) did make us conceive them rather to be ships of
war than laden with merchandise. And, as it doth appear by some of their
own speeches, they made full account to have taken us, and was question
among them whether they should carry us to St. Lucar [just north of
Cadiz] or Lisbon. We waved each other amain [_i.e._ called upon each
other to strike or lower the sails], they having placed themselves in
warlike order, the one a cable's length before the other; we begun the
fight, in the which we continued so fast as we were able to charge and
discharge the space of five hours, being never a cable's length distant
either of us the one from the other, in which time we received divers
shots both in the hull of our ship, masts, and sails, to the number of
32 great shot which we told after the fight, besides five hundred
musket-shot and harquebus a croc [a large musket, fired from a stand] at
the least. And for that we perceived they were stout, we thought good to
board the Biscayan [_i.e._ the _St. Francisco_], which was ahead the
other, where lying aboard about an hour plying our ordnance and small
shot, with the which we stowed all his men [_i.e._ drove them from the
deck]; now they in the fly-boat[4]--the _St. Peter_--making account that
we had entered our men, bare room with us [_i.e._ ran down upon us],
meaning to have laid us aboard, and so to have entrapped us between them
both, which we perceiving, made ready ordnance and fitted us so as we
quitted ourselves of him, and he boarded his fellow, by which means they
both fell from us [a very neat manoeuvre]. Then presently we kept our
luff [hauled to the wind], hoisted our topsails, and weathered them, and
came hard aboard the fly-boat with our ordnance prepared, and gave her
our whole broadside, with the which we slew divers of their men, so as
we might perceive the blood to run out at the scuppers; after that we
cast about, and now charged all our ordnance, and came upon them again,
and willed them amain, or else we would sink them, whereupon the one
would have yielded, which was shot between wind and water, but the other
called him traitor; unto whom we made answer that if he would not yield
presently also we would sink him first. And thereupon he, understanding
our determination, presently put out a white flag and yielded; howbeit
they refused to strike their own sails, for that they were sworn never
to strike to any Englishman. We then commanded the captains and masters
to come aboard of us, which they did, and after examination and stowing
them, we sent aboard them, struck their sails and manned their ships,
finding in them both one hundred and twenty and six souls living, and
eight dead, besides those which they themselves had cast overboard; so
it pleased God to give us the victory, being but 42 men and a boy, of
the which there were two killed and three wounded, for which good
success we give the only praise to Almighty God."
The number found on board the two vessels--one hundred and thirty-four,
including the dead--and the implication that some corpses had been
thrown overboard, making up the total to, say, one hundred and forty,
points to the conclusion that there must have been a large number of
passengers. The _St. Francisco_ was only entitled to have fifty souls on
board, all told, and her consort probably not above sixty at the
outside; so there is a surplus of thirty or so between the two to be
accounted for. No doubt the skippers, in the absence of any strict
inquisition, carried more passengers than they were licensed for. The
captains of ferry-boats and coasting steamers do so to this day, in
spite of the very stringent regulations of the Board of Trade--and they
do not very often get found out, except by the supervention of some dire
catastrophe, due to overloading and panic.
The futile Spanish bravado, in refusing to lower their sails to any
Englishman, after having displayed the white flag in token of surrender,
is decidedly amusing; one cannot help wondering whether any one of them
really persuaded himself that he had "saved his face" by such a piece of
tomfoolery.
[Footnote 3: This traffic in "Bulls" from the Pope was, of course, a
gross abuse of papal prerogative, which was probably engineered by some
of his underlings for their own enriching. A packet of nearly one
million and a half of such documents obviously could not have been
signed by the Pope himself.]
[Footnote 4: The fly-boat was a flat-bottomed Dutch vessel, with a high
stern; probably the term is used loosely here, to distinguish between
the two vessels; the _St. Peter_ more nearly resembling a fly-boat.]
PRIVATEERING IN THE SOUTH SEAS
[Illustration: WILLIAM DAMPIER, THE FAMOUS CIRCUMNAVIGATOR]