James Ii in Pursuit of a Pirate at Malta

JAMES II IN PURSUIT OF A PIRATE AT MALTA

D.F.ALLEN

AMONGST the British Library's many manuscripts which describe Britain's long involvement with Malta and the Mediterranean, Add. MS. 19306 is interesting for several reasons. 'Wood's Journal' is evidence of how the Royal Navy's Mediterranean squadron supported and protected from piracy that English trade to the Levant which had been growing in volume under Charles II and James II. It also contains a description of the Maltese islands and their distinctive institutions under the Knights Hospitallers of St John of Jerusalem, at the very moment when James II was negotiating secretly in Rome to restore the Order of Malta in the British Isles. In particular, Wood's depiction at Malta ' of some of the Wonderfull Miracles which at this day is said to bee upon that Island' (f. i) and his prominent mention of the Inquisition in Malta set apart his own survey of Malta in 1687 from other seventeenth-century reports ofthe island. The provenance of Add. MS. 19306 is speculative, particularly how and when it came to be acquired by the Annesley family at Arley Castle in Staffordshire.^ The front and back covers of the manuscript bear a coronet and initial 'V which might be that of George Annesley, Viscount Valentia and second Earl of Mountnorris, who lived between 1770 and 1844. Valentia (who was so-styled, 1793-1816) himself might have acquired this manuscript for he was F.R.S., F.S.A. and F.L.S. besides being a noted traveller of whom Byron wrote: Let vain Valentia rival luckless Carr And equal him whose work he sought to mar. Alternatively this manuscript of naval interest might have come into the Annesley family via Valentia's daughter-in-law, Frances Cockburn Sims, niece of Admiral Sir George Cockburn. However acquired, it was included in lot 1078 ofthe Arley Castle sale on 6 December 1852, when Valentia's Annesley heirs sold the castle to Robert Woodward. This manuscript was one of a group purchased through the agency of Boone by the British Museum, Add. MSS. 19276-19350. The related date of 8 January 1853 probably refers to the approval of this purchase by the British Museum trustees on that date. Add. MSS. 19418-19429 also came from the Arley Castle sale, purchased from Boone by the British Museum on 9 April 1853. Nothing is known about the author of Add. MS. 19306 beyond his name and occupation.^ G. Wood had been servant and clerk to Captain Henry iog Kilhgrew smce 1677 aboard the Royal Oak and the Mary in the Straits. Wood continued captain's clerk aboard the Dragon when, in January 1687, Killigrew was ordered from Gibraltar to seek out and punish the Marquis de Fleury, 'a Savoyard prince that had turned pirate'. What follows of this expedition's history is based upon Wood's journal as well as upon other archival material in Malta, Rome and the Public Record Office in London.

For centuries before the Marquis de Fleury adopted it for himself in 1686, corsairing had been one of the oldest professions in the Mediterranean. A corsair was a private individual licensed by his sovereign to fight his sovereign's enemies in time of war. The holy war between Christian and Muslim was an eternal war and so was fought every year in the Mediterranean long before the Siege of Malta in 1565 or the Battle of Lepanto in 1571 and long after the official truce between the Ottoman and Spanish empires in 1580. In fact the corsairs' wars in the Mediterranean continued throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and lasted until the early nineteenth century when France occupied Algeria. Increasingly throughout the seventeenth century those smaller Christian rulers in the Mediterranean who licensed corsairs - such as the Viceroy of Sicily, the Grand Duke of Tuscany or the Grand Master of Malta - had to reckon with the naval forces of greater Christian powers such as France and Britain. And especially so if these northern sailing ships had been chartered by Muslims to carry their own cargoes within the Mediterranean. The Christian corsairs' traditional tactic of demanding the right to search any vessel suspected of carrying 'Turkish' goods was less readily insisted upon when a French or British ship had been chartered by the Muslim owners of such cargoes. The corsairs licensed by the Grand Master of Malta had received a setback in the 1660s after a French Knight of Malta had arrested a French ship, the Saint Barthelemy, which had been carrying sixty Muslims and their goods between Alexandria and Constantinople. Although the Saint Barthe'lemy was brought into Malta as 'lawful prize' for sale and dispersal, Louis XIV was angered by the damage to his reputation and ordered the resident French merchants in Malta to pay damages to the Muslim owners to the tune of more than 50,000 pieces of eight. After this display of the French monarch's displeasure, French ships carrying Muslim cargoes came and went from Malta and were left unmolested by the Maltese corsairs.^ With this warning in mind, the Marquis de Fleury held back from attacking French ships in the Mediterranean once he had been licensed a corsair by the King of Poland. Instead he arrested an English ship and so incurred the wrath of James II rather than that of Louis XIV. The irony was that this courtier of Duke Victor Amadeus II of Savoy had sailed in the Straits with the English admiral Sir Thomas Allin in 1668 and had been complimented by Allin for his knowledge ofthe coast between Livorno and Genoa. And it was from neighbouring Villefranche, the tiny Savoyard port, that de Fleury sailed aboard his Dutch-built ship of 54 guns, the St John, on his corsairing cruise in 1686.^ About 100 miles off Alexandria, he encountered three English ships, the Jerusalem, the John and Francis and the Ann, from each of which this 'Polish' admiral claimed the right

no Fig. I. Mediterranean corsairs. Edmund Dummer, 'A Voyage into the Mediterranean seas...', 1682-4; BL, King's MS. 40, f 79V (detail) of search, suspecting all these English ships of carrying 'Turkish' cargoes. Thomas Daniel, the English master o^iht. Jerusalem, refused to be searched and produced his pass from James II as well as his bill of lading at Livorno. De Fleury rephed by firing his guns into the sails of the Jerusalem, which was indeed carrying between sixty and eighty Muslim passengers of no less importance than the Bey of Tripoli and his suite, including his wife and eight other women together with goods valued in all at 200,000 pieces of eight. These had been well protected in their cabin at the stern o[ the Jerusalem during de Fleury's battery. They were soon discovered, however, when twenty-five of de Fleury's crew went aboard the English ship despite Captain Daniel's protests. No such 'Turks' were to be found aboard the Ann or the John and Francis, whose master had a criminal record in the City of London and who was sailing without a pass from James II at the same time as he carried the King of England's colours.^ Having no pretext for detaining any longer the Ann and the John and Francis, de Fleury brought the Jerusalem alone into Malta, within nine days of this seizure, sometime in early November 1686. Before putting into quarantine at Malta, de Fleury had agreed with the Bey of Tripoli the terms of his ransom. This was to be 30,000 pieces of eight, payable within twelve months. A penalty of 10,000 pieces of eight was to be added if the Bey failed to deliver the ransom within the twelve months agreed. Once the ransom had been paid, the Bey agreed to pay a further 6,000 pieces of eight for every year he would

III continue as governor of Tripoli. Soon after arrival in Malta, the Bey was released by de Heury to organize his ransom in Tripoli, leaving behind his wife and retinue as hostages. But first affidavits had to be sworn before the Notary Public in Malta by the principal aaors in this drama and in the presence of the so-called English consul. In fact, this official was never English but was appointed by the Grand Master, with the result that he was not formally recognized by London. Although not English, Consul Alfonso Desclaus was indebted to the Duke of Norfolk's patronage." These affidavits sworn by dc Fleury, by members of his crew and by Captain Daniel (who was now permitted to go free) were accompanied by an inventory ofthe Bey's goods. These comprised, besides gold and precious objects, fine linen cloths, shirts, handkerchieves, carpets, 561 pairs of shoes, wax and sugar. The Bey's standards, drums and flutes were returned to him before his journey to Tripoli.' These affidavits were sent by the English consul at Malta to James II's Secretary of State in London at the same time as they were being sent by the Grand Master of Malta to the Cardinal Secretary of State in Rome. So when James II soon tried to 'order' Innocent XI to arrest de Fleury in Malta or wherever else he might be in the Mediterranean, the Pope already had his own, alternative briefing on this diplomatic imbroglio. Also from Malta Innocent XI was being kept informed by his Apostolic Delegate and Inquisitor, whose authority was often disputed on the island by the Grand Master and his Knights.^ James II and his minister Sunderland, who were dependent on the 'English' consul in Valletta, never realized that Innocent XI had better intelligence from Malta than they had. James II and Sunderland had three reasons to be dismayed by de Fleury's removal of the Jerusalem to the prize-market in Malta. Their triple anxiety accounted for the vehemence of their diplomatic protests both in Malta and Rome. First the English government feared reprisals by the Ottoman sultan against English merchants in the Levant. Second was the fear that war might break out again with Tripoli, when currently there was peace. Third was the shameful apprehension that the English flag would be seen to be lower than the French flag, if de Fleury's prize of the Jerusalem were declared lawful at Malta, in contrast to the French ship, the Saint Barthe'lemy, more than twenty years before. As though to rub salt in this wound to English pride, French ships carrying Muslim passengers and cargoes came unmolested to Malta at the very moment when de Fleury's ships and prize were in the same harbour. Some French residents of Malta were heard to boast that de Fleury could not have got away with his trick on a French ship and it was time for His Britannic Majesty to teach this Polish admiral a lesson!^ At the turn of the year 1686/87, James II applied both diplomatic and military pressure on the Grand Master of Malta to persuade him to declare de Fleury's prize unlawful. At first Grand Master Gregorio Carafa resisted this pressure, telling James that this was a dispute between the King of England, the King of Poland and de Fleury himself and not one which he could influence at all. Besides, the Resident ofthe King of Poland at Louis XI V's court supported de Fleury and insisted to the French monarch that the Polish admiral had taken a lawful prize into Malta. In addition to writing directly

112 to Grand Master Carafa in Malta, the English government sought to influence him via the court of Rome. From there James II's ambassador extraordinary, the Earl of Castlemaine, sent his personal messenger down to the Grand Master and demanded the sequestration of de Fleury's prize. ^** In Rome Castlemaine too readily assumed that Innocent XI was willing to be England's policeman in the Mediterranean and led James to believe that the Pope would arrest de Fleury forthwith. In London meanwhile, during a private audience with the papal nuncio, Ferdinando d'Adda, James also urged Innocent XI to punish de Fleury. Supported, however, by the Cardinal Secretary of State, d'Adda gave a disappointing response to James. So although the papal nuncio agreed with James that nothing could justify de Fleury's seizure of the Jerusalem, he gently reminded the King that papal intelligence of shipping in the Mediterranean was necessarily limited. By 28 February 1687 d'Adda was relieved to inform the Cardinal Secretary of State from London that James II and his minister Sunderland had dropped the subject of de Fleury. In fact this was because they had tired of diplomacy and were sending a squadron ofthe Royal Navy to find de Fleury and bring him to account.^^

This was, of course, the squadron commanded by Captain Henry Kilhgrew, whose servant G. Wood kept a journal of their expedition from Gibraltar to Malta, where the ships anchored on 13 March 1687. It was a small force, comprising two fifth-rates, the Dragon, commanded by Killigrew himself, the Mermaid, commanded by William Gifford, and a fourth-rate, the Charles galley, commanded by Lord Berkeley. These vessels had been detached at Gibraltar from the original, larger squadron under Killigrew's command sent by the Admiralty to search out Muslim corsairs from Morocco. Although in retrospect this distraction from the pursuit of Muslim corsairs in order to hunt a Christian corsair such as de Fleury might appear ironical, at the time it was an authentic circumstance of seafaring in the Mediterranean. If small, Killigrew's squadron at Malta in 1687 was basking in the reputation of Admiral Sir John Narbrough's larger squadron at Malta some eleven years previously. 'Never were there so many English frigates together in that harbour before,' had been the comment of one member of Narbrough's expedition from Malta, an island chosen by the admiral as his forward base against the Tripolitan corsairs because of its secure harbours and ready dockyard facilities. Narbrough's successful imposition of a treaty on Tripoli had entailed some success also for the Knights of Malta since seventy or so Maltese subjects had been redeemed from slavery in Tripoli through the English admiral's mediation. Samuel Pepys of the Admiralty had taken pride in the letter of thanks sent from Grand Master Cotoner to Charles II, for it was proof of some affinity between a distinguished Order of sea-knights and the Royal Navy.^^ The Grand Master of Malta's respect for the Royal Navy's presence in Grand Harbour during thirteen days in March 1687 now induced the kind of response from him that James II had been seeking through diplomatic channels for four months. The English ships were greeted with fifteen salutes in response to their own thirteen. Captain Killigrew and his officers were received hospitably by Grand Master Carafa, who now declared that he had forbidden the Marquis de Fleury to return to Malta after his recent departure for Sicily. If Killigrew was disappointed of arresting de Fleury, he did receive from the Grand Master restitution ofthe Bey of Tripoli's retinue and their goods from the Jerusalem, left behind in Malta as hostages to the Bey's ransom. James II had forbidden payment of this ransom, so imitating Louis XIV's action in respect of the Saint Barthelemy more than twenty years previously. As Wood observed in his journal, 'our arrival there altogether spoiled the Marquis de Fleury's market'. By 26 March Killigrew's squadron was under sail for Tripoli, carrying the Bey*s people and their possessions on their interrupted journey. Altogether some sixty-three Muslims and their slaves were the recipients of Christian chivalry aboard His Majesty's ships: thirty-four, including the Bey of Tripoli's wife, aboard the Dragon, fifteen aboard the Charles galley and fourteen aboard the Mermaid. These events were reported by the Inquisitor of Malta to the Cardinal Secretary of State in Rome. This was a wise precaution since de Fleury was thought to be travelling via Palermo and Naples to Rome, with the intention of seeking Innocent XI's approval of his 'lawful prize' oi the Jerusalem at Malta. Actually de Fleury was banished from Naples, once James IPs ambassador in Rome had written to the Viceroy of Sicily requesting this action. De Fleury was making not for Rome but his home port of Villefranche and it was there that the Royal Navy almost caught up with him. James II ordered Killigrew not to arrest de Fleury in Villefranche or any other Christian port but only at sea. On 26 April 1687 Wood described in his journal the sight of de Fleury's ship in the mole at Villefranche but there was no sign of the Savoyard noble himself. De Fleury had sold his ship to his brother-in-law, the Marquis St George, Governor of Nice, and himself had fled to Vienna to enlist in the Emperor's army. Thereafter this Christian nobleman, whose code of chivalry was akin to that professed both by the Grand Master of Malta and James II of England, vanished from the historical record.^^ ^ In the seventeenth century the language of chivalry was international, however local its dialect might be. The chivalric virtues had an appeal for James II which was just as timeless as that of Catholic Christianity itself. In England James II took great pride in being seventeenth Sovereign ofthe Garter and restored the High Court of Chivalry, by letters patent under the Privy Seal, on 13 August 1687. In Scotland James restored the Order of the Thistle in May 1687. Related to these chivalric initiatives and his antiquarian vision of a mediaeval. Catholic Britain, was James IPs interest in reviving the Order of Malta in Britain, in bringing back to his three kingdoms the langue of English Knights of St John, the Venerable Tongue of England, who had been suppressed by Henry VIII in 1540 and their possessions expropriated by the Crown. To this end negotiations were coming to a head just one month after Captain Killigrew's squadron had left Malta for Tripoli. These were being conducted by the Order's ambassador in Rome, Fra Marcello Sacchetti, with James II's ambassador there, the Earl of Castlemaine. In respect of the de Fleury affair, therefore. Grand Master Carafa had extra cause to be responsive to James II's anger against the Savoyard corsair. 'I will 114 never omit anything,' wrote Carafa to James, 'whereby I may deserve Your Majesty's protection who, out of your great piety will, I hope, promote the honour and interest of this Military Order.'^'* Not surprisingly, of course, these negotiations in Rome to restore the Order of Malta in Britain foundered on several rocks but not before James II's bastard, Henry Fitzjames, and his nephew, Henry FitzRoy, Duke of Grafton, had visited Grand Master Carafa in Malta some nine months after Killigrew's departure for Tripoli. Fitzjames was James IPs natural son by Arabella Churchill and younger brother to James Fitzjames, Duke of Berwick. These two bastards of James II have sometimes been mistaken the one for the other in their respective standing towards the Order of Malta. Henry Fitzjames was just fourteen years old when, on 5 December 1687, he was presented by Grand Master Carafa with an octagonal cross of diamonds. Fitzjames impressed the Inquisitor of Malta and Apostolic Delegate as being a zealous son of the Catholic Church with an evident vocation for the Order of St John. This same Inquisitor wrote directly to James II in London, saying how he could picture the joy ofthe Holy Father in Rome once he heard of Fitzjames's visit to Malta. In his own letter to James about this visit. Grand Master Carafa referred to the Henrician Schism which had destroyed the Venerable Tongue of England. Carafa again appealed to James: 'at whose hands and by whose munificence my Military Order hopes to be restored to its former estate'. This youthful encounter with Grand Master Carafa later paid dividends for Fitzjames when, at James IPs request, he was to be received into the Order of St John with the rank of Grand Cross and invested with the titular dignity of Grand Prior of England.^^ The Inquisitor of Malta, who had been so impressed by Fitzjames and who had also reported to Rome the events provoked by de Fleury, was himself mentioned in turn by Wood in the latter's account of Malta. Although Wood was anonymous beyond his name and occupation, his intelligent interest in the Inquisitor of Malta invites speculation that he was a Protestant clerk in holy orders besides being his captain's clerk. The superstitions and 'miracles' of the Maltese, according to Wood, depended upon the Inquisitor: the authority of y^ Inquisitor (in my judgment) being a great support for y^ beleefe of those Miracles, because it is a great Crime, and by him severly punished if any under his Jurisdiction, should any wise doubt, or presume to misbeleeve what y^ Fathers of y^ Church tell's them... Wood's mention ofthe Inquisitor stands out from how he describes the rest of Malta in 1687. His account of the Knight's Hospital, of their conventual church of St John and ofthe island's fortifications - 'it being the most warlike place that ever my eyes saw' - is conventional enough. Indeed in his manuscript journal Wood forbears to explain how the government of the Order of Malta worked, saying that George Sandys had already described this in his Relation of a Journey^ first published by W. Barrett in London in

The superstitions and ' miracles' of the Maltese which held Wood's attention during his brief visit to Malta in 1687 are amply documented in the files of the Inquisitor at Mdina. This office dated from 1561 and derived its powers from the Congregation ofthe Holy Office in Rome. These powers had been exercised first by the Bishops of Malta but after 1574 they were always invested in an Italian prelate from the court of Rome, who was also Apostolic Delegate. It was usual for this Inquisitor to blame the importation of magical superstition on the large number of Muslim slaves in Malta, especially since these were often approached by the native Maltese for their supposed powers of magic and divination.^^ However, St Paul's own example - after his shipwreck at Malta - of throwing the snake back into the fire is obviously the inspiration of this particular 'charm' which was noted by another English visitor to Malta some ten years after G. Wood and in another manuscript ofthe British Library: Severall Serpents eys and Tounges are found in these Islands converted into stone... the people of Malta use them as Counter poisons by taking of it powdered & drank in a glasse of wine. The eyes thy do generally were in rings so that it touches the flesh, by w'^^ means, as they say, noe bite of serpents or other venomous creatures can harme ®

1 Although situated on the Severn, Arley was part 7 P.R.O., SP86/2, ff. 5-12. of Staffordshire until 1895 and in 1905 the 8 Rome, A(rchivio) S(egreto) V(aticano), SS. ecclesiastica! parish of Arley was transferred Inghilterra 16, ff. 44-8. I remain grateful to the from Lichfield to the diocese of Worcester. See Cardinal Prefect of the Vatican Library and H. R. Mayo, The Annals of Arle'y (Kidder- Archive for permission to consult the manu- minster, 1914). scripts of the Inqutsizione di Malta. 2 I am grateful to Dr N. A. M. Rodger for general 9 Add. MS. 19306, f. 17; P.R.O., SP86/2, f. 21. information about captains' clerks and admirals' 10 P.R.O., SP86/1, f 69; SP86/2, ff. 19, 21; secretaries in the Royal Navy of the seventeenth SP85/12, f. 92. century. 11 A.S.V., SS. Inghilterra 16, ff. 43-8; SS. 3 London, P(ublic) R(ecord) O(ffice), SP86/2, f. Inghilterra 12, ff. 34-6, 47-9. 21. 12 See D. F. Allen, 'Charles II, Louis XIV and the 4 R. C. Anderson (ed.), The Journals of Sir Thomas Order of Malta', European History Quarterly, xx Allin, 1660-1 byS, Navy Records Society, (1990), pp. 323-40- « LXXX, vol. ii (1940), pp. 69-70; BL, Add. MS. 13 P.R.O., SP86/1, ff. 7i> 75; SP86/2, f. 19; 19306, f 84V. Although at this time Savoy was SP93/3, f- 13; Add. MS. 19306, ff. 67V, 71; keen to expand its trade with England of goods A.S.V., SS. Malta 38, ff. 53-4. such as wine, oil, corn, oranges, lemons, raw and 14 P.R.O., SP86/I, f. 71- Cf. D.F.Allen, wrought silks, hemp and soap, Dutch merchants 'Attempts to revive the Order of Malta in Stuart had stolen a march on the English traders. See England', The Historical journal, xxxiii/4 (1990). BL, Sloane MS. 2572, f. 8. 15 See D. F. Allen, op. cit. 5 Add. MS. 19306, f. i6v;P.R.O., SP86/2, ff. 5-12. 16 Add. MS. 19306, ff. 35, 58V, 60V 6 P.R.O., SP86/1, f 12. Cf. V. Mallia-Milanes, 17 See A. Bonnici, 'Superstitions in Malta towards 'English merchants' initial contacts with Malta: the middle ofthe seventeenth century', Melita a reconsideration \ Melita Historica, iv/4 (1975), Historica, iv/3 (1966), pp. 145-83. pp. 342-61- 18 Stowe MS. 461, f. 44.

116